ML032721610

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Environmental Report for the Exelon Generation Company, LLC Early Site Permit, Chapter 9, Through Table B-1
ML032721610
Person / Time
Site: Clinton, 05200007, PROJ0718  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 09/25/2003
From:
Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear
To:
Office of New Reactors
Shared Package
ML032721596 List:
References
+ReviewedClintonESP, +reviewednvg DEL-096-REV0
Download: ML032721610 (127)
v • d • e


Text

CHAPTER 9 Alternatives to the Proposed Action This chapter identifies alternatives to the proposed action in three ways. It identifies the impact of No Action; it reviews possible energy resources that could be used as alternatives to the proposed action; and it reviews alternative sites to determine if any are obviously superior to the EGC ESP Site. The review contained herein is in keeping with the effects from deregulation of the electric generation industry.

Efforts to deregulate the electric utility industry began with passage of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. Provisions of this Act required electric utilities to allow open access to their transmission lines and encouraged development of a competitive wholesale market for electricity. The market place no longer follows traditional organizational, power production, transmission and sales patterns that were the norm when the nations current nuclear fleet were constructed and licensed. The Act did not mandate competition in the retail market, leaving that decision to the states (NEI, 2000).

In December of 1997, the State of Illinois began the process of restructuring its retail electricity market (i.e., deregulation) by enacting the Illinois Electric Service Customer Choice and Rate Relief Act of 1997 (also known as the Illinois Electricity Choice Law). This Act eliminates regulated generation service areas and enables customers of electric distribution companies in the state to purchase electricity from their choice of electric generation suppliers by May 1, 2002. Electric generation supply is based on customers needs and preferences (ICC, 1999). As discussed below, the regulatory imposition of competition among electric generators affects the need for power and the selection of alternatives for the EGC ESP Facility.

Before Illinois enacted its Electricity Choice Law, primarily two entities, electric utilities and the Illinois Commerce Commission, made decisions regarding reasonable alternatives for meeting electrical demands in Illinois. As a result of the Electricity Choice Law, the Illinois Commerce Commission no longer has a formal role in assessing Illinoiss electricity needs or mandating additional capacity. Instead, market forces are expected to spur innovation, attract competition, drive the appropriate supply/demand balance, and attract new power suppliers to the State (IPCB, 2000). Therefore, generators of electric power in the State of Illinois are solely responsible for decisions regarding reasonable alternatives for meeting electrical demands.

Since the Illinois Electricity Choice Law was enacted, the IEPA has received more than 60 applications for construction of new generating facilities. Citizens, local governments, and legislators objected to several of the proposed plants. In response, the Illinois Pollution Control Board conducted hearings to evaluate whether additional siting or other regulations in connection with the construction of proposed plants should be recommended. The Illinois Pollution Control Board recommended that the IEPA adopt new rules that would tighten restrictions on air emissions from new power plants and require public participation in the construction permit process, but stated that the IEPA does not have the authority to DEL-096-REV0 9-1

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION CHAPTER 9 - INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT consider other issues related to the siting of a proposed facility (e.g., need for a proposed power plant, aesthetics, etc.) during permitting (IPCB, 2000).

It is not clear whether EGC or another supplier would ultimately construct new generating units. The decision to actually construct a new facility would be driven by market conditions. However, regardless of which entities construct and operate new generating facilities, certain environmental parameters would be constant among these alternative power sources.

Chapter 9 addresses reasonable alternatives to the EGC ESP Facility. The chapter evaluates what alternative actions might be undertaken, which alternatives are not reasonable and why and, for reasonable alternatives, what the associated environmental impacts might be.

The impacts are then compared to those associated with the proposed action.

In determining the level of detail and analysis to be provided, the Applicant relied on the USNRC decision-making standard in that the discussion of alternatives:

shall be sufficiently complete to aid the Commission in developing and exploring, pursuant to section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. To the extent practicable, the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives should be presented in comparative form. (10 CFR 51.45(b)(3)).

Further, for consistency of alternate siting criteria, the process outlined in NUREG-1555 was employed.

This environmental report supports USNRC decision-making by providing sufficient information to clearly indicate whether an alternative would have a smaller, comparable, or greater environmental impact than the proposed action. Providing additional details or analysis would serve no function if it only brings to light the additional adverse impacts of alternatives to the EGC ESP Facility. This approach is consistent with regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, which provide that the consideration of alternatives (including the proposed action) should enable reviewers to evaluate their comparative merits (40 CFR 1500-1508). This chapter includes sufficient details about alternatives and siting to establish the basis for necessary comparison to the discussions of impacts of the proposed action.

The chapter also identifies and evaluates a set of alternative sites for the proposed EGC ESP Facility. The objective of the evaluation is to verify that there is no obviously superior site for the eventual construction and operation of a new nuclear facility.

9-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.1 - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 9.1 No-Action Alternative No Action means the USNRC denies the application for an ESP and no other generating station (either nuclear or non-nuclear) is constructed and operated.

The impacts of the No-Action Alternative are closely-related to a need for power, which has not been discussed in this ER; under Part 52, an analysis of the need for power is not required to issue an ESP (10 CFR 52.17).

As stated in NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants (USNRC, 1999):

The no-action alternative would result in the facility not being built, and no other facility would be built or other strategy implemented to take its place. This would mean that the electrical capacity to be provided by the project would not become available.

Under the No Action alternative, the need for power would need to be met by other alternative means that involve no new generating capacity. These alternatives would include such approaches as demand-side management, energy conservation, and power purchased from other electricity providers. These alternatives are discussed in Section 9.2.1.

Given the fact that the early site permit might not be used for twenty or more years, it is not feasible to evaluate other aspects of the need for power in a meaningful way at the ESP stage. Therefore, the need for power will not be evaluated as part of this ESP.

DEL-096-REV0 9.1-1

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.2 - ENERFY ALTERNATIVES 9.2 Energy Alternatives The EGC ESP Facility will be constructed and operated as a merchant independent power producer (also referred to as a merchant plant or merchant generator). The power produced will be sold on the open wholesale market, without specific consideration to supplying a traditional service area or satisfying a reserve margin objective. Thus, discussion of the relevant service area for this facility is irrelevant and inconsistent with the facilitys sales objectives and thus does not provide a means to evaluate the site in the context of a service territory, as has been historically the practice. Therefore, for the purposes of this alternatives analysis, the region of interest has been defined as the State of Illinois rather than the more traditional relevant service area. The delineation of this region of interest is in keeping with current deregulation policies and the proposed location of the facility within the State of Illinois.

Alternatives that do not require new generating capacity were considered, and these include energy conservation and Demand-Side Management (DSM). Other alternatives that do require the construction of new generating capacity such as wind, geothermal, oil, natural gas, hydropower, Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW), coal, photovoltaic (PV) cells, solar power, wood waste/biomass, and energy crops were also analyzed. The technologies under consideration for the project were not regarded as alternatives.

While alternative energy technologies are reviewed here for the purposes of this ER, their availability was not important in selecting emerging nuclear technologies as the superior alternative. The decision to develop a nuclear power plant on land adjacent to the existing CPS was based on market factors such as the proximity to an already-licensed station, the ability to incorporate existing environmental permits in the operation and plant parameters, property ownership, and other location features conducive to the plants intended merchant generating objective.

Alternatives that do not require new generating capacity are discussed in Section 9.2.1, while alternatives that do are discussed in Section 9.2.2. In Section 9.2.2, some of the alternatives that require new generating capacity were eliminated from further consideration and discussion based on their availability in the region, overall feasibility, and environmental consequences. In Section 9.2.3, the alternatives that were not eliminated based on these factors addressed in Section 9.2.2 are investigated in further detail relative to specific criteria such as environmental impacts, reliability, and economic costs.

9.2.1 Alternatives That Do Not Require New Generating Capacity In 1997, Illinois General Assembly enacted the Electric Service Customer Choice and Rate Relief Law. It noted that the citizens and businesses of the State of Illinois had been well served by a comprehensive electrical utility system that had provided safe, reliable, and affordable service. The electrical utility system in the State had historically been subject to State and federal regulation, aimed at assuring the citizens and businesses of the State of safe, reliable, and affordable service, while at the same time assuring the utility system of a safe return on investment.

The Assembly noted that competitive forces were affecting the market for electricity as a result of federal regulatory and statutory changes and the activities of other states.

DEL-096-REV0 9.2-1

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.2 - ENERGY ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Competition in the electric services market created opportunities for new products and services for customers and lower costs for users of electricity. Long-standing regulatory relationships needed to be altered to accommodate the competition that fundamentally altered the structure of the electric services market.

Lawmakers saw that, with the advent of increasing competition in the industry, the State had a continued interest in assuring that the safety, reliability, and affordability of electrical power was not sacrificed to competitive pressures, and to that end, intended to implement safeguards to assure that the industry continued to operate the electrical system in a manner that would serve the publics interest. Under the existing regulatory framework, the industry had been encouraged to undertake certain investments in its physical plant and personnel to enhance its efficient operation, the cost of which it had been permitted to pass on to consumers. It recognized that the State had an interest in providing the existing utilities a reasonable opportunity to obtain a return on investments on which they depended in undertaking those commitments in the first instance which, at the same time, not permitting new entrants into the industry to take unreasonable advantage of the investments made by the formerly regulated industry.

The Assembly dictated that a competitive wholesale and retail market must benefit all Illinois citizens. They told the Illinois Commerce Commission to act to promote the development of an effectively competitive electricity market that operates efficiently and is equitable to all consumers. Consumer protections were put in place to ensure that all customers continue to receive safe, reliable, affordable, and environmentally safe electric service.

They further determined that all consumers must benefit in an equitable and timely fashion from the lower costs for electricity that result from retail and wholesale competition and receive sufficient information to make informed choices among suppliers and services.

To that end, in Illinois, merchant generators do not have to request the permission from the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) for siting approval or demonstrate to the ICC that they are needed to meet energy demand. The ICC is also not involved in any formal energy planning for the State.

This section is intended to provide an assessment of the economic and technical feasibility of supplying the demand for energy without constructing new generating capacity. Specific elements may to include:

  • Initiating conservation measures (including implementing DSM actions),
  • Reactivating or extending the service life of existing plants within the power system,
  • Purchasing power from other utilities or power generators, and
  • A combination of these elements that would be equivalent to the output of the project and therefore eliminate its need.

All of the above elements have been traditionally connected with an electric utility that supplies power within its service territory and not for a merchant generator whose revenue is derived from the sale of electricity generated from its own power plants. Therefore, alternatives that do not require additional generating capacity are not considered reasonable 9.2-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.2 - ENERFY ALTERNATIVES alternatives to colocating a new merchant power plant with the CPS in Illinois.

Nonetheless, an evaluation of these alternatives was performed within the context of emerging energy demands.

9.2.1.1 Initiating Conservation Measures Historically, state regulatory bodies have required regulated utilities to institute programs designed to reduce demand for electricity. DSM programs included energy conservation and load modification measures. In the current deregulated Illinois market, EGC anticipates that it will not be able to offer competitively priced power if it has to retain an extensive conservation and load-modification-incentive program. However, EGC has evaluated the DSM alternative as a mitigative technique to the proposed action.

Traditionally, DSM programs either conserved energy or allowed the electric company to reduce customers load requirements during periods of peak demand. DSM programs generally fall into the following categories:

9.2.1.1.1 Conservation Programs Educational programs that encourage the prudent use of energy 9.2.1.1.2 Energy Efficiency Programs

  • Discounted residential rates for homes that met specific energy efficiency standards
  • Energy audit programs that provided residential energy audits and encouraged efficiency upgrades
  • Incentive programs that encouraged customers to replace old, inefficient appliances or equipment with new high-efficiency appliances or equipment
  • Government partnerships that assisted federal facilities in meeting mandated energy efficiency goals through design and installation of high-efficiency lighting systems and computerized energy management.

9.2.1.1.3 Load Management Programs

  • Standby generator programs - encouraged customers to permit their electricity provider to switch loads to the customer's standby generators during periods of peak demand
  • Interruptible service program - encouraged customers to allow blocks of their load to be interrupted during periods of peak demand
  • Real time pricing - encouraged customers to discontinue electricity usage during specific times Traditional utilities annually projected the summer and winter peak power, annual energy requirements, and impacts of DSM. Market and regulatory conditions, which provided the initial support for utility-sponsored conservation and DSM efforts during the late 1970s and early 1980s, can be broadly characterized by:
  • Increasing long-term marginal prices for capacity and energy production resources
  • Forecasts projecting increasing demand for electricity across the nation DEL-096-REV0 9.2-3

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.2 - ENERGY ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT

  • General agreement that conditions outlined above would continue for the foreseeable future
  • Limited competition in the generation of electricity
  • Economies of scale in the generation of electricity, which supported the construction of large central power plants, and
  • The use of average embedded cost as the basis for setting electricity prices within a regulated context.

These market and regulatory conditions have undergone dramatic changes in a deregulated market, as previously described. Changes that have significantly impacted the cost effectiveness of utility-sponsored DSM, can be described as follows:

1. A decline in generation costs, due primarily to technological advances that have reduced the cost of constructing new generating units (e.g., the combined cycle gas generating facility), and
2. National energy legislation, which has encouraged wholesale competition through open access to the transmission grid, as well as state legislation designed to facilitate retail competition.

Consistent with (1) and (2) above, the typical electric utility planning environment has more recently been considering lower energy prices than during earlier periods, shorter planning horizons, lower reserve margins, and increased reliance on market prices to direct resource planning.

Other significant changes accompanying the newly deregulated marketplace include the following:

  • The adoption of increasingly stringent national appliance standards for most major energy-using equipment and the adoption of energy efficiency requirements in state building codes. These mandates have further reduced the potential for cost-effective electric utility-sponsored measures.
  • In states that are currently transitioning into deregulation, third parties are increasingly providing energy load management services and products in competitive markets at prices that reflect their value to the customer. Market conditions can be expected to continue this shift among providers of cost-effective load management.

For these reasons, EGC determined that DSM programs, which are primarily directed toward load management, are not a sufficient substitute for the generation contemplated by the EGC ESP Facility.

9.2.1.2 Reactivating or Extending Service Life of Existing Plants Fossil plants slated for retirement tend to be ones that are old enough to have difficulty in economically meeting todays restrictions on air contaminant emissions. In the face of increasingly stringent environmental restrictions, delaying retirement, or reactivating plants in order to compensate for the closure of a large base-loaded plant, would require major construction to upgrade or replace plant components. EGC concludes that the 9.2-4 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.2 - ENERFY ALTERNATIVES environmental impacts of such a scenario are bounded by its coal- and gas-fired alternatives discussed in Section 9.2.2.

9.2.1.3 Purchasing Power from Other Utilities or Power Generators In a traditional alternatives analysis for examining the energy alternative to utility generation capacity, the purchased power alternative meant that the utility would meet a portion of its service territory demand using power that it purchased from another utility.

Deregulation, however, has changed this traditional analysis. First, the end-user could purchase electricity from another entity (in this case, from a company other than EGC).

Second, EGC expects retail competition to decrease generators incentives to provide wholesale power to competing companies for resale, thus reducing the availability of power for EGC to purchase and resell competitively.

Because Illinois is a net exporter of power and would be fully deregulated, EGC assumes that in-state power could be purchased. For example, in 1999 Illinois exported 76 million kilowatt-hours of electricity (USDOE/EIA, 2002). The GEIS, in Section 8.3, evaluated the environmental impacts of thirteen alternative energy sources (USNRC, 1996). EGC assumes that the generating technology producing purchased power would be one of the alternatives that were analyzed, and that the environmental impact from the alternative would occur to meet the market need.

Imported power from Canada or Mexico is unlikely to be available to supply the equivalent capacity of the EGC ESP Facility. In Canada, 62 percent of the countrys electricity capacity is derived from renewable sources, principally hydropower (USDOE/EIA 2001). Canada has plans to continue developing hydroelectric power, but the plans generally do not include large-scale projects (USDOE/EIA, 2001). Canadas nuclear generation is projected to decrease by 1.7 percent by 2020, but its share of power generation in Canada is projected to decrease from 14 percent currently to 13 percent by 2020 (USDOE/EIA 2001). EIA projects that total gross U.S. imports of electricity from Canada and Mexico will gradually increase from 47.4 billion kilowatt-hours in 2000 to 66.1 billion kilowatt-hours in year 2005, and then gradually decrease to 47.4 billion kilowatt-hours in year 2020 (USDOE/EIA 2001).

It is anticipated that the amount of electricity available for import from Canada and Mexico follows the amount of electricity that would be available for export from Canada and Mexico.

EGC has evaluated conventional and prospective purchase power supply options that could be reasonably implemented. In 1999, Unicoms subsidiary ComEd, completed a sale of its fossil-fuel-fired coal, gas, and oil units to Midwest Generation. As part of the sale, Unicom entered into long-term purchase contracts with Midwest Generation to provide firm capacity and energy (ComEd, 1999). Because these contracts are part of current and future capacity, however, EGC does not consider these power purchases to be a feasible source of power to satisfy the purchased power alternative.

If power were to be purchased from sources within the United States or a foreign country, the generating technology likely would be one of those described in this ER (probably coal, natural gas, or nuclear). The description of the environmental impacts of other technologies described here is representative of the purchased electrical power alternative to the EGC DEL-096-REV0 9.2-5

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.2 - ENERGY ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT ESP Facility. Thus, the environmental impacts of imported power would still occur, but would be located elsewhere within the region, nation, or another country.

9.2.2 Alternatives That Require New Generating Capacity While many methods are available for generating electricity and many combinations or mixes can be assimilated to meet system needs, such expansive consideration would be too unwieldy to reasonably examine given the purposes of the alternatives analysis. In keeping with the USNRCs evaluation of alternatives to license renewal, a reasonable set of alternatives should be limited to analysis of single discrete electrical generation sources and those electric generation technologies that are technically reasonable and commercially viable (USNRC, 1996). Accordingly, EGC has not evaluated mixes of generating sources.

The impacts from coal- and gas-fired generation presented in this chapter bounds the impacts from any generation mixture of the two technologies.

The current mix of power generation options in Illinois is one indicator of the feasible choices for electric generation technology within the state. EGC evaluated Illinois electric generation capacity and utilization characteristics. Capacity is the categorization of the various installed technology choices in terms of its potential output. Utilization is the degree to which each choice is actually used.

In 1999, Illinoiss electric industry had a total generating capacity of 34,338 megawatts-electric. As Figure 9.2-1 indicates, this capacity includes units fueled by coal (46.7 percent);

nuclear (31.2 percent); oil (3.2 percent); dual (e.g., oil/gas)-fired (0.9 percent); hydroelectric (0.1 percent); and other (2.3 percent) (USDOE/EIA, 2002).

Based on 1999 generation data, Illinoiss electric industry provided approximately 164 terawatt hours of electricity. As Figure 9.2-2 depicts, Illinoiss generation utilization was primarily from nuclear (50 percent), followed by coal (45.3 percent), gas (3.4 percent), oil (0.5 percent), other (0.7 percent), and hydroelectric (0.1 percent) (USDOE/EIA, 2002).

The difference between capacity and utilization is the result of preferential usage by electricity suppliers. For example, in 1999, nuclear energy represented 31.2 percent of Illinoiss installed capability, but produced 50 percent of the electricity generated (USDOE/EIA, 1999, Tables 4 and 5). This reflects Illinoiss preferential reliance on nuclear energy as a base-load generating source.

This section identifies alternatives that EGC has determined are not reasonable and the EGC basis for this determination. EGCs ESP application is premised on the installation of a facility that would primarily serve as a large base-load generator and that any feasible alternative would also need to be able to generate base-load power. In performing this evaluation, EGC relied heavily upon USNRCs Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) (USNRC, 1996).

The GEIS is useful for the analysis of alternative sources because the USNRC has determined that the technologies of these alternatives will enable the agency to consider the relative environmental consequences of an action given the environmental consequences of other activities that also meet the purpose of the proposed action. To generate the reasonable set of alternatives used in the GEIS, the USNRC included commonly known generation technologies and consulted various state energy plans to identify the alternative 9.2-6 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.2 - ENERFY ALTERNATIVES generation sources typically being considered by state authorities across the country. From this review, the USNRC had established a reasonable set of alternatives to be examined.

These alternatives include wind energy, PV cells, solar thermal energy, hydroelectricity, geothermal energy, incineration of wood waste and MSW, energy crops, coal, natural gas, oil, and delayed retirement of existing non-nuclear plants. The USNRC has considered these alternatives pursuant to its statutory responsibility under NEPA. Although the GEIS is for license renewal, the alternatives analysis in the GEIS can be compared to the proposed action to determine if the alternative represents a reasonable alternative to the proposed action.

Each of the alternatives are assessed and discussed in the subsequent sections relative to the following criteria:

  • The alternative energy conversion technology is developed, proven, and available in the relevant region within the life of the ESP permit.
  • The alternative energy source provides baseload generating capacity equivalent to the capacity needed, and to the same level as the proposed EGC ESP Facility.
  • The alternative energy source does not result in environmental impacts in excess of a nuclear plant, and the costs of an alternative energy source do not exceed the costs that make it economically impractical.

Each of the potential alternative technologies considered in this analysis are consistent with national policy goals for energy use, and are not prohibited by federal, state, or local regulations. These criteria were not factors in evaluating alternative technologies.

Based on one or more of these criteria, several of the alternative energy sources were considered technically or economically infeasible after a preliminary review and were not considered further. Alternatives that were considered to be technically and economically feasible were assessed in greater detail in Section 9.2.3.

9.2.2.1 Wind Wind power, by itself, is not suitable for large base-load capacity. As discussed in Section 8.3.1 of the GEIS, wind has a high degree of intermittence, and average annual capacity factors for wind plants are relatively low (less than 30 percent). Wind power, in conjunction with energy storage mechanisms, might serve as a means of providing small amounts of base-load power. However, current energy storage technologies are too expensive for wind power to serve as a large base-load generator (Johansson et al., 1993).

According to the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States, areas suitable for wind energy applications must be wind power class 3 or higher. Approximately eight percent of the land area in Illinois has a wind power classification of three or higher. However, land-use conflicts such as urban development, farmland, and environmentally sensitive areas reduce the amount of land suitable for wind energy applications to about five percent of the land area in Illinois, mostly in the west-central uplands (NREL, 1986).

The GEIS estimates a land use of 150,000 ac per 1,000 MWe for wind power. Therefore, even assuming ideal wind conditions, wind power equivalent to the proposed EGC ESP Facility would require dedication of about 330,000 ac on a greenfield site. Development of such a DEL-096-REV0 9.2-7

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.2 - ENERGY ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT large greenfield site would result in a large environmental impact. Additionally, wind plants have aesthetic impacts, generate noise, and harm birds (USNRC, 1996).

EGC has concluded that, due to the inability of wind power to generate baseload power, the limited availability of area in Illinois having suitable wind speeds and the amount of land needed (approximately 330,000 ac), wind power is not a reasonable alternative.

9.2.2.2 Geothermal As illustrated by Figure 8.4 in the GEIS, geothermal plants might be located in the western continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii, where hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent. However, because there are no known high-temperature geothermal sites in the region of interest, EGC concludes that geothermal is not a reasonable alternative.

9.2.2.3 Hydropower A small portion (about 80 MW) of Illinois utility generating capacity is hydroelectric. As the GEIS points out in Section 8.3.4, hydropower's percentage of United States generating capacity is expected to decline because hydroelectric facilities have become difficult to site as a result of public concern over flooding, destruction of natural habitat, and destruction of natural river courses. According to the U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment for Illinois (INEL, 1997), there are no remaining sites in Illinois that would be environmentally suitable for a large hydroelectric facility.

The GEIS (Section 8.3.4) estimates land use of 1,600 mi2 per 1,000 MWe generated by hydropower. Based on this estimate, a project the size of the EGC ESP Facility would require flooding more than 3,520 mi2 resulting in a large impact on land use. Further, operation of a hydroelectric facility would alter aquatic habitats above and below the dam, which would impact existing aquatic species.

EGC has concluded that, due to the lack of suitable sites in Illinois and the amount of land needed (approximately 3,520 mi2), in addition to the adverse environmental impacts, hydropower is not a reasonable alternative.

9.2.2.4 PV Cells and Solar Thermal Power By its nature, solar power is intermittent. In conjunction with energy storage mechanisms, solar power might serve as a means of providing small amounts of base-load power.

However, current energy storage technologies are too expensive to permit solar power to serve as a large base-load generator. Even without storage capacity, solar power technologies (PV and thermal) cannot currently compete with conventional fossil-fueled technologies in grid-connected applications, due to high costs per kilowatt of capacity (USNRC, 1996).

Solar power is not a technically feasible alternative in the EGC region of interest. Western Illinois receives about 3.5 kilowatt hours of solar radiation per square meter per day, compared with 5 to 7.2 kilowatt hours per square meter per day in areas of the West, such as California, which are most promising for solar technologies (USNRC, 1996).

Finally, according to the GEIS, land requirements for solar plants are high, at 35,000 ac per 1,000 MWe for PV and 14,000 ac per 1,000 MWe for solar thermal systems. Therefore, a 9.2-8 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.2 - ENERFY ALTERNATIVES project the size of the EGC ESP Facility would require dedication of about 77,000 ac for PV and 30,800 ac for solar thermal systems. Neither type of solar electric system would fit at the CPS Site, and both would have large environmental impacts at a greenfield site.

EGC has concluded that, due to the high cost, limited availability of sufficient incident solar radiation, and the substantial amount of land needed (approximately 30,800 to 77,000 ac) to produce the desired output, solar power is not a reasonable alternative.

9.2.2.5 Wood Waste (and Other Biomass)

The use of wood waste to generate electricity is largely limited to those states with significant wood resources, such as California, Maine, Georgia, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Michigan. Electric power is generated in these states by the pulp, paper, and paperboard industries, which consume wood and wood waste for energy, benefiting from the use of waste materials that could otherwise represent a disposal problem.

However, the largest wood waste power plants are 40 to 50 MW in size.

Nearly all of the wood-energy-using electricity generation facilities in the United States use steam turbine conversion technology. The technology is relatively simple to operate and it can accept a wide variety of biomass fuels. However, at the scale appropriate for biomass, the technology is expensive and inefficient. Therefore, the technology is relegated to applications where there is a readily available supply of low-, zero-, or negative-cost delivered feedstocks.

Further, as discussed in Section 8.3.6 of the GEIS, construction of a wood-fired plant would have an environmental impact that would be similar to that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities using wood waste for fuel would be built on smaller scales. Like coal-fired plants, wood-waste plants require large areas for fuel storage, processing, and waste disposal (i.e.,

ash). Additionally, operation of wood-fired plants has environmental impacts, including impacts on the aquatic environment and air.

EGC has concluded that, due to the lack of significant wood resources in Illinois and the lack of an obvious environmental advantage, wood energy is not a reasonable alternative.

9.2.2.6 Municipal Solid Waste As discussed in Section 8.3.7 of the GEIS, the initial capital costs for municipal solid waste plants are greater than for comparable steam turbine technology at wood-waste facilities.

This is due to the need for specialized waste separation and handling equipment.

The decision to burn municipal solid waste to generate energy is usually driven by the need for an alternative to landfills, rather than by energy considerations. The use of landfills as a waste disposal option is likely to increase in the near term; however, it is unlikely that many landfills will begin converting waste to energy due to the numerous obstacles and factors that may limit the growth in MSW power generation. Chief among them are environmental regulations and public opposition to siting MSW facilities.

Estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction impacts from a waste-fired plant should be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant. Additionally, waste-fired plants have the same or greater operational impacts (including impacts on the DEL-096-REV0 9.2-9

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.2 - ENERGY ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT aquatic environment, air, and waste disposal). Some of these impacts would be moderate, but still larger than the proposed action.

EGC has concluded that, due to the high costs and lack of obvious environmental advantages, burning municipal solid waste to generate electricity is not a reasonable alternative.

9.2.2.7 Energy Crops In addition to wood and municipal solid waste fuels, there are several other concepts for fueling electric generators, including burning energy crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel such as ethanol (ethanol is primarily used as a gasoline additive), and gasifying energy crops (including wood waste). As discussed in Section 8.3.8 of the GEIS, none of these technologies has progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or of being reliable enough to replace a base-load plant.

Further, estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction impacts from a crop-fired plant should be approximately the same as that for a wood-fired plant.

Additionally, crop-fired plants would have similar operational impacts (including impacts on the aquatic environment and air). In addition, these systems have large impacts on land use, due to the acreage needed to grow the energy crops.

EGC has concluded that, due to the high costs and lack of obvious environmental advantage, burning other biomass-derived fuels is not a reasonable alternative.

9.2.2.8 Petroleum Liquids (Oil)

Illinois has several oil-fired units; however, they produce less than one percent of the States electricity. The cost of oil-fired operation is much more expensive than nuclear or coal-fired operation. The high cost of oil has prompted a steady decline in its use for electricity generation. From 1997 to 1998, production of electricity by oil-fired plants dropped by about 39.9 percent in Illinois (USDOE/EIA, 1998).

Also, construction and operation of an oil-fired plant would have environmental impacts.

For example, Section 8.3.11 of the GEIS estimates that construction of a 1,000-MWe oil-fired plant would require about 120 ac. Additionally, operation of oil-fired plants would have environmental impacts (including impacts on the aquatic environment and air) that would be similar to those from a coal-fired plant (USNRC, 1996).

EGC has concluded that, due to the high fuel costs and lack of obvious environmental advantage, oil-fired generation is not a reasonable alternative.

9.2.2.9 Fuel Cells Phosphoric acid fuel cells are the most mature fuel cell technology, but they are only in the initial stages of commercialization. Two hundred turnkey plants have been installed in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Recent estimates suggest that a company would have to produce about 100 MW of fuel cell stacks annually to achieve a price of $1,000 to $1,500 per kilowatt. However, the current combined production capacity of fuel cell manufacturers only totals about 60 MW per year (KE, 2002). EGC believes that this technology has not matured sufficiently to support production for a base load facility. EGC has concluded that, 9.2-10 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.2 - ENERFY ALTERNATIVES due to the cost and production limitations, fuel-cell technology is not a reasonable alternative.

9.2.2.10 Coal Coal-fired steam electric plants provide the majority of electric generating capacity in the U.S., accounting for about 56 percent of the electric utility industry's net generation and 43 percent of its capacity in 1992 (USDOE/EIA, 1994). Conventional coal-fired plants generally include two or more generating units and have total capacities ranging from 100 MWe to more than 2,000 MWe. Coal is likely to continue to be a reliable energy source well into the future (USDOE/EIA, 1993), assuming environmental constraints do not cause the gradual substitution of other fuels.

The U.S. has abundant low-cost coal reserves, and the price of coal for electric generation is likely to increase at a relatively slow rate. Even with recent environmental legislation, new coal capacity is expected to be an affordable technology for reliable, near-term development and for potential use as a replacement technology for nuclear power plants (USNRC, 1996).

The environmental impacts of constructing a typical coal-fired steam plant are well known because coal is the most prevalent type of central generating technology in the U.S. The impacts of constructing a 1,000-MWe coal plant at a greenfield site can be substantial, particularly if it is sited in a rural area with considerable natural habitat. An estimated 1,700 ac would be needed, and this could amount to the loss of about 3 mi2 of natural habitat and/or agricultural land for the plant site alone, excluding land required for mining and other fuel cycle impacts (USNRC, 1996).

EGC defined the coal-fired alternative as consisting of four 550-MWe units. EGC chose this configuration to be equivalent to the gas-fired alternative described below. This equivalency makes impact characteristics most comparable, facilitating impact analysis Table 9.2-3 describes assumed basic operational characteristics of the coal-fired units. EGC based its emission control technology and percent-control assumptions on alternatives that the USEPA has identified as being available for minimizing emissions (USEPA, 1998). For the purposes of analysis, EGC has assumed that coal and lime (calcium oxide) would be delivered by rail after upgrading the existing rail spur into CPS.

Based on the well-known technology, fuel availability, and generally understood environmental impacts associated with constructing and operating a coal-fired power generation plant, it is considered a competitive alternative and is therefore examined further in Section 9.2.3.

9.2.2.11 Natural Gas EGC has chosen to evaluate gas-fired generation, using combined-cycle turbines, because it has determined that the technology is mature, economical, and feasible. A scenario, for example, of four units with a net capacity of 2,200 MWe could be assumed to equal the EGC ESP Facility total net capacity. However, EGCs experience indicates that, although customized unit sizes can be built, using standardized sizes is more economical. Existing manufacturers standard-sized units include a gas-fired combined-cycle plant of 550-MWe net capacity, consisting of two 184-MWe gas turbines (e.g., General Electric Frame 7FA) and 182 MWe of heat recovery capacity.

DEL-096-REV0 9.2-11

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.2 - ENERGY ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT EGC assumed four 550-MWe units, having a total capacity of 2,200 MWe, as the gas-fired alternative at the EGC ESP Site. This provides the approximate EGC ESP capacity for estimating the environmental impacts of this alternative. Any shortfall in capacity could be replaced by other methods, such as purchasing power. However, for the reasons discussed above, EGC did not analyze a mixture of these alternatives and purchased power.

Table 9.2-5 describes assumed basic operational characteristics of the gas-fired units. As for the coal-fired alternative, EGC based its emission control technology and percent-control assumptions on alternatives that the EPA has identified as being available for minimizing emissions (USEPA, 1998). For the purposes of analysis, EGC has assumed that there would be sufficient gas availability.

Based on the well-known technology, fuel availability, and generally understood environmental impacts associated with constructing and operating a natural gas-fired power generation plant, it is considered a competitive alternative and is therefore examined further in Section 9.2.3.

9.2.3 Assessment of Reasonable Alternative Energy Sources and Systems This chapter evaluates the environmental impacts from what EGC has determined to be reasonable alternatives to the EGC ESP Facility: coal-fired generation, and gas-fired generation.

EGC has identified the significance of the impacts associated with each issue as Small, Moderate, or Large. This characterization is consistent with the criteria that USNRC established in 10 CFR 51, Appendix B, Table B-1, Footnote 3 as follows:

  • SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commissions regulations are considered small.
  • MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, any important attribute of the resource.
  • LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize any important attributes of the resource.

In accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) practice, EGC considered ongoing and potential additional mitigation in proportion to the significance of the impact to be addressed (i.e., impacts that are small receive less mitigative consideration than impacts that are large).

9.2.3.1 Coal-Fired Generation The USNRC evaluated environmental impacts from coal-fired generation alternatives in the GEIS (USNRC, 1996) and concluded that construction impacts could be substantial, due in part to the large land area required (which can result in natural habitat loss) and the large workforce needed. USNRC pointed out that siting a new coal-fired plant where an existing nuclear plant is located would reduce many construction impacts. USNRC identified major adverse impacts from operations as human health concerns associated with air emissions, 9.2-12 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.2 - ENERFY ALTERNATIVES waste generation, and losses of aquatic biota due to cooling water withdrawals and discharges.

The coal-fired alternative defined by EGC in Section 9.2.2.10 would be located at the EGC ESP Site.

9.2.3.1.1 Air Quality Air quality impacts of coal-fired generation are considerably different from those of nuclear power. A coal-fired plant would emit sulfur dioxide (SO2, as SOx surrogate), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and carbon monoxide (CO), all of which are regulated pollutants. As Section 9.2.2.10 indicates, EGC has assumed a plant design that would minimize air emissions through a combination of boiler technology and post-combustion pollutant removal. EGC estimates the coal-fired alternative emissions to be as follows:

SOx = 8,127 tons per year NOx = 2,054 tons per year CO = 2,118 tons per year PM:

PM = 292 tons per year PM10 (particulates having a diameter of less than 10 microns) = 67 tons per year Table 9.2-1 presents the methodology and basis for the above emission figures.

Coal combustion results in emissions of heavy metals such as mercury, hazardous air pollutants such as benzene, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, and polychlorinated dibenzo-fuiana.

In 1999, emissions of SO2 and NOX from Illinoiss generators ranked 7th and 4th highest nationally, respectively (USDOE/EIA, 2002). In fact, seventeen Illinois generators were cited in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 as requiring that by 1995 they be in compliance with stricter emission controls for SO2 and NOx. The acid rain requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments capped the nations SO2 emissions from power plants. Each company having fossil-fuel-fired units was allocated SO2 allowances. To be in compliance with the Act, the companies must hold enough allowances to cover their annual SO2 emissions. EGC, having no fossil units, would have to purchase allowances from the open market to operate a fossil-fuel-burning plant at the EGC ESP Site. A company that has fossil units might also have the option of shutting down existing capacity and applying credits from that plant to the new one, thus mitigating the air quality impacts of these generating sources.

Both SO2 and NOX will increase with operation of a new coal-fired plant at the EGC ESP Site. In order to operate a fossil-fuel-fired plant at the site, EGC would have to obtain sufficient pollution credits to cover annual emissions either from the set-aside pool or by purchasing pollution credits from other sources.

DEL-096-REV0 9.2-13

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.2 - ENERGY ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT While this option is available, it is unlikely that it will be feasible for a new generating facility. In October 1998, EPA promulgated the NOx State Implementation Plan Call regulation that requires 22 states, including Illinois, to reduce their NOx emissions by over 30 percent to address national ozone transport (USEPA, 2001). The regulation imposes a NOx budget to limit the NOx emissions from each state. The IEPA allocated NOx credits among the existing electrical generating units in the State (IAC, 2000). Beginning May 31, 2004, each electrical generating unit must hold enough NOx credits to cover its annual NOx emissions. A small percentage of NOx credits was set aside for new sources.

The likelihood, however, of buying setoffs for a new facility is extremely remote, if at all possible. This being the case, the coal-fired alternative, while possible, will not be economically feasible since there are no mitigating efforts (like emissions trading) to make the alternative worthwhile. In addition, emission credits trading generally applies to non-attainment areas. The site that EGC has chosen as the preferred site is located in an attainment area, making emission credit trading not effective as a mitigation technique.

The USNRC did not quantify coal-fired emissions, but implied that air impacts from fossil fuel generation would be substantial. The USNRC noted that adverse human health effects from coal combustion have led to important federal legislation in recent years and that public health risks, such as cancer and emphysema, have been associated with coal combustion. USNRC also mentioned global warming and acid rain as potential impacts.

EGC concludes that federal legislation and large-scale concerns, such as global warming and acid rain, are indications of concerns about destabilizing important attributes of air resources. However, SO2 emission allowances, NOx emission offsets, low NOx burners, overfire air, fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators, and scrubbers are regulatorily imposed mitigation measures. As such, EGC concludes that the coal-fired alternative may have moderate to large impacts on air quality; the impacts may be clearly noticeable and may destabilize air quality in the area.

9.2.3.1.2 Waste Management EGC concurs with the GEIS assessment that the coal-fired alternative would generate substantial solid waste. The coal-fired plant, using coal having an ash content of 6.9 percent, would annually consume approximately 8,500,000 tons of coal (Table 9.2-1). Particulate control equipment would collect most (99.9 percent) of this ash, approximately 584,000 tons per year. Illinois regulations encourage recycling of coal-combustion by-products. ComEd, as the former owner of certain fossil fuel electric generating facilities now currently owned by Mid-West Generation historically recycled 87 percent of its coal ash (ComEd, 2000).

Assuming continuation of this waste mitigation measure, the coal-fired alternative would generate approximately 76,000 tons of ash per year for disposal.

SOx-control equipment, annually using nearly 150,000 tons of calcium oxide, would generate another 443,000 tons per year of waste in the form of scrubber sludge. EGC estimates that ash and scrubber waste disposal over a 40-yr plant life would require approximately 234 ac (a square area with sides of approximately 3,200 ft). Table 9.2-4 shows how EGC calculated ash and scrubber waste volumes.

With proper placement of the facility, coupled with current waste management and monitoring practices, waste disposal would not destabilize any resources. There would be space within the EGC ESP Site footprint for this disposal. After closure of the waste site and 9.2-14 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.2 - ENERFY ALTERNATIVES revegetation, the land would be available for other uses. For these reasons, EGC believes that waste disposal for the coal-fired alternative would have moderate impacts; the impacts of increased waste disposal would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize any important resource and further mitigation of the impact would be unwarranted.

9.2.3.1.3 Other Impacts Construction of the power block and coal storage area would impact approximately 300 ac of land and associated terrestrial habitat. Because most of this construction would be in previously disturbed areas, impacts would be minimal. Visual impacts would be consistent with the industrial nature of the site. As with any large construction project, some erosion, collection of lake sedimentation, and fugitive dust emissions could be anticipated, but would be minimized by using best management practices. It is assumed that construction debris from clearing and grubbing could be disposed of on site and municipal waste disposal capacity would be available. Socioeconomic impacts would result from the approximately 250 people needed to operate the coal-fired facility. EGC believes that these impacts would be small due to the mitigating influence of the sites proximity to the surrounding population area. Cultural resource impacts would be unlikely, due to the previously disturbed nature of the site, and could be, if needed, minimized by survey and recovery techniques.

Impacts to aquatic resources and water quality would be minimized but could be construed as moderate due to the plants use of a new cooling water system. The new stacks, boilers, and rail deliveries would be an incremental addition to the visual impact from existing CPS structures and operations. Coal delivery would add noise and transportation impacts associated with unit-train traffic.

EGC believes that other construction and operation impacts would be small. In most cases, the impacts would be detectable, but they would not destabilize any important attribute of the resource involved. Due to the minor nature of these impacts, mitigation would not be warranted beyond that mentioned.

9.2.3.1.4 Design Alternatives The CPS Site location lends itself to coal delivery by rail.

Use of cooling towers as the cooling mechanism for coal-fired generation would reduce cooling water intake and discharge water usage by 90 percent when compared to once thru cooling as is used currently by the CPS. Use of cooling towers would reduce impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts, increase consumptive water use through evaporation, and introduce a visual impact (100-foot-high mechanical towers or 600-foot-high natural draft towers). Wet/dry cooling towers may be used to reduce makeup water consumption to match water demand with available water supply.

9.2.3.2 Natural Gas Generation The USNRC evaluated environmental impacts from gas-fired generation alternatives in the GEIS, focusing on combined-cycle plants. Section 9.2.2.11 presents EGCs reasons for defining the gas-fired generation alternative as a combined-cycle plant on the EGC ESP Site.

Land-use impacts from gas-fired units on the site would be less than those of the coal-fired alternative. Reduced land requirements, due to construction on the existing site and a smaller facility footprint would reduce impacts to ecological, aesthetic, and cultural DEL-096-REV0 9.2-15

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.2 - ENERGY ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT resources as well. As discussed under Other Impacts, an incremental increase in the workforce could have socioeconomic impacts. Human health effects associated with air emissions would be of concern, but the effect would likely be less than those presented by coal-fired generation. Aquatic biota losses due to cooling water withdrawals would be exacerbated by the concurrent operation of CPS.

The gas-fired alternative defined by EGC in Section 9.2.2.11 would be located at the EGC ESP Site.

9.2.3.2.1 Air Quality Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fossil fuel. Also, because the heat recovery steam generator does not receive supplemental fuel, the combined-cycle operation is highly efficient (56 percent vs. 33 percent for the coal-fired alternative). Therefore, the gas-fired alternative would release similar types of emissions, but in lesser quantities than the coal-fired alternative. Control technology for gas-fired turbines focuses on the reduction of NOx emissions. EGC estimates the gas-fired alternative emissions to be as follows:

  • SOx = 177 tons per year
  • NOx = 568 tons per year
  • CO = 120 tons per year
  • PM = 99 tons per year (all particulates are PM10)

Table 9.2-2 presents the methodology and basis for the above emission figures.

The Section 9.2.3.1 discussion of regional air quality, Clean Air Act requirements, and the NOx State Implementation Plan Call is also applicable to the gas-fired generation alternative.

NOx effects on ozone levels, SOx allowances, and NOx emission offsets could be issues of concern for gas-fired combustion. The emissions from a gas-fired plant are substantial.

EGC concludes that emissions from a gas-fired alternative located at the EGC ESP Site may noticeably alter local air quality, but may not destabilize regional resources. Air quality impacts would therefore be moderate, but substantially larger than those of nuclear generation.

9.2.3.2.2 Waste Management Gas-fired generation would result in almost no waste generation, producing minor (if any) impacts. EGC concludes that gas-fired generation waste management impacts would be small.

9.2.3.2.3 Other Impacts Similar to the coal-fired alternative, the ability to construct the gas-fired alternative on the EGC ESP Site would reduce construction-related impacts relative to construction on a greenfield site.

To the extent practicable, EGC would route the gas supply pipeline along previously disturbed rights-of-way to minimize impacts. However, this would still be a costly (i.e.,

approximately $1 million/mi) and potentially controversial action with ecological impacts from installation of a minimum of 2.5 mi of buried 24-in. gas pipeline to the EGC ESP Site.

An easement encompassing 30 to 40 ac would need to be graded to permit the installation of 9.2-16 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.2 - ENERFY ALTERNATIVES the pipeline. Construction impact would be minimized through the application of best management practices that minimize soil loss and restore vegetation immediately after the excavation is backfilled. Construction would result in the loss of some less mobile animals (e.g., frogs and turtles). Because these animals are common throughout the area, EGC expects negligible reduction in their population as a result of construction. EGC does not expect that installation of a gas pipeline would create a long-term reduction in the local or regional diversity of plants and animals. In theory, these impacts from construction of a pipeline could be reduced or eliminated by locating the gas-fired plant at a different site adjacent to an existing pipeline.

The USNRC estimated in the GEIS that 110 ac would be needed for a plant site; this much previously disturbed acreage is available at the EGC ESP Site, reducing loss of terrestrial habitat. Aesthetic impacts, erosion and sedimentation buildup, fugitive dust, and construction debris impacts would be similar to the coal-fired alternative, but smaller because of the reduced site size. Socioeconomic impacts would result from the approximately 150 people needed to operate the gas-fired facility as estimated in the GEIS.

EGC expects this number to be closer to 40 to 80 workers for a plant this size. EGC believes that these impacts would be small due to the mitigating influence of the sites proximity to the surrounding population area.

Use of cooling towers as the cooling mechanism for gas-fired generation would reduce cooling water intake and discharge by 90 percent when compared to once thru cooling as is used currently by the CPS. Use of cooling towers would also reduce impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts, increase consumptive water use through evaporation, and introduce a visual impact (100-foot-high mechanical towers or 600-ft-high natural draft towers). Wet / dry cooling towers may be used to reduce makeup water consumption to match water demand with available water supply.

9.2.4 Conclusion As shown in detail in Tables 9.2-6 and 9.2-7, based on environmental impacts, EGC has determined that neither a coal-fired nor a gas-fired plant would provide an appreciable reduction in overall environmental impact relative to a nuclear plant. Furthermore, each of these types of plants would entail a significantly greater environmental impact on air quality than would a nuclear plant. Therefore, EGC concludes that neither a coal-fired or gas-fired plant would be environmentally preferable to a nuclear plant.

DEL-096-REV0 9.2-17

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES 9.3 Alternative Sites This section identifies and evaluates a set of alternatives for the proposed EGC ESP Site.

The objective of this evaluation is to verify there is no obviously superior site for the eventual construction and operation of a new nuclear unit.

The EGC ESP Facility will be constructed and operated by an unregulated merchant generator as a merchant plant. This means that there is no regulatory structure in place to guarantee a return on investments, and many of the decisions affecting the location of the plant are based on factors such as cost, ease of construction, and the ability to transmit the power to customers. The facility will operate in the competitive marketplace created by the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 and subsequent actions by the FERC to impose open transmission requirements. These changes have fundamentally altered both the marketplace for electricity and the makeup of electricity generating companies.

Additionally, existing nuclear sites have also changed the way alternatives are reviewed and selected, since a new plant could be located at these sites. Existing sites offer decades of environmental and operational information about the impact of a nuclear plant on the environment. These sites are licensed nuclear facilities, thus, the USNRC has found them to be acceptable relative to other undeveloped sites in the region of interest. The USNRC recognizes (in NUREG-1555, ESRP, Section 9.3(III)(8)) that proposed sites may not be selected as a result of a systematic review (USNRC, 1999):

Recognize that there will be special cases in which the proposed site was not selected on the basis of a systematic site-selection process. Examples include plants proposed to be constructed on the site of an existing nuclear power plant previously found acceptable on the basis of a NEPA review and/or demonstrated to be environmentally satisfactory on the basis of operating experience, and sites assigned or allocated to an applicant by a State government from a list of State-approved power-plant sites. For such cases, the reviewer should analyze the applicants site-selection process only as it applies to candidate sites other than the proposed site, and the site-comparison process may be restricted to a site-by-site comparison of these candidates with the proposed site. As a corollary, all nuclear power plant sites within the identified region of interest having an operating nuclear power plant or a construction permit issued by the NRC should be compared with the applicants proposed site.

In addition to looking at other nuclear power plant sites in Illinois, EGCs site selection was also based on an evaluation of undeveloped sites (commonly known as greenfields), and previously developed sites (commonly known as brownfields). These sites are not obviously superior to existing nuclear sites in the region of interest. Ultimately, the proposed location was chosen based on the applicants ability to colocate an additional power facility at an existing nuclear power facility near Clinton, Illinois, and transmit power to the wholesale marketplace. The existing facility currently operates under a USNRC license, and the proposed location has already been found acceptable under the requirements for that license. Further, operational experience at the existing facility has shown that the environmental impacts are small, and operation of a new facility at the site should have essentially the same environmental impacts.

The traditional relevant service area does not necessarily provide a meaningful way to evaluate the alternative sites because once the facility is built it will generate power for sale DEL-096-REV0 9.3-1

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT to consumers in a deregulated marketplace. For the purposes of this review, the region of interest (ROI) is defined as the State of Illinois rather than the relevant service area. This is due to current deregulation policies, the proposed location in the State of Illinois, the availability of transmission capabilities in the state, and market flexibility. The ROI is explained below in Section 9.3.1.

The decision to colocate the new nuclear power facility at the EGC ESP Site near Clinton, Illinois was based on market factors and a comparison of the seven existing nuclear sites within the state and an evaluation of postulated brownfield and greenfield sites. The review process outlined in this section was consistent with the special case noted in NUREG-1555, ESRP, Section 9.3(III)(8), and took into account the advantages already present at existing nuclear facilities within the ROI (USNRC, 1999). The evaluation of alternative sites, and a comparison with greenfield and brownfield sites focused on whether there are any sites that are obviously superior to the EGC ESP Site.

9.3.1 Site Preferences and the Region of Interest 9.3.1.1 Site Preferences The review procedure described in this chapter compares and evaluates existing nuclear sites within the ROI. The candidate site criteria described in NUREG-1555 are incorporated into the site review in Section 9.3.3. This section explains the Applicants preference for an existing nuclear site. The following preference factors influenced the decision to review existing nuclear sites within the ROI.

  • There are benefits offered by existing nuclear sites. For example, colocated sites offer existing infrastructure and other advantages.
  • The environmental impacts of an existing unit are known and the impacts of a new unit should be comparable to those of the operating nuclear plant.
  • Site physical criteria, primarily geologic/seismic suitability, have been characterized at existing sites; these criteria are important in determining site suitability.
  • Transmission is available and the existing sites have nearby markets.
  • Existing nuclear plants have local support and the availability of experienced personnel.

Initially, candidate sites within the ROI were identified and screened. Given the factors listed above, colocating a facility at the EGC ESP Site became the preferable alternative. The EGC has made agreements with AmerGen for access to and control of the proposed site at Clinton. The CPS has been a licensed facility there since 1987, and the site has a proven record of environmental, health, socioeconomic, and market performance As discussed in Sections 9.3.3.1 and 9.3.3.2, the economically and environmentally preferable alternative for the EGC ESP Facility is colocation; therefore, the consideration of alternative sites within the region of interest focused primarily on sites with an existing nuclear power facility. It considered additional issues such as environmental impacts, land use, transmission congestion, proximity to population centers, and economical viability.

The assessment was focused on existing nuclear sites controlled by EGC within the identified ROI, and evaluations were also performed of hypothetical greenfield and 9.3-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES brownfield sites. A site-by-site comparison of candidate sites with existing power plants did not result in identification of a site obviously superior to the EGC ESP Site as the preferred site.

9.3.1.2 Region of Interest NUREG-1555 provides that the ROI includes the state where the candidate site is located, so that alternatives sites may be considered for review (USNRC, 1999). The basis for the ROI is the candidate sites location within the State of Illinois. There are sufficient existing nuclear sites that meet the threshold criteria discussed below. The ROI also was the geographic area considered in searching for a comparative evaluation of greenfield and brownfield sites.

While power generated at the proposed facility will be sold in a deregulated marketplace, the potential for line loss, flexibility of transmission, and the proximity of EGCs customer base limits the ROI to the State of Illinois. The topography, ecology, and socieoeconomics throughout the region are roughly the same. Generally, the region is rural/agricultural with pockets of heavy population near important waterways such as the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan, or in traditionally populated areas such as the State Capital and university sites.

9.3.1.3 The Candidate Site The candidate site is reviewed at length in this ER. This section reviews the EGC ESP Site in relation to the selection criteria suggested in NUREG 1555, ESRP 9.3 in order to consider whether the site is obviously superior to other candidate sites. The criteria are more fully discussed in Section 9.3.3.

9.3.1.3.1 Consumptive Use of Water Clinton Lake is specifically available for cooling. The lake/impoundment of Salt Creek was constructed for the CPS, and includes the UHS. The UHS is a submerged impoundment located within Clinton Lake that provides emergency cooling water. There are other small lakes and ponds, both man-made and natural, scattered throughout the region. Most of these other water bodies are used for farming and recreation. Salt Creek is a tributary of the Sangamon River.

There is no groundwater used at the CPS, and it is not anticipated that groundwater will be used at the EGC ESP Facility (see Chapter 5).

9.3.1.3.2 No Further Species Endangerment As noted in Chapters 4 and 5, there are no endangered species in the vicinity of the site.

Important species and habitats are presented in Table 2.4-3.

9.3.1.3.3 Effects on Spawning Grounds The Clinton Lake State Recreation Area, along with adjacent recreation areas, is designated as an important habitat for some species. Table 2.4-1 identifies those species and their habitats. There are no identified spawning grounds at the EGC ESP Site.

9.3.1.3.4 Effluent Discharge and Water Quality The CPS discharges blowdown water through a discharge canal into Clinton Lake. As noted in Chapter 5, the proposed plant will also discharge any blowdown water through the canal and into Clinton Lake. One target established for the EGC ESP Facility is to maintain the cumulative discharge rate within CPS NPDES permit conditions. It is not anticipated DEL-096-REV0 9.3-3

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT that construction and operation of the EGC ESP Facility at the EGC ESP Site will adversely affect water quality.

9.3.1.3.5 Preemption and Other Land Use Issues Land in the region is designated primarily for agricultural use (92.5 percent). However, the land inside the CPS Site boundary (including the candidate site) is zoned industrial; approximately 0.6 percent is designated industrial within the region. Approximately 6 percent of the land in the region is classified for recreational use, and 1.5 percent has been designated for residential use. There are 10 areas within the region specifically reserved for state recreation areas, historical sites, or wildlife areas. Figure 2.2-5 shows the land use designations within the region.

9.3.1.3.6 Potential Effect on Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment As noted in Chapters 4 and 5, 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). Clinton Lake, and other waterbodies located within the site vicinity, provide a suitable habitat for a variety of waterfowl species. Waterfowl observed, or documented to occur within the site vicinity include the blue-winged teal, mallard, American widgeon, wood duck, lesser scaup, and Canada goose. In addition, migratory shorebirds were also observed during surveys.

Common species identified include a variety of sandpipers and heron (CPS, 1972). Reptiles and amphibians that commonly occur within the site vicinity include various species of frogs, salamanders, snakes, and turtles (CPS, 1972).

The EGC ESP Facility 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 resource for a variety of stocked and naturally occurring populations of fish species. Fisheries in watercourses of the site vicinity are consistent with fisheries commonly found in the central Illinois region.

During extensive 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, 1972).

9.3.1.3.7 Population Characteristics Major population centers (as defined by 10 CFR 100) include Decatur, the closest population center (22-mi south-southwest) with a population of 81,860 as of the year 2000. Other population centers within an 80-km (50-mi) radius include Champaign and Urbana with populations of 67,518 and 36,395, respectively. Otherwise, the vicinitys population is relatively low; Clinton, the nearest incorporated town, has a current population over 7,000.

In addition, the population density for the vicinity is approximately 97 people per mi2. The population within 10 mi of the site is expected to decrease through the year 2060 (see ER Table 2.5-2). Figure 2.5-2 shows the regional population centers.

9.3.2 Superiority of Existing Sites Within the Region of Interest During initial review, EGC determined that the advantages of colocating the new facility with an existing nuclear power facility outweighed the advantages of any other probable siting alternative. The preferred siting alternative was, therefore, to colocate the EGC ESP Facility with the CPS Facility, an existing nuclear facility in Illinois. In addition to the 9.3-4 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES factors assessed and described previously in this section, there are several advantages to colocating nuclear facilities as a general rule. Some of the potential environmental and market advantages include:

  • The total number of required generating sites is reduced.
  • Construction of new transmission corridors may not be required due to potential use of existing corridors.
  • No additional land acquisitions will be necessary, and the applicant can readily obtain control of the property.
  • The site has already gone through the alternatives review process mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and was the subject of extensive environmental screening during the original selection process.
  • The site development costs and environmental impact of any preconstruction activities are reduced.
  • Construction, installation, and operation and maintenance costs are reduced because of existing site infrastructure.

Existing facilities where EGC could obtain access and control were preferred over the other sites within the region of interest. Sites that were originally designed for more generation than actually constructed also received preference.

The applicant considered colocating with the following existing nuclear power facilities within the region of interest:

  • Braidwood Generating Station;
  • Byron Generating Station;
  • Clinton Power Station;
  • Dresden Generating Station;
  • LaSalle County Generating Station;
  • Quad Cities Generating Station; and
  • Zion Generating Station.

The CPS near Clinton, Illinois, was the preferred site. The proposed site is preferable to the sites of the other existing nuclear facilities within Illinois, primarily based upon the alternative site reviews described below.

9.3.3 Alternative Site Review Regulatory Guide 4.2 notes: The applicant is not expected to conduct detailed environmental studies at alternative sites; only preliminary reconnaissance-type investigations need be conducted (USNRC, 1976). The alternatives described here are compared based on recently updated safety analysis report (USAR) information about the existing plants and the surrounding area, and existing environmental studies and Final DEL-096-REV0 9.3-5

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Environmental Impact Statements issued by the Atomic Energy Commission or USNRC.

An undeveloped site (greenfield) and former industrial site (brownfield) were also considered for comparison in order to determine if they were obviously superior to an existing nuclear site.

9.3.3.1 Greenfield Site An undeveloped (greenfield) site is useful as a bounding comparison for identifying impacts at the site, and this concept has been used by the USNRC in other licensing activities (USNRC, 1996), where the USNRC has developed generic characteristics of a greenfield site for comparison during license renewal. Some of the issues identified for greenfields in the USNRCs Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal can correlate with the issues the applicant faces in determining the superiority of the proposed site.

In order to maximize the advantages and minimize the disadvantages of the greenfield site, the applicant assumed the greenfield site would be in Illinois, have characteristics where cooling water would be available and where access to transmission lines would be available.

Otherwise, the site would be undeveloped for generating capacity and no existing infrastructure would be available.

EGC has made some conservative assumptions using the characteristics of two potential greenfield sites in Illinois. One potential site, on the shores of Clinton Lake, has similar characteristics to the undeveloped areas around the lake. As noted in Chapter 2, the undeveloped greenfield site along Clinton Lake is close to transmission lines and transportation corridors, and a railway spur could likely be developed from the current CPS. The population near this greenfield site is also reported in Chapter 2. Another site is on the banks of the Illinois River near the Dresden Station and Collins Station, a large gas-fired generating plant. The land itself is cleared farm land and forest terrain. There is potential access to cooling water from the Illinois River and Mizan Creek. Additionally, there is a ComEd Transmission right-of-way adjacent to the property, and asphalt road frontage leads to IL Rt. 47 and IL Rt. 155. Land use is predominantly agricultural. The population around the site is characteristically rural, with low population similar to the Dresden site. There is a lessee living in a small farm house on the site.

A greenfield site is not considered environmentally preferable for a number of reasons including:

  • The applicant does not own a suitable area with the required characteristics for a nuclear plant. The land (and/or access to it), including any easements, would have to be obtained from third parties.
  • An undeveloped site would require an area of considerable size (USNRC, 1996), with a potentially adverse economic impact. The USNRC has determined that a new nuclear generating facility (e.g. an advanced light water reactor) would require 500 to 1,000 ac including an exclusion area. The exclusion area requirement would be mitigated by building at a greenfield inside the existing CPS exclusion area (the total area of the existing CPS Site is 13,700 ac, including the 5,000 ac Clinton Lake). According to Chapter 4, a total of 461 ac are included in the site boundary, and approximately 96 ac will be disturbed. (This area will likely be greater at either greenfield site, because much 9.3-6 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES of the area for the proposed ESP site has been cleared.) The greenfield area near Collins Station is approximately 500 ac, and could likely meet the land requirements. Although both greenfield sites have sufficient acreage for construction of the EGC ESP Facility, construction of the facility at these greenfields may disturb important habitats and resources that are not present at the EGC ESP Site.

  • The USNRC notes that the impact of a new reactor at a greenfield would be severe but could be moderated somewhat by locating the plant at a current nuclear site (USNRC 1996). While the impact of this new plant at the CPS greenfield site would still be moderate, impact at the Collins Station site would be severe, since it is a relatively pristine site. Transmission and other issues could be moderated by the proximity of existing infrastructure.
  • New transmission lines and corridors would be required to intertie with the existing system. Existing transmission lines near a potential CPS greenfield and at a potential Collins Station greenfield could be modified; however, new interties would be required.

With the use of existing corridors, some disturbance would still occur at either greenfield site, since new transmission lines from the new plant to existing lines would require some clearing, grubbing and other construction (see Chapter 3.7).

  • Terrestrial and aquatic resource impacts are expected to be greater than those experienced at an existing site (USNRC, 1996). These impacts are similar to the construction of any large energy generating facility (see Chapter 9.2.3). Destruction of wildlife and aquatic habitat would occur with construction of the plant, corridors, and intake and discharge structures. As noted in Chapters 4 and 5, most aquatic displacement from construction and operation may be temporary; loss of terrestrial habitat at the greenfield will be permanent. However, the site near Collins Station is part of the Prairie Parklands Resource Rich Area (RRA) , and is proximate to marshes, wetlands, and forests (INHS, 2003). The Heideke State Fish and Wildlife Area is also near the Collins Station greenfield (IDNR, 2003). Unlike the CPS greenfield, which has no critical habitat or endangered species, the second site is near critical habitat for the endangered upland sandpiper (INHS, 2003).
  • Aesthetic and socioeconomic impacts from construction and operation of a new nuclear facility at the greenfield sites would be similar to those forecast for the EGC ESP Site in Chapters 4 and 5. Erosion, sedimentation, and fugitive dust are likely aesthetic impacts from construction, and operational impacts would include an increased workforce, increased transportation requirements, and public services would be affected.

In summary, the environmental impacts from construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at a greenfield site would be similar to or greater than those at the proposed CPS Site. Therefore, a greenfield site is not obviously superior to the EGC ESP Site.

9.3.3.2 Brownfield Site A brownfield site is one that is released for redevelopment after cleanup under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or Superfund programs (USEPA, 2002). Such sites have been recommended for redevelopment by the EPA, and general characteristics can be identified based on EPA reports describing such sites (USEPA, 2003). The sites reviewed here are former industrial facilities where existing buildings and other infrastructure have DEL-096-REV0 9.3-7

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT been removed to facilitate cleanup. The environmental consequences of building on a brownfield site will not be as severe as those noted for greenfield development.

There are no brownfield sites near Clinton. EGC has made some conservative assumptions based on available EPA information about two brownfield sites in Illinois to compare the brownfield site with an existing nuclear site. The EPA has recently identified example sites in Antioch and DePue, Illinois (USEPA, 2002). The site in Antioch, IL, is a former landfill where the remedy included a clay cap and an updated methane and leachate collection system. The site in DePue, IL, is a former zinc plant located along the Illinois River. Part of the site may be re-used as an industrial site, while remaining portions of the site may be set aside for a recreational or ecological resort. These sites serve as a baseline to identify characteristics of the hypothetical brownfield site.

The hypothetical brownfield site would be the site of a former industrial complex in Illinois.

Generally, these sites are in areas where heavy industry has been the predominant land use.

The hypothetical brownfield will be near an existing water source such as the Mississippi or Illinois River. This alternative site will not have all of the infrastructure currently available at the existing nuclear sites. Most potential brownfield sites in Illinois do not have the all of the required infrastructure, although some interties with existing transmission corridors may be close to the site.

The brownfield site is not considered environmentally preferable for the following reasons:

  • New infrastructure requirements such as pipeline construction, transmission corridor development or expansion, supply line development (e.g., a rail spur or other transportation), and cooling systems, will incur economic costs and environmental impacts not associated with location of a plant at an existing nuclear site. These impacts would be greater than construction at an existing nuclear facility.
  • Terrestrial habitat loss will be minimal, but aquatic habitat will be moderately affected.

Some ecological impacts would occur as intake, heat sink, and discharge capabilities were constructed. For example, if the EGC ESP Facility were built at the DePue brownfield, there may be entrainment and impingement to the sports fisheries in the neighboring lake as a result of construction of intake structures.

  • Aesthetic impacts would include impaired views from cooling towers, fugitive dust, erosion, and sedimentation. These impacts would likely be similar to those impacts forecast for the EGC ESP Site in Chapters 4 and 5.
  • Socioeconomic and environmental justice impacts are assumed to occur at brownfield sites, since sites such as those considered in this evaluation are located in or near urban areas (Deason, 2001). Larger urban areas could accommodate changes in population brought about by the construction of a new nuclear generating facility. However, urban and industrial communities such as those near the Antioch and DePue sites may be disproportionately affected by development of a new nuclear plant in those areas, compared to the relatively homogeneous socioeconomic structure at Clinton. Other socioeconomic issues would be roughly similar to those forecast for the EGC ESP Site.

9.3-8 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES

  • Impacts associated with new transportation corridors, housing and other public services may be affected by an influx of an experienced workforce, however, necessary infrastructure will likely be available.
  • Most brownfield example sites do not meet the size requirements for a new nuclear plant. These requirements would be more difficult to meet than the greenfield example site. Enough area for the proposed plant, site boundaries and exclusion area boundaries would likely be unavailable. For example, the Antioch site is 160 ac adjacent to a wetland and recreational lakes. The DePue site sits on 250 ac adjacent to a lake and other commercial and industrial development. According to Chapter 4, a total of 461 ac are included in the site boundary, and approximately 96 ac will be disturbed. The existing exclusion area boundary for the CPS exceeds 10,000 ac.

In summary, the environmental impacts from construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at a brownfield site would be greater than or equal to those at the proposed EGC ESP Site. Therefore, a brownfield site is not obviously superior to the EGC ESP Site.

9.3.3.3 Existing Nuclear Facilities in the ROI Since development of greenfield or brownfield sites was not considered obviously superior, EGC preferred siting a proposed nuclear power facility adjacent to an existing facility.

There are six existing nuclear power facility sites in Illinois that were considered as potential siting alternatives. The discussion below reviews information about the sites that assist the applicant in a site-by-site comparison. This review is based on siting and safety criteria outlined in 10 CFR 100, and as identified in the updated safety analysis reports (USARs) and environmental reports for each site. These reports provide the most recent information about the sites. Each site was reviewed using the site characteristic criteria noted in NUREG 1555, ESRP 9.3. They are:

  • Consumptive use of water should not cause significant adverse effects on other users.
  • There should not be any further endangerment of federal, state, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal listed threatened, endangered, or candidates species.
  • There should not be any potential significant impacts to spawning grounds or nursery areas of populations of important aquatic species on federal, state, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal lists.
  • Discharges of effluents into waterways should be in accordance with federal, state, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal regulations and would not adversely impact efforts to meet water quality objectives.
  • There would be no preemption of or adverse impacts on land specially designated for environmental, recreational, or other special purposes.
  • There would not be any potential significant impact on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems including wetlands, which are unique to the resource area.
  • Population density and numbers conform to 10 CFR 100.

Using the available information, EGC then determined whether there were any environmentally preferred sites among the candidate sites, and then identified whether DEL-096-REV0 9.3-9

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT economic, technological or institutional factors outweighed the proposed EGC ESP Site.

This approach is similar to the two part obvious superiority test outlined in NUREG 1555.

This review performs only preliminary reconnaissance-type investigations based on environmental information available (USNRC, 1976). For purposes of review, EGC assumed that the EGC ESP Facility would be the bounding case for each candidate site. The applicant performed sufficient review to determine whether the sites met the candidate criteria and if there were obviously superior sites. The proposed EGC ESP Site is not summarized here since it is the subject of this ER. Rather, the alternative sites are summarized below, and compared with the proposed EGC ESP Site in Table 9.3-1.

9.3.3.3.1 Braidwood Generating Station Braidwood Generating Station is located in northeastern Illinois about 50-mi southwest of Chicago and about 20-mi south-southwest of Joliet. The site is located primarily on flat agricultural land that has been scarred by strip coal mining. The site itself is located primarily on a former strip mining area. The roughly rectangular site occupies about 4,457 ac, and the main cooling pond occupies about 2,537 ac. The cooling pond is located on a former strip mine area. Water for the pond is withdrawn from, and eventually returned to, the Kankakee River. The Kankakee River is a popular recreational area and supports numerous sports such as fishing and hunting. Despite its proximity to Joliet and Chicago, the area is not heavily industrialized, and remains an agricultural area. Braidwood was originally developed for four units; two are operational (EGC, 2000). It is assumed that a new nuclear facility at the area would have roughly the same general environmental impact as the existing facility.

9.3.3.3.1.1 Consumptive Use of Water Cooling water for the plant is obtained from the Kankakee River, and is held in the cooling pond. There is little public consumptive use of the water, although downstream uses include fishing and other recreational activities (EGC, 2000). Makeup water for the pond is pumped from the river screen house on the Kankakee River via pipeline to the northeast corner of the cooling pond. Blowdown water is discharged from the plant by pipeline to the blowdown outfall structure and discharge flume to the Kankakee River. The existing Braidwood units withdraw greater than 50 million gallons of water per day, with corresponding discharge. The 1973 ER predicts withdrawals up to 150 million gpd by the year 2020, anticipating the operation of 4 units (ComEd, 1973). However, the EGC ESP Facility may use a number of cooling systems options that do not require this kind of consumption. Consumptive use of water predicted for the EGC ESP Facility cooling systems is described in Table 5.2-2. Consumptive use is expected to be minimal for the EGC facility.

Groundwater has not been used at the Braidwood Station during plant operation. All plant water requirements are currently met from the Kankakee River. For a detailed review of site and regional conditions, please see the Braidwood USAR (EGC, 2000). There are approximately 31 wells within the vicinity used for public supply of groundwater. There is large-scale industrial and municipal use of groundwater around Joliet, and studies show that a resulting cone of depression could affect groundwater use around the Braidwood facility (EGC, 2000).

9.3-10 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES 9.3.3.3.1.2 No Further Species Endangerment The Goose Lake Prairie Nature Preserve is located 9-mi northwest of the plant, along the borders of the Dresden Facility. Some sensitive habitats and species exist there, including the upland sandpiper. The Kankakee Nature Preserve is also approximately 13 mi from the facility, and hosts some sensitive species and plants. There have been no reported observations of sensitive species and plants within the facility boundaries (EGC, 2000).

9.3.3.3.1.3 Effects on Spawning Grounds There is no evidence of spawning grounds on the facility or in the vicinity.

9.3.3.3.1.4 Effluent Discharge and Water Quality Blowdown water is discharged into the Kankakee River. Stormwater discharge and other effluents are occasionally discharged into the river, but they do not exceed the limits set forth in the stations National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

However, with new units, additional permitting would be required. As noted in Section 5.2, one target established for the EGC ESP Facility is to maintain the cumulative discharge rate within CPS permit conditions. For the purposes of this review, it is anticipated that the bounding case for the proposed facility would be the existing permits at Braidwood.

9.3.3.3.1.5 Preemption and Other Land Use Issues No land would be preempted for additional facilities built at the station.

9.3.3.3.1.6 Potential Effect on Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment Terrestrial habitats in the area are characterized as reclaimed strip mining sites. The strip mine spoil habitat is different from the surrounding agricultural habitat. Most species have adjusted to both habitat types. The site boundaries are characterized by overgrown drainage, fallow fields, and woodlands. There is marshy habitat created by water-filled strip mine spoil. Mammals and bird species are adapted to the various habitats. Important small game species have also been observed at the site, including ring-necked pheasants, bobwhite, rabbits, mourning dove, and big game is likewise observed. The cooling pond serves as some habitat for migrating water fowl, but there have been no adverse affects noted from operation of the existing facilities (ComEd, 1973).

The Kankakee River is the aquatic habitat most affected by site operations. The river supports sport fishing opportunities, but there is no commercial fishing (EGC, 2000).

Aquatic life within the Braidwood cooling pond is similar to that in Dresden Lake, about 10-mi downstream from the Braidwood site. As with Dresden, the major impact of to the aquatic environment is entrainment and impingement as a result of the intake and discharge structures (ComEd 1973, EGC, 2000).

9.3.3.3.1.7 Population Characteristics Projected population of the area suggests that the population (including transient population) within 10 mi of the Braidwood Station will reach nearly 86,000 by the year 2020.

The population between 10 and 50 mi includes the Chicago metroplex, and the total population is predicted to reach more than 5 million by the year 2020. The low population zone (LPZ) is predicted to include 1,465 people by the year 2020 (EGC, 2000).

The closest population centers over 25,000 include Joliet, with a predicted 2020 population of 85,000, and Kankakee, with a projected population of 31,065. There are approximately 22 urban centers within a 30-mi radius of the site (EGC, 2000).

DEL-096-REV0 9.3-11

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT The population density within 10 mi of the site is estimated to be approximately 187 people per mi2 by the year 2020. The predicted density for the 50-mi radius from the site is 653 people per mi2 by the year 2020 (EGC, 2000).

9.3.3.3.2 Byron Generation Station A construction permit was issued for the Byron Station in 1975; Unit 1 and has been operating since approximately 1984, and Unit 2 has been operating since approximately 1985. The Byron Station is located in northern Illinois, 3.7-mi south-southwest of the city of Byron, and 2.2-mi east of the Rock River, in Ogle County. The site is situated in the approximate center of the county in a predominately agricultural area. The Byron Station occupies approximately 1,782 ac of land. This area consists of the main site area and the transmission and pipeline corridor to the Rock River. The main site area occupies approximately 1,398 ac, while the corridor occupies the remaining 384 ac. Byron is a two-unit operational nuclear generating facility with 495-ft-high twin cooling towers that help cool the pressurized water reactors. EGC owns and operates the facility. There are no industrial, institutional, commercial, recreational, or residential structures on the site, other than those used by EGC in the normal conduct of its utility business. The development of the site for uses other than power generation and agriculture is not planned (EGC, 2002). It is assumed that a new nuclear facility at the area would have roughly the same general environmental impact as the existing facility.

9.3.3.3.2.1 Consumptive Use of Water The major source of plant makeup water is the Rock River. Rock River is nonnavigable for commercial purposes, but remains a popular recreation area. Boating, fishing, and water-skiing are popular pastimes on the river. The only other uses for Rock River are industrial water and some irrigation (EGC, 2002). Plant blowdown water is discharged to the Rock River.

While some surface water is used at the site, makeup can be supplied to the cooling towers by two deep wells. Generally, most of the water for domestic, municipal, and industrial use in the region is obtained from groundwater sources. The major unit is the St. Peter Sandstone within the Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer, although minor supplies commonly are obtained from the shallower glacial drift and dolomite aquifers. There are seven public water supply systems within 10 mi of the plant site. All use groundwater wells for water supply. Due to the relatively low level of urbanization around the site area and the small amount of on-site use, it is unlikely that future increases in groundwater withdrawal in the area would have much effect on the groundwater supply at the site (EGC, 2002).

A site groundwater monitoring program was begun in December of 1975. This monitoring program was performed (1) to define existing conditions as a base for future comparisons; (2) to monitor the effects of construction; (3) to check for either plant operation or groundwater use by others; and (4) to protect off-site groundwater users in case of detrimental changes in groundwater quality. The site groundwater monitoring program was not part of any radiological monitoring program. Six domestic and agricultural water wells were monitored for monthly changes in piezometric levels. Three of the water wells are now owned by EGC and are located on the inside perimeter of the Byron site boundaries. The other three wells are on the outside perimeter of the site boundary. Data from this monitoring program indicated no changes in groundwater chemistry or 9.3-12 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES piezometric levels attributable to excavation, grouting, groundwater pumping, or other activities at the Byron site (EGC, 2002).

In addition to this site groundwater monitoring program, the detailed site geotechnical investigation identified an area of groundwater contaminated by toxic materials prior to the purchase of the land by Commonwealth Edison and EGC. The operation of the Byron Station is not expected to effect groundwater at the site (EGC, 2002). Consumptive use of water predicted for the EGC ESP Facility cooling systems is described in Table 5.2-2.

Consumptive use is expected to be minimal.

9.3.3.3.2.2 No Further Species Endangerment At the time early environmental assessments were made of the Byron facilities, all large-scale construction activities had been completed and operation was in full force. No evidence has been found to indicate that construction or operation of a new nuclear plant would have any detrimental effects on the area around the facility (USNRC, 1982).

9.3.3.3.2.3 Effects on Spawning Grounds The Byron Station received its construction permit in 1975, and operating licenses were issued for both units in the mid-1980s. No spawning grounds or otherwise sensitive ecosystems were noted. It is expected that no adverse effect on spawning grounds will occur with the construction and operation of new units at the facility (USNRC, 1982).

9.3.3.3.2.4 Effluent Discharge and Water Quality Byron operates under a NPDES permit issued by the State of Illinois. The early environmental reports note that water quality may be affected by chemical discharge (USNRC, 1982). It is not anticipated that discharges from a new facility will exceed current limits. As noted in Section 5.2, one target established for the EGC ESP Facility is to maintain the cumulative discharge rate within CPS permit conditions. For the purposes of this review, it is anticipated that the bounding case for the proposed facility would be the existing permits at Byron.

9.3.3.3.2.5 Preemption and Other Land Use Issues Land use within the 5-mi radius of the Byron Station is agricultural. There is little industry in the vicinity, and that is primarily developed for supporting the agrarian economy.

Wheat, corn, and soybeans are the primary products (EGC, 2002).

Illinois State Route 2, which is the closest major highway to the site, is located 2.5-mi west of the plant and has an annual average traffic flow per 24-hr period that ranges from 4,000 cars between Byron and Oregon to 8,800 cars in Oregon. State Routes 72 and 64 are also well traveled, having 24-hr annual averages that exceed 2,000 cars (EGC, 2002).

The Rock River is the major waterway for the area surrounding the Byron site, although it is considered nonnavigable to commercial traffic in this vicinity. It is a popular recreation spot (EGC, 2002). Construction and operation of new nuclear units are not expected to preempt these uses.

9.3.3.3.2.6 Potential Effect on Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment Currently, the Byron Station uses the Rock River for makeup water and blow down is likewise discharged into the river (EGC 2002). Water from Rock River will likely serve these functions for any new units placed on the site.

DEL-096-REV0 9.3-13

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Sport fisheries and other aquatic and terrestrial habitats could be temporarily affected by a construction of the EGC ESP Facility at this site. The Rock River is a popular recreational river. It is not expected that construction and operation of a new nuclear plant will significantly affect the water quality of the river.

Terrestrial effects are also expected to be limited to short-term displacement during construction. Earlier reports and current reviews indicate that wildlife inhabit undisturbed areas at the Byron site; this trend is expected to continue.

9.3.3.3.2.7 Population Characteristics The site currently meets population criteria for 10 CFR 100. The population for the 10-mi radius around the Byron Station is projected to be approximately 31,616 by the year 2020, or 101 people per mi2. That population generally lives between 5 and 10 mi from the site. The regional population in the 10- to 50-mi radius is expected to reach 1,514,138 people by the year 2020, with 269 people per mi2 (EGC, 2002).

The primary population center is Rockford, 17 mi to the northeast of the plant. The projected 2020 population is 246,700. DeKalb, about 28-mi east-southeast of the plant, has a projected 2020 population of more than 73,000. The population density is generally at its greatest between 10 to 20 mi from the Byron Station (EGC, 2002).

There are 28 industries within 10 mi of the site. There are 16 schools within the 10-mi radius, and it is anticipated that most of the students live in the same radial area (EGC, 2002).

Transient populations are expected to be composed primarily of recreational users. The transient population is estimated at 43,617 due to the influx of recreational users to the vicinity (EGC, 2002).

There are several recreational facilities in the LPZ, which is defined for Byron as a 3-mi radius from the plant. Peak daily usage of these areas occurs on the weekends (EGC, 2002).

9.3.3.3.3 Dresden Generating Station The Dresden Nuclear Power Station site consists of approximately 953 ac. It is a three-unit station. The site boundaries generally follow the Illinois River to the north, the Kankakee River to the east, a county road from Divine extended eastward to the Kankakee River on the south, and the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway right-of-way on the west (EGC, 2003).

Unit 1 is located in the northeast quadrant of the site with an intake canal extending west from the Kankakee River and a discharge canal extending north to the Illinois River. Unit 1 was officially retired on August 31, 1984, but its major structures are still present and intact.

It is now designated a nuclear Historic Landmark by the American Nuclear Society. Unit 2 is located on the site directly west of and adjacent to Unit 1. The location of Unit 3 is directly west of and adjacent to Unit 2 (EGC, 2003). Units 2 and 3 are operational.

Portions of the area outside the station footprint have been leased to a neighboring farmer for grazing cattle and raising crops. Hunting is also permitted outside security areas. A microwave relay tower belonging to International Bell Telephone system is located approximately 1,000 ft from the reactor building. A meteorological tower is located approximately 3,000 ft from the reactor building (EGC, 2003). It is assumed that a new 9.3-14 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES nuclear facility at the area would have roughly the same general environmental impact as the existing facility.

9.3.3.3.3.1 Consumptive Use of Water Dresdens primary source of makeup water is the Kankakee River, with discharge flowing into the Illinois River. Earlier environmental reports on the Dresden Station note little discernable effect caused by consumptive use of surface water or groundwater. The top of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer is 500- to 800-ft below the surface and use of surface water for cooling and other activities at a new plant would not affect aquifer levels. However, shallow aquifers were affected by initial construction of the units in the late 1960s and EGC assumes that the same effect would occur if a new facility were built at the site. Some change in the pattern of surface water runoff was noted, although the impacts were considered indiscernible (USNRC, 1973).

The station only draws water from the deep aquifer in small amounts, compared to other consumptive uses in the area. It is expected that the continued use of groundwater will not have any significant impact on shallow aquifers or water use in the area. The two operating units use indirect closed cycle systems, and the effect on surface water use is minimal (EGC, 2003). The bounding case for this report also plans cooling towers, as described in Chapter 3, that will mitigate consumptive water use. Consumptive use of water predicted for the EGC ESP Facility cooling systems is described in Table 5.2-2. Consumptive use is expected to be minimal.

9.3.3.3.3.2 No Further Species Endangerment At the time early environmental assessments were made of the Dresden facilities, all large-scale construction activities had been completed and operation was in full force. Recent environmental reviews show that three Illinois-listed threatened and endangered species have been collected in the vicinity of the site (EGC, 2003a). It is not expected that construction or operation of a new nuclear plant would have any detrimental effects on the area around the facility.

9.3.3.3.3.3 Effects on Spawning Grounds The Dresden site has been operated as a nuclear plant since the early 1960s. No spawning grounds or otherwise sensitive ecosystems have been noted. It is expected that no adverse effect on spawning grounds will occur with the construction and operation of new units at the facility (EGC, 2003a).

9.3.3.3.3.4 Effluent Discharge and Water Quality Dresden operates under a NPDES permit issued by the State of Illinois. The early environmental reports note that water quality of the Illinois River may be affected by chemical discharge (USNRC, 1972).

It is not anticipated that discharges from a new facility will exceed current limits. As noted in Section 5.2, one target established for the EGC ESP Facility is to maintain the cumulative discharge rate within CPS permit conditions. For the purposes of this review, it is anticipated that the bounding case for the proposed facility would be the existing permits at Dresden.

DEL-096-REV0 9.3-15

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 9.3.3.3.3.5 Preemption and Other Land Use Issues Current land use is industrial. Given the fact that the entire Dresden site has been a large power generating facility since 1965, the current land use is not expected to change.

However, the Dresden site does not have additional available land within the boundaries.

In order to build a new facility, an operating unit or Unit 1 would require decommissioning.

The area around Dresden has become increasingly urbanized, and it is expected that the trend will continue. The construction and operation of a new nuclear facility at the site would not be expected to affect the land use patterns of the area.

9.3.3.3.3.6 Potential Effect on Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment The major rivers within 5 mi of the plant are the Illinois, Des Plaines, and Kankakee rivers.

The Kankakee River joins the Des Plaines River, east of the plant, to form the Illinois River, which extends along the north boundary of the site. The closest navigational channel is on the Illinois River, located approximately 0.5-mi north of the plant. The closest river lock is the Dresden Island Lock, approximately 1-mi northwest of the plant (EGC, 2003).

Sport fisheries and other aquatic and terrestrial habitats could be affected by a proposed new facility at this site, as well as decommissioning activities. The Illinois River is an industrial river. Although water quality has improved somewhat through environmental regulation and cleanup efforts, large commercial and sports fisheries are virtually nonexistent. Increased turbidity, commercial traffic (e.g. barges), and effluent discharges unrelated to the operation of the Dresden facility have contributed to a decrease in vegetation and other aquatic life in the river. It is not expected that construction and operation of a new nuclear plant will significantly affect the water quality of the river.

The Kankakee River serves as the existing stations source of cooling water, and would likely provide cooling water for any new facility. The Kankakee is a small river. It is several degrees cooler than the Illinois River, and supports a sports fishery. Entrainment and impingement are both noted at the intake of the existing units, and are expected to continue during the operations of a new facility (USNRC, 1972).

Terrestrial effects are also expected to be limited to short-term displacement during construction. Earlier reports and current reviews indicate that wildlife inhabit undisturbed areas at the Dresden site; this trend is expected to continue (USNRC, 1972; EGC, 2003a).

9.3.3.3.3.7 Population Characteristics The Dresden site currently meets the population requirements of 10 CFR 100. The LPZ for the station is an area within a 5-mi radius. The population within the 5-mi radius area is 8,948. The nearest resident population within the LPZ is contained in a cluster of cottages along the west shore of the Kankakee River; the nearest line of cottages is just outside the exclusion area boundary (EAB). The estimated population of this cluster of homes is approximately 280. The other closest residences are widely separated in several directions from the station. A single residence is located approximately 0.6-mi southeast of the station on the east shore of the Kankakee River (EGC, 2003).

The closest significant residential concentration of over 1,000 residents is 3- to 4-mi northeast of the station along the Illinois River (EGC, 2003).

The Chicago metropolitan area lies within 50 mi of the site.

9.3-16 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES 9.3.3.3.4 LaSalle County Station The LaSalle County Station is a 2-unit, 3060 ac site located in Brookfield Township of LaSalle County in northeastern Illinois. The Illinois River is 5-mi north of the site. The major transportation routes near the site include the Illinois River, approximately 3-mi north of the northern boundary; IL State Highway 170, 0.5-mi east of the eastern boundary of the site; and Interstate Highway 80, 8-mi north of the northern site boundary. The Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific RR, approximately 3.25-mi north of the northern site boundary, is the closest operable RR line (EGC, 2002a).

It is assumed that a new nuclear facility at the area would have roughly the same general environmental impact as the existing facility.

9.3.3.3.4.1 Consumptive Use of Water The Illinois River is the primary surface water source for the facility. The river is an important source of commercial and recreational navigation. Surface consumption is primarily by neighboring industrial and agricultural use. The LaSalle County Station does not significantly affect surface water use from the Illinois River, because a 2058 ac cooling lake was created to provide water for cooling and discharge.

Groundwater is used at LaSalle County Station to supply the water requirements for the plant systems, makeup demineralizer and potable supply (EGC, 2002a).

Groundwater is obtained from two deep wells in the Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer, which underlies the site. Each well is equipped with a deep well submersible pump with a rated capacity of 300 gpm. The water is stored in a 350,000-gallon, ground level tank prior to distribution to the demineralizer and domestic systems. Maximum groundwater use is presently estimated to be approximately 521,600 gpd. The maximum water requirements for each system and the percentage of the total used are as follows: makeup demineralizer, 479,600 gpd (92 percent); potable supply, 15,000 gpd (3 percent); sand filter backwash, 11,500 gpd (2 percent); and recreational supply, 15,500 gpd (3 percent) (EGC, 2002a). The use of water for the EGC ESP Facility depends on the cooling system and plant design selected. Consumptive use of water predicted for the EGC ESP Facility cooling systems is described in Table 5.2-2. It is expected to be minimal.

Groundwater for public use within 10 mi of the site is obtained predominantly from wells in the Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer. A large cone of depression has developed in the potentiometric surface of the Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer in response to continuous and increasing withdrawals of groundwater at the major municipal and industrial pumping centers along the Illinois River (EGC, 2002a). However LaSalle County Station groundwater use does not create a significant impact on the groundwater at the site.

9.3.3.3.4.2 No Further Species Endangerment Bald eagle and peregrine falcon are known to occur in LaSalle County. Other listed threatened or endangered species (Indiana bat and timber rattlesnake) are known to occur in LaSalle County. However, sightings are rare and occur along the bluffs of the Illinois River, offsite from the LaSalle County Station. Most sightings have been determined to be incidental during migration, and not an indication of an established population. None of these threatened or endangered species occur on the site, since there is no suitable habitat DEL-096-REV0 9.3-17

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT available in the site boundaries. There are no records of endangered aquatic species on this stretch of the Illinois River (USNRC, 1973).

9.3.3.3.4.3 Effects on Spawning Grounds No spawning grounds or otherwise sensitive ecosystems have been noted. It is expected that no adverse effect on spawning grounds will occur with the construction and operation of new units at the facility.

9.3.3.3.4.4 Effluent Discharge and Water Quality LaSalle County Station operates under a NPDES permit issued by the State of Illinois. The early environmental reports note that water quality may be affected by chemical discharge; there is no record that NPDES limits have been exceeded during operation of the existing plants. As noted in Section 5.2, one target established for the EGC ESP Facility is to maintain the cumulative discharge rate within CPS permit conditions. For the purposes of this review, it is anticipated that the bounding case for the proposed facility would be the existing permits at the Station.

9.3.3.3.4.5 Preemption and Other Land Use Issues Land use remains predominantly agricultural. No new land will be preempted if new units are placed on the site.

9.3.3.3.4.6 Potential Effect on Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment No long term negative effects are anticipated if new units were placed at the LaSalle County Station site. Three groups of terrestrial bird life (waterfowl, upland game, and raptors) use the area, but no difference in the populations has been attributed to the operation of the LaSalle Station. Mammalian species have likewise adjusted to the stations operations, and no change in range or viability of these populations has been noted. The applicant expects that the population will remain stable if new units are placed at the site. However, some temporary displacement is expected as a result of construction of new units (see Chapter 4).

Adverse impacts to aquatic environments are not expected to result from operation of new units at the site. The Illinois River is best characterized as a recovering river system, and abundance and diversity of aquatic species and habitats is restricted by upstream pollutants, commercial and recreational boat traffic, and continuing habitat alteration. These factors arise from offsite use of the river corridor; operation of the current LaSalle County Station is not a significant factor in the overall quality of aquatic habitats in the vicinity of the plant.

9.3.3.3.4.7 Population Characteristics The LaSalle County Station site currently meets the population requirements of 10 CFR 100, and overall population is consistent with a rural, agrarian community. The population within 5 mi is expected to grow to 1,273 by the year 2020, which maintains the low population density of 16.20. The density reflects the continuing rural character of the site.

The population within 50 mi is expected to reach 1.6 million by the year 2020. Population growth is expected to occur in the 35- to 50-mi range, as population centers like Joliet continue to grow, and Chicago suburbs expand. It is expected that population density in the 50-mi radius will grow to approximately 211.1 people per mi2. However, it is predicted that the density between 40 and 50 mi will increase to 292.7 people per mi2. Low density expected to continue inside the 10-mi radius (EGC, 2002a).

9.3-18 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES Transient populations will include recreational users. Some parks outside the 5-mi radius generally expect over one-half million visitors each year. However, no projections are available for the area within the 5-mi radius (EGC, 2002a).

The LPZ has no schools, industry or other facilities. It is anticipated that the population within the LPZ will be approximately 502 in the year 2020 (EGC, 2002a).

The nearest population center is Ottowa, with a projected population of 25,904 by the year 2020. The population density in the year 1980 within 50 mi of the LaSalle County Station is projected to be approximately 141 people per mi2. By the year 2020, the density is projected to reach 211 people per mi2 (EGC, 2002a).

9.3.3.3.5 Quad Cities Generating Station The Quad Cities Generating Station is a two-unit facility on the east bank of the Mississippi River opposite the mouth of the Wapsipinicon River, and about 3-mi north of Cordova, Illinois. The facility was licensed and began operations in 1973. It is roughly the same design as the Dresden Units 2 and 3, described above. The site is about 20-mi northeast of the Quad Cities (Davenport, Iowa; Rock Island, Moline, and East Moline, Illinois).

Topographic relief at the site is low and relatively flat. The station elevation represented by the ground floor level of the reactor building, is 595 ft above msl datum. The ground surface drops off abruptly at the bank of the river, forming a bluff about 30-ft high. The station is located on a 784-ac tract of land and has a 310-ft cooling tower.

It is assumed that a new nuclear facility at the area would have roughly the same general environmental impact as the existing facility.

9.3.3.3.5.1 Consumptive Use of Water Cooling water is obtained from the Mississippi river. Water for other industrial and home use comes from the river and wells in the area. Groundwater sources in the area come from three aquifer systems composed of unconsolidated alluvial and outwash sand and gravel deposits, shallow Silurian dolomite formations, and the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer.

Neither groundwater use nor surface water use has been adversely affected by the continuing operation of the facility.

The facility obtains water for circulation cooling and other plant uses from the Mississippi River. The facility operates open cycle per an agreement with the states of Illinois and Iowa.

No groundwater is used to operate the plant (EGC, 2003c). Consumptive use of water predicted for the EGC ESP Facility cooling systems is described in Table 5.2-2. Consumptive use is expected to be minimal.

9.3.3.3.5.2 No Further Species Endangerment There has been no indication that endangered or threatened species will be affected by the operation of a new nuclear facility at the site. No evidence has been found to indicate that construction or operation of a new nuclear plant at the Quad Cities site would have any detrimental effects on the area around the facility (EGC, 2003b).

9.3.3.3.5.3 Effects on Spawning Grounds The Quad Cities site has been operated as a nuclear plant since the early 1970s. EGC is not aware of any federally-listed endangered or threatened terrestrial species at the Quad Cities site. However, relatively few threatened and endangered terrestrial species have been DEL-096-REV0 9.3-19

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT recorded in the counties crossed by the transmission corridors associated with Quad Cities, including bald eagle, the Indiana bat, two orchid species, snails and reptiles (EGC, 2003b).

Pool 14 of the Upper Mississippi River harbors a diverse freshwater mussel community, including one federally-listed species, the Higgins eye pearly mussel (Lampsilis higginsi)

(EGC, 2003b). Lampsilis higginsi has historically been found in Pool 14 up- and downstream of Quad Cities, with highest densities and spawning areas in the vicinity of Cordova, Illinois, some 1.5- to 3.5-mi downstream of the Station (EGC, 2003b).

9.3.3.3.5.4 Effluent Discharge and Water Quality Quad Cities currently operates under a NPDES permit issued by the State of Illinois. As noted in Section 5.2, one target established for the EGC ESP Facility is to maintain the cumulative discharge rate within CPS permit conditions. For the purposes of this review, it is anticipated that the bounding case for the proposed facility would be the existing permits at the Station.

9.3.3.3.5.5 Preemption and Other Land Use Issues Land use around the station is a combination of agriculture and industrial uses (EGC, 2003c). Some land in the region been set aside for recreational and environmental use; the Mississippi River supports a large sport fishery as well as commercial and recreational boating. It is not expected that current land use at Quad Cities will change or expand, and there will be no preemption or adverse effects on land that has been set aside for environmental or recreational uses.

9.3.3.3.5.6 Potential Effect on Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment The woody islands and sloughs near the site are popular habitats for waterfowl as well as small game animals such as squirrel, rabbit, muskrat, beaver, and mink. The upper Mississippi Wildlife and Fish Refuge is located opposite the site. Ducks and geese rely on the refuge for nesting and other habitat. There are marshy wetlands along the banks of the river across from and above the site, but none are apparent within the site boundaries (EGC, 2003b).

Industrial waste discharges unrelated to the operation of the Quad Cities site have occasionally affected aquatic habitat in the river. The river pool at Quad Cities encompasses a variety of aquatic habitats and communities. These habitats are diverse and represent important variety for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The river provides important habitat for sport and commercial fisheries as well as the biota that support those fisheries.

Major Mississippi River habitats around the station include channel habitats, border habitats, side channel habitats, river lake and pond habitat, slough habitat, and island lake habitat (EGC, 2003b).

9.3.3.3.5.7 Population Characteristics The site currently meets the population requirements of 10 CFR 100. The population distribution around the site is quite low with typical rural characteristics. Within a 5-mi radius of the site, the 1980 population density is approximately 72 people per mi2 and is less than 10 people per mi2 in some areas. The nearest population center is Clinton, Iowa (population approximately 32,828) located 8.5 mi to the northeast. Southwest of the site, at distances of 15 to 20 mi, are the Quad-Cities of Rock Island, Moline, and East Moline, Illinois, and Davenport, Iowa. Total population and density from the site out to a distance 9.3-20 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES of 25 mi are approximately 449,082 and 229 people per mi2, respectively. Davenport, Iowa, is the largest population center within 50 mi, with a population of over 100,000. Population growth near the plant has been slow and generally consistent with the rural population growth rate in the Quad Cities area of about 1 percent per year maximum. There are no known factors that would change the 1 percent maximum rural growth rate in the foreseeable future (EGC 2003c).

9.3.3.3.6 Zion Generating Station Zion Generating Station is located on the west shore of Lake Michigan about 40-mi north of Chicago, Illinois, and about 42-mi south of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The site is in the extreme eastern portion of the city of Zion, Illinois (Lake County). It is on the west shore of Lake Michigan, approximately 6-mi north-northeast of the center of the city of Waukegan, Illinois, and 8-mi south of the center of the city of Kenosha, Wisconsin. The site comprises approximately 250 ac, which are owned by the EGC. The site is traversed from west to east by Shiloh Boulevard near the northern property boundary.

The facility is a former nuclear facility that has been converted into a voltage-stabilizing facility. The two reactors were shut down in early 1998. The units generators were converted to synchronous condensers (EGC, 1998).

The most current information is from the Zion decommissioning SAR prepared in 1998.

However, some of the existing environmental information from the 1972 final environmental statement has been used to postulate impacts from siting a new nuclear facility at Zion. The Zion station is currently in SAFSTOR. The Zion facilities still exist; however, they are currently used for synchronous condenser operations. It is assumed that a new nuclear facility at the area would have roughly the same general environmental impact as the existing facility.

9.3.3.3.6.1 Consumptive Use of Water The plant's cooling water is drawn from Lake Michigan. The Lake County Public Water District operates a water intake about 1-mi north of the site and about 3,000 ft out in the Lake. Operation of a new plant will not result in releases greater than 10 CFR 20 limits at the point of discharge, and consequently, normal operation should not result in significant radioactivity concentrations in drinking water. The topography of the site and its immediate environs is relatively flat with elevations varying from the lake shoreline to approximately 20 ft above the level of the lake. Approximately 2-mi west of Lake Michigan is a topographical divide causing surface water drainage west of the divide to flow away from the lake while the east drainage flows toward the lake (EGC, 1998).

At the time of operation, the Zion facility used more than 1.5 million gpm water in its cooling system, along with minor consumption. The domestic water was obtained from the City of Zions system. It is assumed that for a new plant, consumptive water use would also come from the City of Zion (USNRC, 1972). However, consumptive use of water for the EGC ESP Facility depends on the cooling system and plant design selected. Bounding requirements for consumptive use of water from the EGC ESP Facility are described in Table 5.2-2. Consumptive use is expected to be minimal.

DEL-096-REV0 9.3-21

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 9.3.3.3.6.2 No Further Species Endangerment The Final Environmental Statement contained no reviews of endangered species to determine whether operation of the station would lead to further species endangerment.

The current information shows that no endangered species have been identified at the site.

However, Lake Michigan provides an important habitat and spawning grounds for several species.

9.3.3.3.6.3 Effects on Spawning Grounds There is no indication from available data that there are any spawning grounds in the vicinity of the site. Generally, inshore regions with sand-gravel bottoms are considered valuable spawning grounds in the Great Lakes ecosystem, and it is anticipated that additional impacts from construction and operation of a new facility at the site will affect these areas.

9.3.3.3.6.4 Effluent Discharge and Water Quality Aside from cooling water discharge, some industrial effluent and stormwater will be discharged. As noted in Section 5.2, one target established for the EGC ESP Facility is to maintain the cumulative discharge rate within CPS permit conditions. For the purposes of this review, it is anticipated that the bounding case for the proposed facility would be the permits historically issued at the Station.

9.3.3.3.6.5 Preemption and Other Land Use Issues The Zion Station site was acquired in the 1950s, and has been used as a generating facility and synchronous condenser site. Land use at the site and surrounding vicinity is expected to remain industrial. It is not anticipated that any additional land will be preempted if the site were used for a new nuclear facility.

9.3.3.3.6.6 Potential Effect on Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment The terrestrial ecology around the site is characterized by dunes, prairie, forest, and beach environments. There is a unique dune environment in the vicinity of the site, but there was no history of adverse impacts from operation of the Zion nuclear facility. There may be some temporary adverse impacts from construction of the EGC ESP Facility at Zion, as noted in the construction impacts discussion of this ER (see Chapter 4). There is no evidence of permanent adverse environmental impacts on terrestrial ecology if a new facility were to be built on this site.

The primary aquatic ecology is Lake Michigan. The lake is characterized by low nutrient concentrations and biological productivity. Near the Zion site, inshore waters are characterized as mesotrophic or intermediate, with respect to nutrients. Substantial declines in fish populations have occurred in Lake Michigan due to pollution and other uses.

Nothing in the USNRC's environmental statement or the decommissioning SAR indicate that operation of a facility at the site would adversely affect aquatic environments (USNRC, 1972; EGC 1998).

9.3.3.3.6.7 Population Characteristics The Zion station is less than 50 mi from Chicago, with a current population of more than 5 million. Additionally, The Waukegan-North Chicago area is predominantly an industrial region with 144 manufacturing establishments. The product of the largest of these manufacturing firms is pharmaceuticals and chemicals. The most predominant product of 9.3-22 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES the remainder is in the metallurgical and fabricated metal products field. The Zion-Winthrop Harbor area is a small industrial region. A portion of this industry is located between the western boundary of the site and the Chicago and Northwestern RR tracks, approximately 0.8-mi west of the plant location, and is light in nature. There are no schools or hospitals within 1 mi of the station. The site is bordered on the north and the south by the Illinois Beach State Park (EGC, 1998). The centers of the communities of Zion and Winthrop Harbor are located 1.6 mi and 2.5 mi, respectively, from the plant location.

The estimated population within 5 mi of the site for the year 2000 was 88,700 persons (USNRC, 1972). The 2002 population for Lake County is over 600,000. The Chicago/Cook County population is estimated at 5.3 million (US Census Bureau, 2003).

9.3.3.3.7 Site Comparison Summary All sites generally meet the criteria outlined in NURG 1555. However, three of the six candidate sites (e.g., Byron, Quad Cities, and Dresden) do not have enough remaining land at the site to construct and operate a new nuclear facility while remaining operational. The applicant has already determined that early retirement of existing plants is not preferable (see Section 9.2.4). Therefore, construction of new units on these sites would entail a loss of existing generating capacity, which would largely offsite the benefits of operation of the new units. The three remaining candidate sites (e.g., Braidwood, LaSalle, and Zion) have available land, but the impacts of construction and operation there would be greater than or equal to those postulated for the EGC ESP Site.

Braidwood and LaSalle may provide alternative sites, but neither is obviously superior, based on the site review. Braidwood is closer to larger population centers; as noted in the Braidwood USAR, the projected population within the vicinity is 187 per mi2. The LPZ is expected to reach nearly 2,000 people by 2020. Thus, impacts from severe accidents at Braidwood will be greater than or equal to the proposed EGC ESP Site. At the LaSalle County Station, the population within 5 mi is expected to grow to 1,273 by the year 2020, which maintains the low population density of 16.20. It is predicted that the density between 40 and 50 mi will increase to 292.7 people per mi2 by 2020. The site comparison showed that impacts of the EGC ESP Facility at Braidwood or LaSalle would be equal to those postulated for the EGC ESP Site.

Zion provides another alternative, and other than the proposed EGC ESP Facility, presents a viable alternative from a market view. The site is linked to existing transmission facilities and the transmission flow pattern around Chicago lends itself to additional generation north of the city. Unlike any of the other candidate sites, Zion is no longer operational.

However, the Waukegan-North Chicago area near Zion is predominantly an industrial region with 144 manufacturing establishments and an urban population similar to other Chicago suburbs. The greater Chicago area is home to more than 5 million people. Zion is on the shores of Lake Michigan, and, as noted in Section 9.3.3.3.6, environmental impacts from construction and operation of the EGC ESP Facility at Zion would be equal to or greater than the impacts postulated for the EGC ESP Site. Because Zion is also in a highly populated and industrialized area, impacts from severe accidents and socioeconomic factors would be disproportionately greater than or equal to those predicted for the EGC ESP Site.

The EGC ESP Site is the environmentally preferred site among the candidate sites:

DEL-096-REV0 9.3-23

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT

  • The postulated consumptive use of water at the EGC ESP Site is less than or equal to water use at other sites.
  • The EGC ESP Site does not contain any critical habitat or occurrence of listed threatened or endangered species. Therefore, the impact to any endangered species is less than or equal to the impact postulated for the other candidate sites.
  • The EGC ESP Site does not contain spawning grounds for any threatened or endangered species. Most other sites record no endangered species or spawning areas in the site vicinity. Quad Cities, as a bounding case, is near an important spawning area. Thus, the impact to any spawning areas are less than or equal to other candidate sites.
  • The EGC ESP Site impact review (see Chapters 4 and 5) does not postulate effluent discharge beyond the limits of existing NPDES permits or regulations. Based on the information available for the candidate sites, the impacts from effluent discharge are less than or equal to other candidate sites.
  • The EGC ESP Site review postulates no preemption or land use changes for construction and operation of the proposed facility. Likewise, it is not anticipated that preemption or other land use changes would be required to co-locate a facility at any of the candidate sites. Therefore impact would equal at all sites.
  • Terrestrial and aquatic impacts at the EGC ESP Site are noted in Chapters 4 and 5. The potential impact of a new nuclear facility on terrestrial and aquatic environments at the other sites varies, depending on the location of the site. However, with the exception of the Quad Cities site, it is anticipated that the impacts will be generally equal to those postulated for the EGC ESP Site.
  • Each site generally meets the population criteria of 10 CFR 100. However, candidate sites like Zion and Braidwood are located in largely urban areas with high population density, and construction or operation may result in disproportionate impacts in those areas. Therefore, the impact on population density would be greater than the EGC ESP Site. The impact at other candidate sites would be similar to those postulated for the EGC ESP Site.
  • The EGC ESP Site does not require decommissioning or dismantlement of an existing facility as required for Byron, Quad Cities or Dresden.

Therefore, none of the other existing nuclear sites is obviously superior to the EGC ESP Site on the basis of environmental considerations. Table 9.3-1 reviews the criteria in relation to all seven sites.

Although the preferred candidate sites are not obviously superior to the proposed EGC ESP Site, the applicant also considered the second test for superiority by reviewing economic, technological, and institutional factors. Three additional criteria were used to further evaluate these factors: 1) Ability to transmit to demand centers; 2) Not proximate to population centers; and 3) Ease of construction. The candidate sites are evaluated using these additional review criteria in the following sections.

9.3-24 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES 9.3.3.3.8 Ability to Transmit to Demand Centers Since the site will eventually support a merchant generating plant, EGC must consider opportunities the site offers for transmitting generated power to customers who buy it.

Each candidate site, including Clinton, has existing transmission corridors that may, according to discussions with the transmission operator and ComEd, be expanded to accommodate new power lines. However, early discussions with ComEd and Illinois Power noted that the southern end of Illinois has relatively sparse transmission and light loads as opposed to the heavily loaded lines serving Chicago. All sites except the EGC ESP Facility are in northern Illinois, and are affected by transmission congestion around the major metropolitan areas around Chicago and the Quad Cities (USDOE, 2001). Section 3.7 also describes the transmission systems and load requirements in southern Illinois.

Transactions between the Midwest, Southeastern, and Eastern transmission grids are limited because they are interconnected at only a few points through interties (USDOE, 2001). For example, electricity and pricing spikes in the Midwest in the summer of 1998 were caused in part by transmission constraints limiting the availability of the region to import electricity from other regions of the country that had available electricity (USDOE, 2001). Additionally, high levels of congestion are found from Minnesota to Wisconsin, the Midwest through the Mid-Atlantic, and often power must be routed through the Chicago hub (USDOE, 2002). Transmission capacity limits are predicted to affect reliability throughout the Great Lakes Region (USDOE, 2001). On the other hand, the existing site at Clinton offers more flexible transmission opportunities, since power can be transmitted to the Chicago hub, and south through other interconnections.

A high or medium score indicates that additional nuclear power generated at the site could be transmitted to different markets. Six of the seven sites were rated with medium ability, and the EGC ESP Site was rated with high ability, primarily because the site has direct interties in multiple directions, and flexible access opportunities to other markets.

Therefore, the EGC ESP Site is preferable with respect to transmission.

9.3.3.3.9 Not Proximate to Population Centers Sites with low populations within their vicinity were scored high. For example, the proposed EGC ESP Site is located about 6 mi from the Town of Clinton, and the smaller Town of Dewitt is also in the vicinity. Both towns (and other smaller towns in the vicinity) have low populations, and thus, the EGC ESP Site scores high. Sites that scored medium are in rural areas, but are nearer to large populations. For example, the other sites are located closer to the Chicago area, such as Zion and Braidwood, or are relatively close to other metropolitan areas, such as Quad Cities. These sites were not rated high because of their proximity to the larger population bases. Therefore, the EGC ESP Site is preferable with respect to its lack of proximity to population centers.

9.3.3.3.10 Ease of Construction The ability to achieve cost savings and potential ease of construction at an existing nuclear site is an important additional factor in selecting a site. For example, the EGC ESP Site scored high because only one unit is currently constructed, when most existing infrastructure at the facility was intended for two units. Thus, the EGC ESP Site presents opportunities in land availability and infrastructure that are not present at some of the other two-unit candidate sites, such as Quad Cities, Dresden, and Byron. The sites undergoing decommissioning (i.e., Zion) actually scored higher than the alternative sites with existing DEL-096-REV0 9.3-25

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 9.3 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT units because the decommissioning process has already begun and the dismantling process can shortly follow. One site (i.e., Dresden) with three units (two operating and one decommissioned) also scored medium. Sites with two existing and operating units scored low (e.g., Byron, Dresden, and Quad Cities), based on available land within the site boundaries for new construction, and the fact that one or both units would need to be removed from operation to acquire space for construction.

9.3.3.3.11 Summary Table 9.3-2 summarizes how each existing site was rated based on the factors described in this section. This table shows that the EGC ESP Site scored high in each secondary category.

9.3.4 Conclusions The EGC ESP Site was chose as the preferred site for reasons described below.

  • Alternative greenfield, brownfield, and nuclear sites offer no environmental advantages.

In fact, construction and operation of a new nuclear plant at each of the alternative sites would entail environmental impacts that are equal to or greater than those at the EGC ESP Site.

  • The EGC ESP Site is the best location from which to transmit generated power to demand centers. As noted above, congestion and reliability issues through the Chicago hub and surrounding areas have been documented in national grid studies. These reliability issues, as well as congestion problems north of Chicago into Wisconsin and the upper Midwest, make the EGC ESP Site a more reliable site. These studies also indicate that transmission constraints hinder a generators ability to sell cheap Midwest power to the south during periods of peak demand (USDOE, 2001). The EGC ESP Site is positioned to produce and transmit power through the Chicago hub if necessary, but the sparse transmission and light loads on the existing system will also allow reliable power transmission through interties to the Southeastern and Eastern grids. This is an important advantage over the other sites. The capability of these systems to support future market demand weighed heavily in favor of the EGC ESP Site.
  • Other sites are located in more suburban areas and lack the flexibility in site characteristics and areal extent that the EGC ESP Site possesses, and present potentially disproportionate socioeconomic and environmental impacts.
  • The facility at the EGC ESP Site was originally designed for two units, and much of the existing infrastructure can be utilized in the construction and operation of a new unit.

In summary, there are no alternative sites that are obviously superior to the EGC ESP Site in the region of interest.

9.3-26 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 9.4 -ALTERNATIVE FACILITY SYSTEMS 9.4 Alternative Facility Systems The design for the EGC ESP Facility has not yet been selected. The detail in this section depends on the selection of a vendor design, and the design of individual components of the system. As noted elsewhere in this ER (see Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5), the bounding parameters of a number of facility designs were used to develop the composite parameters for the site. Based on the evaluations provided in this ER, the site will accommodate the operational and environmental requirements for any one of them.

Therefore, alternative facility systems will be discussed at the COL stage, when the full spectrum of design alternatives will be available.

DEL-096-REV0 9.4-1

CHAPTER 9 References Chapter Introduction Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC). A Consumers Guide to Electric Services Restructuring.

Available at: http://www.icc.state.il.us/icc/Consumer/plugin/guide.htm. February 2, 2001. 1999.

Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB). Informational Order of the Board in the Matter of Natural Gas-fired, Peak-load Electrical Power Generating Facilities (Peaker Plants). R2001-010. Available at: http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/. June 14, 2002. 2000.

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Restructuring the U.S. Electric Power Industry. Available at: http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=3&catid=277. March 5, 2001. 2000.

Section 9.1 10 CFR 51.45. Code of Federal Regulations. Environmental Report.

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

40 CFR 1505. Code of Federal Regulations. NEPA and Agency Decisionmaking.

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 9.2 10 CFR 51. Code of Federal Regulations. Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.

Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd). 1999 Annual Report on the Environment.

Available at: http://www.ceco.com/graphics/1999_are.pdf. January 10, 2001. 2000.

Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd). Unicom Completes Sale of Fossil Plants and Peaking Units, Available at:

http://www.ceco.com/news/comed/display.asp?a=ComEd&rec_id=398. January 10, 2001.

December 15, 1999.

Federal Highway Administration (FHA). User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction. Available at: http://tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/ cbabs1.htm.

2000.

DEL-096-REV0 9.R-1

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION CHAPTER 9 - REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment for Illinois. DOE/ID-10430(IL). Available at: http://hydropower.inel.gov/state/il/il.pdf.

1997.

Illinois Administrative Code (IAC). Title 35, Environmental Protection, Part 217: Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, Subpart W: NOx Trading Program for Electrical Generating Units.

Available at: http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/title35/35conten.htm. December 26, 2000.

Johnansson, T. B., et. al., eds. Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity. Island Press.

Washington, D.C. 1993.

Kenergy Corporation (KE). Fuel Cell Technology - its role in the 21st century. Available at:

http://www.kenergy.com/ci/cinews/qtr4ci2000/technology.htm. June 19, 2002.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Wind Energy Atlas of the United States.

DOE/CH 10093-4. Available at: http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/. 1986.

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (USDOE/EIA). Annual Energy Outlook, 1994: With Projections to 2010. Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting.

USDOE/EIA-0383(94). Washington, D.C. January 1994.

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (USDOE/EIA). Electric Power Annual 1999, Volume II. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav2/epav2.pdf. October 26, 2000.

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (USDOE/EIA). Electricity Net Generation By Fuel, 1988, 1993-1997, Illinois. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/tables/il2p1.html. May 23, 2001. 1998.

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (USDOE/EIA). Renewable Resources in the U.S. Electricity Supply. USDOE/EIA-0561. Washington, D.C. February, 1993.

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (USDOE/EIA). State Electricity Profiles - Illinois. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/illinois.pdf. February 14, 2002.

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (USDOE/EIA). State Energy Data Report 1999. Consumption Estimates. DOE/EIA-0214(99). Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/sedr/contents.html. February 14, 2002.

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (USDOE/EIA). 2001 International Energy Outlook 2001. DOE/EIA-0484(2001). Washington, D.C. available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/fore_pub.html. February 19, 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal Combustion. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol. 1, Stationary Point Sources and Area Sources. AP-42. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ ap42c1.html. September 1998.

9.R-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 9 - REFERENCES U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). EPAs Ozone Transport Rulemaking.

Region 5. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/naaqs/nox.htm. 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Stationary Gas Turbines for Electricity Generation, Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol. 1, Stationary Point Sources and Area Sources.

AP-42. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ ap42c3.html. April 2000.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437. Washington, D.C. May 1996.

Section 9.3 10 CFR 100. Code of Federal Regulations. Reactor Site Criteria.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station Units 1 and 2, Environmental Report, Construction Permit Stage. 1973.

Commonwealth Edison (ComEd). Braidwood Station Environmental Report, Construction Permit Stage. 1973.

Deason, Jonathan P., et. al. Final Report: Public Policies and Private Decisions Affecting the Redevelopment of Brownfields: An Analysis of Critical Factors, Relative Weights and Areal Differentials. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Washington D.C.

Available at: http://www.gwu.edu/~eem/Brownfields/project_report/report.htm.

2001.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC). Dresden Generating Station Updated Safety Analysis Report. Revision 5. January 2003.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC). Applicants Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage, Dresden Nuclear Power Station. January 2003a.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC). Applicants Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station. January 2003b.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC). Braidwood Generating Station Updated Safety Analysis Report. Revision 8. December 2000.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC). Byron Generating Station Updated Safety Analysis Report. Revision 9. December 2002.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC). Zion Generating Station Decommissioning Safety Analysis Report. August 1998.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC). LaSalle County Generating Station Updated Safety Analysis Report. Revision 14. April 2002a.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC). Quad Cities Generating Station Updated Safety Analysis Report. Revision 7. January 2003c.

DEL-096-REV0 9.R-3

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION CHAPTER 9 - REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Heideke State Fish and Wildlife Area, Waterfowl Hunter Fact Sheet, 2002-2003 Season. Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/hunter_fact_sheet/r2hfs/hdl_wtfwl.htm. June 4, 2003.

Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS). Prairie Parklands, RRA, Northeast Illinois, USA.

Available at: http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cew/rra/site11.html. June 4, 2003.

U.S. Census Bureau. Table: Population Estimates by County, Illinois, Cook County and Lake County. Available at: http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/counties/tables/CO-EST2002/CO-EST2002-01-17.php. May 31, 2003.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Superfund Redevelopment Initiative, 2002 Pilot Snapshots. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington D.C. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pilot/072902.pdf. July 2002.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). National Priorities List Sites in Illinois.

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington D.C. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/il.htm. April 2003.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). National Energy Policy. Washington, D.C.

Available at: http://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases01/maypr/energy_policy.htm.

May 2001.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). National Transmission Grid Study. United States Department of Energy. Available at: http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ntgs/reports.html. May 2002.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Available at:

http://ecos.fws.gov/nwi_mapplet/summap.html. August 8, 2002.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Byron Station Units 2 and 3. Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455.

Washington, D.C. November 1982.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3. Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249.

Washington, D.C. September 1972.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3. Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249. Washington, D.C. November 1973.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Zion Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3. Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304.

Washington, D.C. December 1972.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437. Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.

1996.

9.R-4 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 9 - REFERENCES U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide-4.2. Revision 2. Washington, D.C. 1976.

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 9.4 None DEL-096-REV0 9.R-5

CHAPTER 9 Tables TABLE 9.2-1 Air Emissions from Coal-Fired Alternative Parameter Calculation Result Annual coal 583 MW 10,200 Btu 1,000 kW lb ton 24 hr 365 day 8,470,288 consumption 4 units x x x x x x 0.85 x x tons of unit kW x hr MW 9,648 Btu 2,000 lb day yr coal per year SOxa,c 38 x 1.01 lb ton 8,470,288 tons 8,127 tons x (

x 1 95/100 x ) SOx per ton 2,000 lb yr year NOxb, c 9.7 lb ton 8,470,288 tons 2,054 tons x (

x 1 95/100 x ) NOx per ton 2,000 lb yr year COc 0.5 lb ton 8,470,288 tons 2,118 tons x x CO per ton 2,000 lb yr year PMd 10 x 6.9 lb ton 8,470,288 tons 292 tons x (

x 1 99.9/100 x ) PM per ton 2,000 lb yr year PM10d 2.3 x 6.9 lb ton 8,470,288 tons 67 tons x (

x 1 99.9/100 x ) PM10 per ton 2,000 lb yr year a

USEPA, 1998, Table 1.1-1.

b USEPA, 1998, Table 1.1-2.

c USEPA, 1998, Table 1.1-3.

d USEPA, 1998, Table 1.1-4.

Notes: CO = carbon monoxide NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM = particulate matter PM10 = particulate matter having diameter nominally less than 10 microns SO2 = sulfur dioxide DEL-096-REV0 9.T-1

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION CHAPTER 9 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 9.2-2 Air Emissions from Gas-Fired Alternative Parameter Calculation Result Annual gas 3 102,118,571,753 572MW 6,120Btu 1,000kW ft 24hr 365day 3 consumption 4 unitx x x x 0.85x x x ft per year unit kWx hr MW 1,021Btu day yr Annual Btu 3 104,263,061 102,118,571,753 ft 1, 021 Btu MM Btu input x x MMBtu per year yr 3 6 ft 10 Btu SOxa 0.0034 lb ton 104,263,061 MMBtu 177 tons SOx per x x year MM Btu 2,000 lb yr NOxb 0.0109 lb ton 104,263,061 MMBtu 568 tons NOx per x x year MM Btu 2,000 lb yr COb 0.0023 lb ton 104,263,061 MMBtu 120 tons CO per x x year MMBtu 2,000 lb yr a

PM 0.0019 lb ton 104,263,061 MMBtu 99 tons filterable x x PM per year MMBtu 2,000 lb yr a

PM10 99 tons TSP 99 tons filterable PM10 per year yr a

USEPA, 2000, Table 3.1-2.

b USEPA, 2000, Table 3.1 database.

Notes: Btu = British thermal units CO = carbon monoxide MM = million NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM = particulate matter PM10 = particulate matter having diameter less than 10 microns SO2 = sulfur dioxide TSP = total suspended particulates 9.T-2 DEL-096-ER-REVEX1

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 9 - TABLES TABLE 9.2-3 Coal-Fired Alternative Characteristic Basis a

Unit size = 550 MW ISO rating net Set to match capacity of gas-fired alternative Unit size = 583 MW ISO rating grossa Calculated based on 6 percent onsite power Number of units = 4 Calculated to be approximate to EGC ESP facility net capacity of 2,200 MW Boiler type = tangentially fired, dry-bottom Minimizes nitrogen oxides emissions (USEPA, 1998).

Fuel type = bituminous, pulverized coal Typical for coal used in Illinois Fuel heating value = 9,648 Btu/lb 1999 value for coal used in Illinois (USDOE/EIA, 2000)

Fuel ash content by weight = 6.9 percent 1999 value for coal used in Illinois (USDOE/EIA, 2000)

Fuel sulfur content by weight = 1.01 percent 1999 value for coal used in Illinois (USDOE/EIA, 2000)

Uncontrolled NOX emission = 9.7 lb/ton Typical for pulverized coal, tangentially fired, dry-bottom, Uncontrolled CO emission = 0.5 lb/ton with low- NOx burner (USEPA, 1998)

Uncontrolled SOx emission = 38.4 lb/ton Uncontrolled PM = 10 lb/ton Typical for pulverized coal, tangentially fired, dry-bottom Uncontrolled PM10 = 2.3 lb/ton (USEPA, 1998)

Heat rate = 10,200 Btu/kWh Typical for coal-fired single-cycle steam turbines (USDOE/EIA, 2000)

Capacity factor = 0.85 Typical for large coal-fired units (Exelon Corporation experience)

NOX control = low NOX burners, overfire air and Best available and widely demonstrated for minimizing selective catalytic reduction (95 percent reduction) NOX emissions (USEPA 1998).

Particulate control = fabric filters (baghouse- Best available for minimizing particulate emissions 99.9 percent removal efficiency) (USEPA, 1998)

SOx control = Wet scrubber -lime (95 percent removal Best available for minimizing SOx emissions (USEPA, efficiency) 1998) a The difference between net and gross is electricity consumed onsite.

Notes: Btu = British thermal unit CO = carbon monoxide ISO rating = International Standards Organization rating at standard atmospheric conditions of 59°F, 60 percent relative humidity, and 14.696 pounds of atmospheric pressure per square inch kWh = kilowatt hour lb = pound MW = megawatt NOX = nitrogen oxides PM = particulate matter PM10 = particulate matter nominally less than 10 microns diameter SOx = sulfur oxides DEL-096-REV0 9.T-3

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION CHAPTER 9 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 9.2-4 Solid Waste from Coal-Fired Alternative Parameter Calculation Result Annual SOx 8,470,2887 ton coal 1.01 ton S 64.1 ton SO 2 170,833 tons of SOx per generated a x x year yr 100 ton coal 32.1 ton S Annual SOx 170,833 ton SO 2 162,291 tons of SOx per removed x (95/100) year yr Annual ash 8,470,288 ton coal 6.9 ton ash 583,865 tons of ash per generated x x (99.9/100) year yr 100 ton coal Annual lime 170,833 ton SO 2 56.1 ton CaO 149,512 tons of CaO per consumption b x year yr 64.1 ton SO 2 Calcium sulfate c 162,291 ton SO 2 172 ton CaSO 4

  • 2H 2 O 435,477 tons of x CaSO42H2O per year yr 64.1 ton SO 2 Annual scrubber 149,512 ton CaO (100 95) 442,952 tons of scrubber waste d x + 354,653ton CaSO4 *2H 2 O waste per year yr 100 Total volume of 3 244,724,862 ft3 of scrubber e

442,952 ton 2,000 lb ft scrubber waste x 40 yr x x waste yr ton 144.8 lb Total volume of 3 3 60,721,960 ft of ash 583,865 ton 100 87 2,000 lb ft ash dispensed x x 40 yr x x f,g yr 100 ton 100 lb onsite 3

Total volume of 305,446,822 ft of solid solid waste 244,724,862 ft3 + 60,721,960 ft3 waste disposed onsite Waste pile area 3 234 acres of solid waste 305,446,822 ft acre (acres) x 30 ft 2 43,560 ft Waste pile area 3 3,191 feet by 3,191 feet of (305,446,822 ft /30ft)

(ft x ft square) solid waste a

Calculations assume 100 percent combustion of coal.

b Lime consumption is based on total SO2 generated.

c Calcium sulfate generation is based on total SO2 removed.

d Total scrubber waste includes scrubbing media carryover.

e Density of CaSO42H2O is 144.8 lb/ft3.

f Density of coal bottom ash is 100 lb/ft3 (FHA, 2000).

g Assumed 87 percent of ash is recycled.

Notes: S = sulfur SO2 = sulfur dioxide CaO = calcium oxide (lime)

CaSO 2H2O = calcium sulfate dihydrate 9.T-4 DEL-096-ER-REVEX1

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 9 - TABLES TABLE 9.2-5 Gas-Fired Alternative Characteristic Basis a

Unit size = 550 MW ISO rating net: Manufacturers standard size gas-fired combined cycle plant Two 184-MW combustion turbines and a 182-MW heat recovery boiler Unit size = 572-MW ISO rating gross:a Calculated based on 4 percent onsite power Two 191.4-MW combustion turbines 189.3-MW heat recovery boiler Number of units = 4 Calculated to be approximate to EGC ESP Facility net capacity of 2,200 MW Fuel type = natural gas Assumed Heat rate = 6,120 Btu/kWh Manufacturers listed heat rate for General Electric Frame 7FA unit.

3 Fuel heating value = 1,021 Btu/ft 1999 value for natural gas used in Illinois (USDOE/EIA, 2000)

NOX emission = 0.0109 lb/MMBtu Typical for large SCR-controlled gas fired units with water-steam injection (USEPA, 2000)

CO emission = 0.00226 lb/MMBtu Typical for large SCR-controlled gas fired units with water-steam injection (USEPA, 2000)

Uncontrolled SOx emission = 0.0034 lb/ton Typical for gas-fired units (USEPA, 2000)

Uncontrolled PM emission = 0.0066 lb/MMBtu Typical for gas-fired units (USEPA, 2000)

Uncontrolled PM10 emission = 0.0066 lb/MMBtu Typical for gas-fired units (USEPA, 2000)

Capacity factor = 0.85 Typical for large gas-fired base load units NOX control = selective catalytic reduction (SCR) with Best available for minimizing NOX emissions (USEPA, steam/water injection (90 reduction) 2000) a The difference between net and gross is electricity consumed on site.

Notes: Btu = British thermal unit CO = carbon monoxide ft3 = cubic foot ISO rating = International Standards Organization rating at standard atmospheric conditions of 59°F, 60 percent relative humidity, and 14.696 pounds of atmospheric pressure per square inch kWh = kilowatt hour MM = million MW = megawatt NOX = nitrogen oxides PM = particulate matter PM10 = particulate matter nominally less than 10 microns diameter DEL-096-REV0 9.T-5

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION CHAPTER 9 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 9.2-6 Impacts Comparison Summary Proposed Action Impact Category (EGC ESP) Coal-Fired Generation Gas-Fired Generation Land Use Small Small Small Water Quality Small Small Small Air Quality Small Moderate to Large Moderate Ecological Small Small Small Resources Threatened or Small Small Small Endangered Species Human Health Small Moderate Small Socioeconomics Small Small Small Waste Management Small Moderate Small Aesthetics Small Small Small Cultural Resources Small Small Small Accidents Small Small Small 9.T-6 DEL-096-ER-REVEX1

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 9 - TABLES TABLE 9.2-7 Impacts Comparison Detail Proposed Action Coal-Fired Gas-Fired (EGC ESP) Generation Generation Alternative Descriptions EGC ESP for 20 years, followed New construction at the CPS site. New construction at the CPS site.

by construction, operation, and decommissioning Upgrade switchyard and Upgrade existing switchyard and transmission lines. transmission lines.

Upgrade existing switchyard and transmission lines.

Upgrade existing rail spur. Construct 2.5 miles of gas pipeline along existing rights-of-way.

Four 550-MW tangentially-fired, Four 550-MW units, each dry bottom units; capacity factor consisting of two 184-MW 0.85 combustion turbines and a 182-MW heat recovery boiler; capacity factor 0.85 New cooling water system with New cooling water system with New cooling water system with potential construction of new potential construction of new potential construction of new cooling towers. cooling towers. cooling towers.

3 Pulverized bituminous coal, 9,648 Natural gas, 1,021 Btu/ft ; 6,120 Btu/pound; 10,200 Btu/kWh; 6.9% Btu/kWh; 0.0034 lb sulfur/MMBtu; ash; 1.01% sulfur; 9.7 pound/ton 0.0109 lb NOx/MMBtu; nitrogen oxides; 8,470,288 tons 102,118,571,753 ft3 gas/yr coal/yr Low NOx burners, overfire air, and Selective catalytic reduction with selective catalytic reduction (95% steam/water injection.

NOx reduction efficiency).

Wet scrubber - lime desulfurization system (95% SOx removal efficiency); 149,512 tons limestone/yr Fabric filters (99.9% particulate removal efficiency) 580 workers 250 workers 25-40 workers DEL-096-REV0 9.T-7

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION CHAPTER 9 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 9.2-7 Impacts Comparison Detail Proposed Action Coal-Fired Gas-Fired (EGC ESP) Generation Generation Land Use Impacts SMALL - Construction at CPS SMALL - Construction at CPS SMALL - Construction at CPS would be in previously disturbed would be in previously disturbed would be in previously disturbed areas. Facility would consist of areas. The plant would upgrade areas. 110 acres for facility; approximately 150 acres. existing rail spur and use pipeline could be routed along transportation corridors. Forty existing rights-of-way and would years of ash and scrubber waste require an additional 40 acres for disposal would require 234 acres easement.

and construction of the power block and coal storage areas would impact approximately 300 acres.

Water Quality Impacts SMALL - Construction impacts SMALL - Construction impacts SMALL - Smaller cooling water minimized by use of best minimized by use of best demands (than coal), inherent in management practices. management practices. combined-cycle design Operational impacts minimized by Operational impacts minimized by use of best management use of best management practices practices by use of new cooling by use of new cooling water water system. system.

Construction of pipeline could cause temporary erosion and sedimentation in streams crossed by right-of-way.

Air Quality Impacts SMALL - Construction impacts MODERATE to LARGE - MODERATE -

minimized by use of best 8,127 tons SOx/yr 177 tons SOx/yr management practices. 2,054 tons NOx/yr 568 tons NOx/yr Operational impacts are 2,118 tons CO/yr 120 tons CO/yr negligible. 292 tons PM/yr 99 tons PM10/yra 67 tons PM10/yr Ecological Resource Impacts SMALL - Construction of power SMALL - Construction of the SMALL - Construction of power block would impact up to 150 power block and coal storage block and pipeline would impact up acres of terrestrial habitat, areas and 40 years of ash/sludge to 150 acres of terrestrial habitat, potentially displacing various disposal would impact potentially displacing various species. approximately 300 acres of species.

terrestrial habitat, displacing Potential new cooling towers various species. Potential new cooling towers would would reduce impingement, reduce impingement, entrainment, entrainment, and thermal impacts Potential new cooling towers and thermal impacts to aquatic to aquatic species would reduce impingement, species entrainment, and thermal impacts to aquatic species 9.T-8 DEL-096-ER-REVEX1

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 9 - TABLES TABLE 9.2-7 Impacts Comparison Detail Proposed Action Coal-Fired Gas-Fired (EGC ESP) Generation Generation Threatened or Endangered Species Impacts SMALL - No resident threatened SMALL - No resident threatened SMALL - No resident threatened or endangered species are known or endangered species are known or endangered species are known to occur at the site or along to occur at the site or along to occur at the site or along transmission corridors transmission corridors. transmission corridors Human Health Impacts SMALL -Impacts associated with MODERATE - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting by reference noise are not anticipated. reference GEIS conclusion that GEIS conclusion that some risk of Radiological exposure is not risks such as cancer and cancer and emphysema exists considered significant. Risk from emphysema from emissions are from emissions (USNRC, 1996).

microbiological organisms likely (USNRC, 1996).

minimal due to thermal characteristics at the discharge and lack of innoculant. Risk due to transmission-line induced currents minimal due to conformance with consensus code.

Socioeconomic Impacts SMALL - The socioeconomic SMALL - Increase in permanent SMALL - Increase in permanent impacts for this option are work force at CPS by 250 workers work force at CPS by 25-40 discussed in Section 3.8 and could affect surrounding counties, workers could affect surrounding Section 4.8. Public service but would be mitigated by sites counties, but would be mitigated impacts are not anticipated. proximity to metropolitan areas by the sites proximity to Location in low population area within the region. metropolitan areas within the without growth controls minimizes region.

potential for housing impacts.

Plant contribution to county tax base may be significant, and continued plant operation would benefit county. Capacity of public water supply and transportation infrastructure minimizes potential for related impacts.

Waste Management Impacts SMALL - Non-radiological MODERATE - 583,865 tons of SMALL - Almost no waste impacts will be negligible. coal ash per year and 442,952 generation Radiological impacts will be tons of scrubber sludge per year small. would require 234 acres over the 40-year term.

Aesthetic Impacts SMALL - Visual impacts would SMALL - Visual impacts would be SMALL - Visual impacts would be be consistent with the industrial consistent with the industrial consistent with the industrial nature of the site. nature of the site. nature of the site.

Cultural Resource Impacts DEL-096-REV0 9.T-9

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION CHAPTER 9 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 9.2-7 Impacts Comparison Detail Proposed Action Coal-Fired Gas-Fired (EGC ESP) Generation Generation SMALL - Impacts to cultural SMALL - Impacts to cultural SMALL - Impacts would be small resources would be unlikely due resources would be unlikely due due to developed nature of the to developed nature of the site. to developed nature of the site. site.

Impacts of Accidents SMALL - Although the SMALL - Impacts of accidents in SMALL - Impacts of accidents in consequences of accidents could coal-fired plants are not gas-fired plants are not applicable.

potentially be high, the overall risk applicable.

of accidents is low given the low probability of an accident involving a significant release of radioactivity.

a All total suspended particulates (TSP) for gas-fired alternative is PM10.

Notes: SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, any important attribute of the resource. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Footnote 3.

Btu = British thermal unit MW= megawatt 3

ft = cubic foot NOX = oxides of nitrogen gal = gallon PM10 = particulate matter having diameter less than 10 microns GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement (USNRC, 1996)

SHPO = State Historic Preservation Officer KWh = kilowatt-hour SOx = sulfur oxides lb = pound TSP = total suspended particulates MM = million yr = year 9.T-10 DEL-096-ER-REVEX1

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 9 - TABLES TABLE 9.3-1 Illinois Nuclear Station Comparison - General Criteria for All Sites Potential No Effects on Preemption Aquatic No Further Effects on Effluent or Adverse and Consumptive Species Spawning Discharge/ Impacts to Terrestrial Population Site Use of Water Endangerment Grounds Water Quality Land Use Ecology Characteristics Braid- Minor No record of No Discharges No Effects Meets 10 CFR 100 wood consumptive endangered potential anticipated to preemption or expected to Site is within 50 mi use species on the significant be within change to be similar to of Chicago and in site impacts land use - site current industrialized noted current licensed for 4 impacts suburbs with regulatory units potentially limits. disproportionate environmental impacts Byron Consumptive No record of No record Discharges Site licensed Effects Meets 10 CFR 100 groundwater listed threatened of anticipated to for 2 units; expected to use (for or endangered spawning be within currently be similar to cooling and species grounds at current operating at current potable water) the site regulatory license impacts limits capacity -

new construction would require additional area Clinton Minor No record of No record Discharges Site licensed Effects Meets 10 CFR 100 consumptive listed threatened of anticipated to for 2 units - 1 expected to use or endangered spawning be within unit operating be similar to species grounds at current No current the site regulatory preemption or impacts limits additional land use Dresden Minor No record of No record Discharges 3 units, 2 units Effects Meets 10 CFR 100 consumptive listed threatened of anticipated to operating 1 expected to use or endanger spawning be within unit not be similar to species grounds at current operational. current site regulatory No additional impacts limits land available at the site LaSalle Groundwater Occur in vicinity, No record Discharges 2 units Effects Meets 10 CFR 100 used for but not at site of anticipated to operating - expected to makeup, spawning be within licensed for 4 be similar to systems, and grounds at current units. No current potable site regulatory additional land impacts supply. limits required.

Quad Minor None at site- None at Discharges Site licensed Effects Meets to CFR 100 Cities consumptive listed aquatic site - anticipated to for 2 units; expected to use species present Essential be within currently similar to about 1.5 mi Habitat current operating at current from site. and regulatory license operation; spawning limits capacity - essential area about new habitat may 1.5 mi. construction be affected from site would require additional area DEL-096-REV0 9.T-11

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION CHAPTER 9 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 9.3-1 Illinois Nuclear Station Comparison - General Criteria for All Sites Potential No Effects on Preemption Aquatic No Further Effects on Effluent or Adverse and Consumptive Species Spawning Discharge/ Impacts to Terrestrial Population Site Use of Water Endangerment Grounds Water Quality Land Use Ecology Characteristics Zion Minor No listed No Discharges Current plant Effects Meets 10 CFR 100 consumptive threatened or spawning anticipated to not similar to Site is in an use endangered grounds be within operational. operation of urbanized, species reported reported, current No expected proposed industrial area with but site regulatory preemption or EGC ESP potentially presents limits adverse Facility at disproportionate characteri impacts to the EGC environmental stics land use ESP Site impacts.

common to inshore spawning grounds on Lake Michigan 9.T-12 DEL-096-ER-REVEX1

CHAPTER 9 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 9 - TABLES TABLE 9.3-2 Illinois Nuclear Station Comparison Alternatives Not Ability to Proximate Transmit to to Demand Population Ease of Site Centers Centers Construction Comments Braidwood Medium Medium Medium/High Braidwood is affected by the transmission bottleneck around the Chicago hub, and is also near population centers in Northeastern Illinois.

Two licensed units are currently operational -

Land is available for additional units.

Byron Medium High Low Byron is affected by the transmission bottleneck around the Chicago hub, despite its rural location.

Both licensed units are currently operational - no additional land is available for new units.

Clinton High High High Clintons rural location and low population in southern Illinois allows flexibility in transmission.

The site was approved for two units. One unit was built, and the area reserved for the second unit is available for construction.

Dresden Medium High Low Dresden is affected by the transmission bottleneck around the Chicago hub, despite its rural location. The site meets 10 CFR 100. Two units are operational, and a third unit is a Nuclear Historic Landmark. There is no available land within site boundaries to colocate a new nuclear facility, and therefore the site scores low for ease of construction.

LaSalle Medium High Medium/High LaSalles location meets 10 CFR 100 population requirements, but it is affected by the bottleneck around the Chicago hub. Both units are currently operational. Land is available for construction of a new unit.

Quad Medium Medium Low Quad Cities is affected by the transmission Cities bottleneck around major metropolitan areas such as the Quad Cities. And is also near a population centers in Northwestern Illinois. Both units are currently operational - there is no available land at the site for additional units.

Zion Medium/High Low Medium/High Zion is also affected by the transmission bottleneck around the Chicago hub, and is the most affected by Chicagos population. The units are not operational, and the facility is decommissioned. The two units were converted into a voltage stabilization facility to relieve pressure on Illinois Power lines during peak demand periods - the units would require dismantling for siting a new plants, and the stabilization function would probably be lost.

Construction may require demolition of existing structures, otherwise ability to build is high.

DEL-096-REV0 9.T-13

CHAPTER 10 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action This chapter provides a description of the environmental consequences of construction and operation of the EGC ESP Facility within and surrounding the EGC ESP Site. The chapter is organized into the following sections:

  • Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts (Section 10.1);
  • Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources (Section 10.2);
  • Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the Human Environment (Section 10.3); and
  • Benefit-Cost Balance (Section 10.4).

For purposes of this ER, the site is defined as the property within the fenceline (see Figure 2.1-3). The vicinity is the area within a 6-mi radius from the centerpoint of the powerblock footprint. The region of the site is the area between the 6-mi radius and the 50-mi radius from the centerpoint of the powerblock footprint.

DEL-096-REV0 10-1

CHAPTER 10 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 10.1 - UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 10.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts This section will discuss potential environmental consequences for the preconstruction and construction phases, as well as during regular facility operations.

10.1.1 Preconstruction and Construction The following is a list from Section 4.6.2 that indicates potential adverse environmental impacts that may be encountered during construction activities:

  • Noise;
  • Dust/air pollution;
  • Erosion and sedimentation;
  • Discharges from potential pollutant sources (effluents, wastes, spills, and material handling);
  • Traffic;
  • Surface water impacts;
  • Groundwater impacts;
  • Land use protection/restoration;
  • Water use protection/restoration;
  • Terrestrial ecosystem impacts;
  • Aquatic ecosystem impacts;
  • Socioeconomic impacts; and
  • Radiation exposure to construction workers.

The identified impacts have been discussed in Section 4.6.3. In the discussion of Chapter 4, it was concluded that these potential impacts will be considered minor impacts or having no impact on the site. In addition, local, state, and federal regulations and guidelines will be met during preconstruction and construction phases.

Table 10.1-1 provides a description of the potential minor environmental impacts that could occur during preconstruction and construction of the EGC ESP Facility, as well as actions that will be taken to mitigate such impacts. For a more detailed discussion of the proposed potential impacts during the preconstruction and construction phases, please refer to Chapter 4.

DEL-096-REV0 10.1-1

CHAPTER 10 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 10.1 - UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 10.1.2 Facility Operation The following is a list from Section 5.10 that indicates potential adverse environmental impacts that may be encountered during construction activities:

  • Noise;
  • Dust/air pollutants;
  • Erosion and sedimentation controls;
  • Effluents and wastes;
  • Traffic control;
  • Land use impacts;
  • Water-related impacts;
  • Water use impacts;
  • Cooling system impacts;
  • Radiological impacts from normal operations;
  • Environmental impacts of waste;
  • Transmission system impacts;
  • Socioeconomic impacts; and
  • Decommissioning impacts.

The identified impacts have been discussed in Section 5.10. In the discussion in Chapter 5, it was concluded that these potential impacts will be considered to have minor or no effects on the site. In addition, local, state, and federal regulations and guidelines will be met during preconstruction and construction phases.

Table 10.1-2 provides a description of the potential minor environmental impacts that may occur during regular facility operations, as well as actions that will be taken to mitigate such impacts. For a more detailed discussion of the proposed potential impacts during normal facility operation, please refer to Chapter 5.

10.1-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 10 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 10.2 - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 10.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources This section gives a summary of the irreversible environmental commitments and the irretrievable material commitments of resources associated with the construction and operation of the EGC ESP Facility. The section is organized into the following sections:

  • Irreversible Environmental Commitments (Section 10.2.1); and
  • Irretrievable Material Commitments of Resources (Section 10.2.2).

10.2.1 Irreversible Environmental Commitments The following areas are evaluated below for irreversible environmental commitments:

  • Land use;
  • Hydrological and water use;
  • Ecological (terrestrial and aquatic);
  • Socioeconomic;
  • Radiological; and
  • Atmospheric and meteorological.

10.2.1.1 Land Use The proposed location of the site is currently in partial use by the CPS. When the CPS was built, the site was zoned as industrial along Clinton Lake and designed for the CPS, as well as an additional generation unit. The transmission lines for the EGC ESP Site are expected to be constructed along existing rights-of-way; therefore, no new property will need to be acquired. The only new land use commitment is the small area within Clinton Lake where the cooling water intake structure will be built. The area that will be taken up by the intake structure is insignificant in comparison to the remaining area of the lake. Thus, since the area that will be lost is insignificant, there will be no irreversible environmental commitment.

10.2.1.2 Hydrological and Water Use The water that will be used for the project is expected to be drawn from Clinton Lake.

Clinton Lake is a man-made lake designed specifically for two units at the CPS. Water that is expected to be lost during the cooling process is water vapor that has evaporated from the cooling towers. This amount is assumed to be nearly insignificant in comparison to the total volume of Clinton Lake, which is 74,200 ac-ft at normal pool. Of the total volume of discharged water, a portion will evaporate from the lake surface, a portion will pass over or through the Clinton Lake Dam to the downstream Salt Creek, and the remaining portion will be drawn back to the plant intake and go through the heating and cooling cycle again.

Run-off from the upstream watershed will compensate for the loss of water through evaporation. Therefore, there will be a negligible irreversible hydrological commitment.

DEL-096-REV0 10.2-1

CHAPTER 10 -ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 10.2 - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 10.2.1.3 Ecological The primary non-industrial land that is expected to be utilized during construction is the right-of-way, which is expected to have a minimal short-term or long-term impact on terrestrial ecology. A small area of Clinton Lake below the water surface will also be disturbed for the installation of the new intake structure. Construction of the intake structure is anticipated to have a minimal impact on aquatic life, and therefore, no irreversible ecological commitment.

10.2.1.4 Socioeconomic The EGC ESP Facility will not draw from the communitys socioeconomic standing, but will produce jobs, revenue, and tax revenues. The EGC ESP Facility is expected to have no irreversible socioeconomic commitments, and will add to the economic growth of the surrounding region.

10.2.1.5 Radiological The EGC ESP Facility is expected to operate continuously until decommissioning. After the decommissioning process, it is assumed there will be no irreversible radiological commitments other than the actual material that was used during operation. The amount of radioactive material to be used is explained in Section 10.2.2.

10.2.1.6 Atmospheric and Meteorological While the EGC ESP Facility is in operation, it is expected that there will be very few pollutants discharged into the air. Water vapor will be the main constituent of any emissions released into the atmosphere. The EGC ESP Facility will probably have back-up diesel generators, but they will only be used in the event of an emergency. In addition, the EGC ESP Facility will also operate auxiliary boilers and gas turbines, which will discharge air emissions. Federal, state, and local guidelines and regulations will be met, and any necessary air permits will be secured before operations begin, although diesel generators that are used only for backup will not likely require permits. Since these emissions will have no bearing on the meteorological aspects of the region, it is assumed that there will be no irreversible atmospheric or meteorological commitments.

10.2.2 Irreversible Material Commitments of Resources Any plans for construction must be deferred to the COL phase since the design of the facility has not yet been chosen. This report discusses the proposition of building the facility at the selected site, but does not discuss the actual construction details. Once the design of the facility has been chosen, the staff will be able to discuss the materials that are irreversibly committed to construction and operation.

10.2-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 10 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT SECTION 10.3 - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT PRODUCTIVITY OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the Human Environment This section provides a summary of any use of land or the surrounding environment that will be precluded due to the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the EGC ESP Facility.

10.3.1 Construction Preemptions and Productivity As summarized in Section 10.1, any short-term preemptions due to construction are very limited. Since the construction of the CPS, the entire site has been zoned as industrial. Also, the site was designed to accommodate an additional power generation unit. Therefore, no land will be converted to a different zone status. During construction, portions of the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area may be closed to the public. It is assumed that this will be temporary, and the closed areas will reopen upon the completion of construction.

It is probable that some wildlife will be disturbed during construction. Terrestrial wildlife may be disturbed while additional transmission lines are being constructed on existing rights-of-way, and aquatic wildlife may be disturbed during the construction of the submerged cooling water intake structure within Clinton Lake. Once construction is completed, it is assumed that the wildlife that was disturbed will return to their original habitats.

Ambient noise levels will also increase during construction activities, but most construction will take place during regular business hours to minimize disturbance to local residents.

The OSHA, federal, and local guidelines will be met to reduce noise levels. There may be a slight increase in air emissions due to dust, concrete facility operations, and fuel burning equipment that will be used during construction. Precautions will be taken to reduce emissions, required regulations will be upheld, and required permits will be acquired.

None of these potential impacts are expected to have any long-term effect on the surroundings. The benefits of construction greatly outweigh any possible preemptions, and impacts are anticipated to be minor. Construction jobs will be created to support the local economy and stimulate economic growth. In addition, facility construction will decrease tax burdens on the local taxpayers by supplying local municipal governments with additional tax funding.

There are no anticipated long-term environmental impacts or preemptions due to construction of the EGC ESP Facility.

10.3.2 Operations Preemptions and Productivity As summarized in Section 10.1, any short-term preemptions due to plant operations are very limited. Since the exact model of the reactor has not yet been chosen, the cooling system specifications are estimated based on the generalizations made about the facility.

Safety-related cooling towers of the mechanical draft type will be located adjacent to the facility. Either mechanical draft or natural hyperbolic draft type cooling towers will be provided for the normal (non-safety) plant cooling services. Both wet mechanical draft cooling and dry mechanical draft cooling are under consideration. If dry mechanical draft DEL-096-REV0 10.3-1

CHAPTER 10 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION SECTION 10.3 - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PRODUCTIVITY OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT cooling towers will be used, there will be no impacts on the environment. If wet mechanical draft cooling towers will be used, there will be a mist plume at the top of the tower. The mist plume allows for the possibility of minor salt drift, fogging, and icing to occur.

However, any effects resulting from this will be too minor to impact the environment outside of the site.

It is expected that the cooling water discharge from the EGC ESP Facility will slightly increase the temperature of Clinton Lake. A combination of wet/dry cooling may be used in order to minimize the use of cooling water. Since the cooling tower blowdown will be cooled to within 15°F of the wet bulb temperature, the thermal discharges to the lake from the EGC ESP Facility will be limited.

There will be an increase in ambient noise levels due to the operation of the facility. Most of the noise pollution will be the result of industrial equipment, and the effects are expected to remain primarily within the site boundaries. Larger, louder pieces of equipment will be used conservatively, and their use will be limited on weekends.

The volume of traffic on local roads will slightly increase due to the number of employees commuting to the facility. It is assumed that the employees will be evenly distributed throughout the region. Based on the evaluation provided in Section 4.1.1.2, the roads are equipped to handle an increase in traffic volume.

Air emissions are anticipated to increase slightly as a result of burning fuel for equipment, but federal, state, and local regulations and guidelines will be met, and permits will be secured, as necessary.

Radiological monitoring programs will be enacted to measure and reduce radiation levels emitted by the facility. These impacts will not have any significant negative long-term impacts on the surrounding environment.

The benefits of the EGC ESP Facility greatly outweigh any environmental impacts. The purpose of the power plant is to generate approximately 2,180 MWe of electricity, as estimated in the PPE for the potential reactors under consideration for a regionally deregulated market. In addition, it will help to decrease energy costs for customers located within the region. The principal long-term benefit of the facility is represented by the production of electrical energy. The economic productivity of the facility, when used for this purpose, will be much larger than that from the current site use. It is assumed that the short-term impacts of the land use will be eliminated when the facility is decommissioned.

The project will also create permanent jobs for the local community. It is assumed that the income of the employees will be reinvested into local businesses, thus, promoting economic growth within the region. The taxes collected from the proposed site are expected to help provide funding to several regional municipal governments that are in need of additional funds to help decrease the burden on taxpayers.

In conclusion, the negative aspects of facility construction and operation, as they affect the human environment, are outweighed by the positive long-term enhancement of regional productivity through the generation of electrical energy, creation of jobs, and stimulation of the local economy.

10.3-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 10 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 10.4 - BENEFIT-COST BALANCE 10.4 Benefit-Cost Balance This section provides a summary of the benefits and tradeoffs considered in the decision to colocate the EGC ESP Facility at the CPS.

The guidelines provided by NUREG-1555, ESRP 10.4 expect a discussion of the benefits and costs associated with construction and operation of the EGC ESP Facility at the CPS (USNRC, 1999). Costs and benefits of construction and operation of the facility are not considered because 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2) does not require an assessment of benefits for this ER.

Further, recent proposed revisions to NUREG-0800 and the Draft Review Standard (RS) 002 state that ESRP 10.4 need not be included in the ESP ER.

DEL-096-REV0 10.4-1

CHAPTER 10 References Chapter Introduction None Section 10.1 10 CFR 20. Code of Federal Regulations. Standards for the Protection Against Radiation.

Section 10.2 None Section 10.3 None Section 10.4 10 CFR 52.17. Code of Federal Regulations. Contents of Applications.

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 10.R-1

CHAPTER 10 Tables TABLE 10.1-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts During Preconstruction and Construction Unavoidable Impact Minor Impacts Based on Adverse Category Applicants Proposal Actions to Mitigate Impacts Impacts Land Use None (Land is already zoned as ---a None industrial to support an additional power station, and transmission lines will be constructed in existing right-of-way corridors)

Hydrological and There may be minor sediment run- The SWPPP outlines the actions that will None Water Use off into Clinton Lake from mitigate sediment run-off during the construction activities construction phase Ecological Wildlife may temporarily be Construction is temporary, and disturbed None (Terrestrial) disturbed by construction of wildlife is expected to return upon completion transmission lines in existing rights- of construction of-way Ecological Construction of the cooling water Wetlands and floodplains will be restored; None (Aquatic) intake structure will impact open there is expected to be only minor water habitats of Clinton Lake displacement of open waters and shoreline habitat Socioeconomic Noise related to construction OSHA, federal, and local guidelines will be None (Noise) met to ensure noise is kept to a minimum Socioeconomic Traffic on the roads surrounding the Most traffic will occur during normal business None (Traffic) site will increase during construction hours, and the roads are equipped to handle the increase in traffic Socioeconomic Air pollution due to dust, concrete Applicable air pollution control regulations will None (Air emissions) plant operations, and fuel burning be met, and permits will be secured where equipment required Socioeconomic Portions of the Clinton Lake State Upon completion of construction, it is None (Recreational) Recreation Area may temporarily be expected that any closed areas would reopen closed due to disturbances by again construction Radiological Construction workers may be The CPS has a series of structures to reduce None exposed to slightly higher radiation radioactive emissions to the surrounding levels due to the CPS environment, and Radiological Monitoring Programs will be active. In 2001, all radioactivity levels were similar to pre-operational ambient radioactivity levels emitted by the natural environment Atmospheric and None ---a None Meteorological Environmental None ---a None Justice a

Data not available DEL-096-REV0 10.T-1

CHAPTER 10 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION CHAPTER 10 TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 10.1-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts During Plant Operations Unavoidable Minor Impacts Based on Applicants Adverse Impact Category Proposal Actions to Mitigate Impacts Impacts Land Use In the event that wet mechanical draft

  • Dry mechanical draft cooling is None cooling is used for the cooling tower, there still under consideration will be a mist plume from the cooling tower, which allows the potential for minor
  • If wet mechanical draft cooling is salt drift, fogging, and icing to occur used, the results from fogging, salt drift, and icing will be too minor to have any land impacts Hydrological and Discharged cooling water from the A combination of wet/dry cooling will None Water Use proposed facility may slightly increase the most likely be used to minimize the temperature of the lake use of water a

Ecological None --- None (Terrestrial)

Ecological Cooling water may change the thermal EGC personnel will be monitoring the None (Aquatic) characteristics of Clinton Lake thermal characteristics of Clinton Lake according to Section 6.1 Socioeconomic During operational activities, the ambient OSHA, federal, and local guidelines None (Noise) noise levels of the surrounding areas will will be met to ensure noise is kept to increase a minimum, as well as providing employees with ear protection Socioeconomic Traffic during operations will be Most traffic will occur during normal None (Traffic) significantly lower than during construction business hours, and the roads are equipped to handle the increase in traffic Socioeconomic Emissions from fuel-burning will occur Applicable air pollution control None (Air emissions) from vehicular traffic regulations will be met Radiological Potential for radiation doses to members A REMP will be established in None of the public accordance with 10 CFR 20.1501 (see Section 6.2) a Atmospheric and None --- None Meteorological Environmental None ---a None Justice a

Data not available 10.T-2 DEL-096-ER-REVEX

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site APPENDIX A Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 0 5 16043 120392152600 Schnake, Jeff 1 20011228 171 Water 0 5 16044 120392120500 Seaman, Rodney #1 19950817 188 Water 0 5 16045 120392151200 Tickle, Michael & Debbie 1 20010907 255 Water 0 5 16046 120390013500 Warner, C. M. 19320101 73 Water 0 5 16047 120392138800 Blue, June 19990319 280 Water 0 5 16048 120392081000 Gibbs, Jim 1 19860729 320 Water 0 5 16049 120390013600 Graham, Fred 19440501 81 Water 0 5 16050 120390013700 Cash, Homer 19460101 78 Water 0 5 16051 120392064100 Champaign Asphalt Co. 1 19750915 275 WTST 0 5 16052 120392064200 Champaign Asphalt Co. 2 19750918 305 WTST 0 5 16053 120392064300 Champaign Asphalt Co. 3 19751007 335 WTST 0 5 16054 120392079200 Smith, Roger Keith 3 19850619 71 Water 0 5 16056 120390013900 Gibson, R. L. 19470501 131 Water 0 5 16057 120390013800 Gibson, Rube 19451101 47 Water 0 5 16058 120390014000 Jackson, Andrew 19390101 78 Water 0 5 16059 120390014100 Wantland, Albert 19410101 61 Water 0 5 16060 120392071000 Wantland, Darrell 2 19770505 73 Water 0 5 16062 120392101900 Daniel, Sam & Carol 1 19920519 79 Water 0 5 16063 120392079900 Ill Dept of Conservation 1-85 19850920 255 Water 0 5 16064 120390056300 Lane, Ferrell K. 19710716 250 Water 0 5 16065 120392134000 Lane, Ken 19980627 270 Water 0 5 16066 120392077900 Arnold, Michael R. 19810810 61 Water 0 5 16068 120392096300 Jordan, Jerry & Mary 2 19890811 70 Water 0 5 16069 120392104000 Jordan, Mary C. 2 19921210 320 Water 0 5 16072 120390014600 McBride, Glenn 1 19400101 80 Water 0 5 16075 120392102000 Kovak, Pete 1 19920803 282 Water 0 5 16076 120392150500 Koyak, Pete 20010912 290 Water 0 5 16077 120392092900 O'Neill, Robert #1 1 19880926 275 Water 0 5 16078 120392134100 Thayer, Kevin 19980528 272 Water 0 5 16079 120392102100 Utterback, Russell #1 1 19921001 282 Water 0 5 16081 120392134200 Cooley, Jeff 19980630 276 Water 0 5 16082 120390014700 Sprague, Martin 19400101 43 Water 0 5 16083 120390014800 Atteberry 19460401 227 Water 0 5 16084 120392139400 Creek Township 19990324 42 Water 0 5 16085 120392101100 Daniels, James O. 19910627 41 Water 0 5 16086 120392071100 Harmon, Verneda 3 19760618 42 Water 0 5 16087 120392095900 Miller, John E. #1 1 19901017 290 Water 0 5 16088 120392130600 Riddle, Lorin 19971018 280 Water 0 5 16089 120390056100 Roberts, Chas. 1 19710520 38 Water 0 5 16090 120392091800 Shipp, Gowdy 19880623 40 Water 0 5 16091 120392143900 Trummel, Milton G. 20000615 59 Water 0 5 16092 120390014900 Ward, Ellen 19410101 68 Water 0 5 16093 120392093000 Webb, Minnie B. 19880926 50 Water 0 5 16094 120392118100 Cowles, Irvin 19520331 246 Water 0 5 16095 120392112500 Trimble, Timothy 19940620 270 Water 0 5 16096 120390015000 Thompson, Roy 19450101 67 Water 0 5 16097 120390015100 Emery, J. W. 1 19400101 75 Water 0 5 16098 120392066500 Weldon, Village of 1-77 19770209 360 WTST 0 5 16099 120392067900 Weldon, Village of 5 19780301 293 Water 0 5 16100 120390015200 Wise, Thelbert 19450401 73 Water 0 5 16145 120392145400 Riddle, Chris 20000411 257 Water 0 5 16146 120390016700 Shell, Doc 19360101 92 Water 0 5 16147 120392121400 Twist, Gary 19951212 280 Water 0 5 16148 120392097000 Twist, Rob 19890630 256 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-1

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 0 5 16149 120392150900 Coffman-Burgner Trust 20010829 268 Water 0 5 16150 120392064500 Weldon 3-75 19750101 295 WTST 0 5 16151 120392064000 Weldon, City of 2-75 19750101 358 WTST 0 5 16152 120392109600 Campell (Weldon, City of 1-62 175 WTST 0 5 16153 120392064400 Weldon 1-75 19750101 255 WTST 0 5 16178 120392097200 Griffin, Leta #1 1 19900418 275 Water 0 5 19220 120392115900 Payne, Agnes 19490716 86 Water 0 5 19221 120390053400 Payne, Richard 19690911 42 Water 0 5 19254 120392071900 Wagner, Merle G. #10 10 19781012 117 Water 0 5 19331 120392104400 Fiocchi, Tanda 1 19930512 67 Water 0 5 19332 120392132100 Luster, Larry M. Jr. 19970712 62 Water 0 5 19333 120392132200 Stone, Bill & Lori 1 19970604 60 Water 0 5 19334 120392125700 Strohkirch, Roy 19961103 115 Water 0 5 19335 120392125800 Toohill, Bob #1 19961016 59 Water 0 5 19336 120392097700 Zwick, Thomas 19900615 89 Water 0 5 19337 120392097800 Kuntz, Nancy & Steven #1 1 19900508 98 Water 0 5 19338 120392097900 Wilson, Rodney 2 19900829 68 Water 0 5 19342 120390023300 Hoblit, H. K. 1 19320101 70 Water 0 5 19343 120390023400 Wilson, P. K. 19400101 80 Water 0 5 19344 120392132300 Morris, Martin 1 19970529 80 Water 0 5 19345 120392140500 Phillips, Nick 3 19990515 310 Water 0 5 19346 120392102700 Snyder, George & Diana #1 1 19920409 289 Water 0 5 19347 120392100500 Spencer, Jessie L. 19911003 51 Water 0 5 19348 120390023500 Walker, Carl 19460101 87 Water 0 5 19349 120390023600 Warner, John Jr. 19400101 60 Water 0 5 19351 120392147000 Hall, Charles & Teresa 20000904 72 Water 0 5 19352 120392119500 Winchell, Mike 19950801 67 Water 0 5 19353 120390023700 Lampe, Henry 19451001 52 Water 0 5 19354 120392092100 Sanders, William N. 1 19880831 81 Water 0 5 19355 120390023800 Freudenstein, E. L. 19410101 50 Water 0 5 19356 120392098100 Thorpe Seed Co. 19890217 365 Water 0 5 19357 120392098200 Thorpe Seed Co. #5 5 19890222 375 Water 0 5 19358 120390023900 Lynch, Mrs. Ed 19400101 46 Water 0 5 19359 120390024000 Robison, Wm. 1 19400101 223 Water 0 5 19360 120392148700 Anderson, Patrick & Julie 2 20010719 75 Water 0 5 19361 120392093100 Campbell, Monte #1 1 19880831 352 Water 0 5 19362 120390051200 Dinsmore, Tom 19270101 81 Water 0 5 19363 120392092500 Harp Township 1 19880930 67 Water 0 5 19364 120392116400 Husted, Terry #1 19941221 340 Water 0 5 19365 120392067600 Methodist Church(Ill. Power) 19600101 90 Water 0 5 19366 120392098300 Moody, Larry 1 19900720 350 Water 0 5 19367 120392142000 Moody, Larry 19991116 69 Water 0 5 19369 120392068100 Illinois Power Co. 1 19780925 60 Water 0 5 19370 120392076100 Illinois Power Co. 1-78 19780915 60 WTST 0 5 19371 120392076200 Illinois Power Co. 2-78 19780925 60 WTST 0 5 19372 120392067500 Illinois Power Company 19771001 275 Water 0 5 19373 120390045200 Palmer, Byron 1 237 Water 0 5 19374 120390045300 Palmer, Byron 2 150 Water 0 5 19375 120390024200 Dawson, Noble 19461201 64 Water 0 5 19376 120390024300 Harrold, Olive 1 19400101 101 Water 0 5 19377 120392104500 IL Power Co. Clinton Power St. 19930719 86 Water 0 5 19378 120392111600 Illinois Power Co. TH 2-80 19811231 260 Water 0 5 19379 120392111800 Illinois Power Co. TH 1-81 19810102 320 Water 0 5 19380 120392111900 Illinois Power Co. TH 2-81 19810105 260 Water 0 5 19381 120392136200 IL Power Clinton Station 19980804 310 Water 0 5 19382 120392063000 Illinois Power 1-74 19740701 413 WTST 0 5 19383 120392063100 Illinois Power 2-74 19740701 408 WTST 0 5 19384 120392063200 Illinois Power 3-74 19740801 413 WTST 0 5 19385 120392063300 Illinois Power 4-74 19740808 400 WTST DEL-096-REV0 A-2

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 0 5 19386 120392076000 Illinois Power Co. 1 19810306 340 Water 0 5 19387 120390054500 Illinois Power Company 1 19740925 353 Water 0 5 19388 120392062100 Illinois Power Company 19740901 340 WATRS 0 5 19389 120392121700 Illinois Power Company 19951214 90 Water 0 5 19390 120392106400 Illinois Power Company#TH5-74 19740814 358 Water 0 5 19392 120390024500 Ozark Pipe Line Co. 19260101 228 Water 0 5 19393 120392136300 Bray, Mike 19980729 90 Water 0 5 19394 120392125900 Lockwood, Jim #3 19960914 350 Water 0 5 19395 120392067800 Thomason,Gary & Holland,John 19780701 350 Water 0 5 19396 120392142100 White Oaks Estates 2 20000114 356 Water 0 5 19397 120392136400 Hulvey, Don 19981013 67 Water 0 5 19398 120392072100 Irvin, Robert 1 19770623 305 Water 0 5 19399 120392112700 Myers, Samuel 19940604 360 Water 0 5 19400 120392116100 Rice, Bob 1 19920904 62 Water 0 5 19401 120392102800 Szymkiewicz, Dave 1 19910425 360 Water 0 5 19402 120390024600 Wilson, R. 1 19400101 184 Water 0 5 19403 120392072200 Bruce, Vivian #1 1 19790503 53 Water 0 5 19404 120392116000 Griffith, Frank 19630807 45 Water 0 5 19405 120392098400 Koons, Robert Keith 1 19891018 45 Water 0 5 19406 120392112800 Scharff, John 1 19940302 55 Water 0 5 19407 120392136500 Ferguson, Dave 19980715 36 Water 0 5 19408 120392131000 Jordan, Mary 19971118 333 Water 0 5 19409 120392138000 Tedrick, Julie & Mark 19981109 66 Water 0 5 19410 120390056900 Best, Vachel 19711025 68 Water 0 5 19411 120392118800 Brannan, David #2 19950503 290 Water 0 5 19412 120392146200 Cisco, David 20001101 282 Water 0 5 19414 120390024700 Reeser 19390101 72 Water 0 5 19415 120390024800 Walker, Carl 19380101 70 Water 0 5 19416 120390025400 Miller, Floyd V. 19461101 42 Water 0 5 19417 120390025500 Spencer, Ray 19450501 38 Water 0 5 19418 120390025600 Walker, Carl (Mgr.) 19460701 115 Water 0 5 19419 120392112100 Illinois Power Co. TH 1-80 19800630 340 Water 0 5 19420 120392112000 Lake Clinton Marina TH 1-79 19790824 320 Water 0 5 19421 120392118400 Clinton Rec. Area TH 4-81 19810425 280 Water 0 5 19422 120392095200 IL Power Co., Etal 2 19800424 340 Water 0 5 19430 120390025900 Keys Luella & Mary 1 19420101 128 Water 0 5 19431 120392116200 Crawford, F.G. 19550331 72 Water 0 5 19432 120390026000 Dawson, Noble 19390101 64 Water 0 5 19433 120390026100 Watson, Grover 19450501 72 Water 0 5 19436 120390026200 McConkey, Carl 1 19420101 52 Water 0 5 19438 120390055400 Monfort, Thomas N. 19710401 187 Water 0 5 19458 120390027600 Dawson, Noble 19420101 228 Water 0 5 19459 120392115400 Fleener, Al 1 19941004 64 Water 0 5 19460 120392139200 Hadden Builders 19981216 300 Water 0 5 19461 120392142300 Zimmerman, Paul 2 19981218 200 Water 0 5 19462 120392100800 Bowling, Steve 1 19910525 67 Water 0 5 19463 120392066600 Dewitt, Village of 1-77 19770214 300 WTST 0 5 19464 120392120700 Reeder, Nellie 19951011 60 Water 0 5 19465 120390027700 Garby, Lon #1 1 19390101 74 Water 0 5 19467 120390027800 Moore, C. H. Est. 19430101 175 WTST 0 5 19477 120390028200 Blue, Lela M. 19400201 74 Water 0 5 19478 120392121200 Reynolds, Don 208 Water 0 5 19479 120392134700 Reynolds, Don 1 19960401 176 Water 0 5 19480 120392080000 Reynolds, Donald L. #1 1 19850820 196 Water 0 5 19481 120392146400 Shofner, Dan 2 20001006 160 Water 0 5 19482 120392091500 Twist, Robert 19880531 100 Water 0 5 19483 120392124000 Holtzscher, Dale #1 19960608 70 Water 0 5 19484 120392113700 Sheets, Dale 1 19940420 65 Water 0 5 19485 120392103000 Stoffer, Jeff 1 19920911 186 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-3

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 0 5 19486 120392066800 DeWitt, Village of 2-77 19770218 270 WTST 0 5 19487 120392068000 Dewitt City 19771001 169 Water 0 5 19488 120392111700 Illinois Power Co. TH 3-80 19801231 280 Water 0 5 19489 120390028300 Reeser, Rolin 19390901 70 Water 0 5 19490 120390028400 Baker, Garfield 19460101 92 Water 0 5 19492 120392128900 Ill Power Recreation Area TH# 1-80 WTST 0 5 19493 120392132600 Weldon Fertilizer & Lumber,Inc 19970829 62 Water 0 5 19494 120392119600 Weldon Fertilzer, Inc. 19950814 235 Water 0 5 19495 120390028500 Adams Estate 1 19420101 175 Water 0 5 22672 120392126200 Buchanan, Steve 19961024 175 Water 0 5 22683 120392087600 Dupree, Jack 1 19871018 77 Water 0 5 22684 120392113100 Sloat, Michael 19940126 265 Water 0 5 22685 120392081100 Snyder, George 1 19860731 293 Water 0 5 22686 120390032900 Spiddle, W. D. 19470901 77 Water 0 5 22687 120392143600 Cope, Christopher 20000511 65 Water 0 5 22688 120392137200 Dusck, Brad 19980728 81 Water 0 5 22689 120392135300 McGee, Robert F. 19980713 135 Water 0 5 22690 120392137300 McGee, Robert F. 19980721 77 Water 0 5 22691 120392142800 McGee, Ryan E. 19990817 81 Water 0 5 22692 120392113200 Rosenstock, John 300 Water 0 5 22693 120390058900 Thrasher, Richard 2 19720415 65 Water 0 5 22694 120392118900 While, Thomas J. 19950714 44 Water 0 5 22695 120392121800 While, Tom #2 19951226 120 Water 0 5 22696 120392098800 Wilson, Robert D. 1 19901213 73 Water 0 5 22697 120392079300 Wissmiller, George 19850701 269 Water 5 10 13759 121150058400 Welge, Fred 19400101 234 Water 5 10 13760 121150058500 Maroa Pump Station Water Well 19390101 258 Water 5 10 13761 121152223200 Phillips Pipeline Co. 2 19900720 305 Water 5 10 13762 121152248100 Section 5 Farm 19950318 273 Water 5 10 13763 121150058600 Ennis Estate 19440301 60 Water 5 10 13764 121150058700 Likens, Charles 19400101 59 Water 5 10 13766 121152232400 Hill, Craig 1 19921028 262 Water 5 10 13767 121152285800 Brelsfoard, Jason 20000304 262 Water 5 10 13768 121150058800 Myers,J.J.(Brandt, Mrs. Betty) 19410101 95 Water 5 10 13769 121152272200 Potrafka, Wayne 19980516 271 Water 5 10 13770 121152289200 Ulrey, Brent 20000814 270 Water 5 10 13771 121150058900 Willow Glen School 19391001 69 Water 5 10 13772 121152127200 Munch, Frank 19780621 228 Water 5 10 13773 121152293900 Pedigo, John 1 20010321 262 Water 5 10 13842 121150059400 Decatur, City of 9 19540201 287 Water 5 10 13843 121152270600 Dougherty, Dan 19970731 262 Water 5 10 13844 121152294300 Hogan, Stacey & Julie 1 20010503 256 Water 5 10 13845 121152127300 Miller, Ronald E. 1 19771001 215 Water 5 10 13846 121152230300 Naber, Tom 1 19920504 242 Water 5 10 15898 120392065600 Sprague, Paul 19751025 129 Water 5 10 15899 120392074600 Weldon Springs State Park 19710101 72 WTST 5 10 15901 120390011000 Ziegler, Frank 19410101 90 Water 5 10 15902 120390011100 Clark, J. A. 1 19400101 96 Water 5 10 15903 120392125200 Couve, Don #2 19960911 320 Water 5 10 15904 120392130900 DeWitt Co. Highway Depart. 19971016 314 Water 5 10 15905 120392131800 Dewitt Co. Highway Dept. 19970520 335 Water 5 10 15906 120392101400 Haynes, Dan 1 19920701 323 Water 5 10 15907 120392114600 Revere Ware Corp VE-2 19921218 17 Water 5 10 15908 120392114500 Revere Ware Corp. VE-1 19921218 17 Water 5 10 15909 120392114700 Revere Ware Corp. VE-3 19921216 17 Water 5 10 15910 120392114800 Revere Ware Corp. VE-4 19921218 17 Water 5 10 15911 120392114900 Revere Ware Corp. VE-5 19921217 17 Water 5 10 15912 120390011200 Boline 19451201 173 Water 5 10 15913 120390011300 Clinton Sanitary District 19350101 84 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-4

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 5 10 15914 120392092200 Cross Brothers 1 19880831 291 Water 5 10 15915 120392083100 Cyrulik, Welby 1 19871022 290 Water 5 10 15916 120392101500 Dupree, Jack 1 19920623 302 Water 5 10 15917 120392075400 Holt, Earl 2 19800415 93 Water 5 10 15918 120392137800 Maxwell, Doug & Leilani 19981110 315 Water 5 10 15919 120390011400 Nichels, Archie 19451101 280 Water 5 10 15920 120392101600 Polen, Jim 2 19920521 288 Water 5 10 15921 120392101700 Polen, Jim 3 19920528 283 Water 5 10 15922 120392138600 Russell, Frank 19990324 295 Water 5 10 15923 120392100000 Texas Township Building 1 19910726 303 Water 5 10 15924 120392103600 Waters, Dave Constr. 19931130 289 Water 5 10 15925 120392103700 Waters, Dave Constr. 19931130 286 Water 5 10 15926 120392103800 Waters, Dave Constr. 19931130 286 Water 5 10 15927 120392115800 Waters, Dave Construction 19931130 286 Water 5 10 15928 120392148400 Crutcher, Merle & Margaret 1 20010624 144 Water 5 10 15929 120392145500 Crutchfield, Fred 1 19990818 276 Water 5 10 15930 120392135500 Hinds, Craig, Julie 19980908 294 Water 5 10 15931 120392112400 Norris, Mike 1 19940422 273 Water 5 10 15932 120392123800 Rittenhouse, Belinda #1 19960716 79 Water 5 10 15933 120392069600 S & K Enterprise 1 19780912 138 Water 5 10 15934 120392069500 S & K Enterprises 1 19780629 142 Water 5 10 15935 120390056700 Short, Robt. 19711120 128 Water 5 10 15936 120392145300 Underwood, James E. 20000802 291 Water 5 10 15937 120392144300 Woolridge, Rick 20000619 140 Water 5 10 15938 120392144700 Cummings, Joseph A. 20000608 282 Water 5 10 15946 120390059000 Gentry, William 19721015 127 Water 5 10 15948 120390058000 Thomas, Jerry 19720601 242 Water 5 10 15949 120392095800 Banta, Emily 19900622 284 Water 5 10 15950 120390011700 Hullinger, E. V. 19390101 143 Water 5 10 15951 120392152700 Purdue, Rodney 1 20011114 277 Water 5 10 15952 120392139500 Rohrscheib, Sid & Krista 1 19990521 275 Water 5 10 15953 120390061200 Cisco, Larry 19730712 88 Water 5 10 15954 120392087200 Clinton Landfill, Inc. 1 19880511 281 Water 5 10 15955 120392093900 Irvin, Stan 1 19840514 103 Water 5 10 15956 120392092300 Laws, Carl #1 1 19880930 280 Water 5 10 15957 120392118500 Martin, Warren 19950531 288 Water 5 10 15958 120392120000 Moore, C.H. Trust Estate#2 293 Water 5 10 15959 120390052900 Walden, Max 1 19680825 260 Water 5 10 15960 120392069900 Walden, Max 2 19761101 279 Water 5 10 15961 120392070000 Walden, Max 1 19770701 265 Water 5 10 15962 120390011800 Adams, William 1 19420101 134 Water 5 10 15963 120392149000 Clinton Landfill EX-3 19961204 100 Water 5 10 15964 120392149200 Clinton Landfill EX-5 20000404 92 Water 5 10 15965 120390011900 Gillen, Mrs. J. P. 19451101 103 Water 5 10 15966 120392123400 Ward, Gary 19960409 145 Water 5 10 15967 120390012000 Adams, William 19460401 25 Water 5 10 15968 120392077700 Berry, Walter 19801210 70 Water 5 10 15969 120390056000 Holt, Joe W. #2 2 19710703 68 Water 5 10 15970 120392117700 State of IL Capital Dev. Board 19941025 141 Water 5 10 15971 120392073300 Weldon Springs State Park Water 5 10 15972 120392118000 Weldon Springs State Park 19550331 38 Water 5 10 15975 120390002400 Weldon Springs State Park #5 5 19590101 60 Water 5 10 15976 120392070100 Willis, Terry 3 19770520 142 Water 5 10 15977 120392094000 Willis, Terry 19840607 82 Water 5 10 15978 120392125300 Willis, Terry #2 19960912 145 Water 5 10 15979 120392096000 Austin, Larry #1 1 19900427 282 Water 5 10 15980 120392144000 Baker, Larry 20000624 270 Water 5 10 15981 120392141200 Danison, Pat 19991026 276 Water 5 10 15982 120392101800 LeBegue, Arlene 1 19920702 108 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-5

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 5 10 15983 120392141300 McGuire, Larry 1 19990901 81 Water 5 10 15984 120390012200 Weaver, Solomon 19450101 120 WTST 5 10 15985 120392151800 Cook, Eric & Hallie 1 20010821 246 Water 5 10 15986 120392144500 Ward, Gary & Dolores 1 20000517 274 Water 5 10 15987 120390054600 Bray, Jim & Lane 1 19701102 290 Water 5 10 15988 120392070400 Cent. IL Bldg. & Loan 3 19781201 253 Water 5 10 15989 120392070500 Cent. IL Bldg. & Loan 1 19781201 260 Water 5 10 15990 120392070200 Cent. IL Bldg.& Loan 2 19781201 248 Water 5 10 15991 120392070300 Cent. IL Bldg.& Loan 4 19781201 245 Water 5 10 15992 120392070600 Cent. IL Building & Loan 1 19780519 264 Water 5 10 15993 120390012300 Hartsock, Wm. 19410101 70 Water 5 10 15994 120392079600 Martin Auction Co. #1 1 19850924 230 Water 5 10 15995 120392152000 Murphy, Marvin 1 20011207 242 Water 5 10 15996 120392151100 Bruso, Harold & Sandra 20011009 74 Water 5 10 15997 120392087300 Lichtenwalter, Greg 1 19880505 280 Water 5 10 16019 120392131900 Curry, William L. 19970611 302 Water 5 10 16022 120392100300 Snyder, Dan 1 19910702 69 Water 5 10 16023 120390012700 Whitehead, Harvey 19451101 90 Water 5 10 16024 120392070900 Willoughby, Orville E. #11 11 19781018 232 Water 5 10 16025 120392135700 Cyrulick, Mike 19980831 300 Water 5 10 16026 120392141500 Hammer, Terry 1 19991208 86 Water 5 10 16027 120392151500 Hammer, Terry 20011019 76 Water 5 10 16028 120392075600 Michaels, Tom 1 19791201 260 Water 5 10 16029 120390012800 Radio Station W.H.O.W 19470601 77 Water 5 10 16030 120392114100 E. W. Andrews Trust 19940815 292 Water 5 10 16031 120390012900 Pond, Mrs. Nellie 1 19430101 109 Water 5 10 16032 120392103900 Marlow, Glenn 1 19931130 280 Water 5 10 16033 120390010800 Marlow, Herbert O. 19390101 116 Water 5 10 16041 120392151400 Rose, Richard 20011015 65 Water 5 10 16042 120390013400 Grady, T. C. Estate 1 19400101 66 Water 5 10 16067 120392094100 Dewitt Cty Sportsman Club 2 19841004 310 Water 5 10 16070 120392123900 Bieber, Bob #1 19960712 282 Water 5 10 16071 120392097100 Douglas, Dick 1 19901107 258 Water 5 10 16073 120392125000 Rearden, Don 19960817 282 Water 5 10 16074 120390056800 Buck, Sherman 19710817 103 Water 5 10 16080 120392135800 Wantland, Roger 19980923 70 Water 5 10 16101 120390015300 Curl, Charles 19460101 56 Water 5 10 16102 120392118600 Armstrong, Charles 19950606 67 Water 5 10 16103 120390047700 Fatheree, Bob 90 Water 5 10 16104 120390055700 Fatheree, Bob 19710510 166 Water 5 10 16105 120390049300 Harrold, Bernard 19520101 122 Water 5 10 16106 120392148100 Heiden, Kevin 1 151 Water 5 10 16107 120392104100 Matherly, Shelby 1 19930515 164 Water 5 10 16108 120390058800 Reynolds, Carl 4 19720615 62 Water 5 10 16109 120392115200 Rogers, Rodney & Pam 1 19940919 157 Water 5 10 16110 120392119000 Smith, John #1 19950615 167 Water 5 10 16111 120390015500 Warner, C. M. 19450101 89 Water 5 10 16112 120390015600 Warner, C. M. 19441001 62 Water 5 10 16113 120390015700 Hinz, Theo. 19410101 204 Water 5 10 16114 120392126400 Stroh, Rod 19961120 272 Water 5 10 16115 120390015800 Mettler, Minnie 19430101 67 WTST 5 10 16116 120392102200 Totten, Albert 1 19920507 273 Water 5 10 16117 120390015900 Ingham, Warner 19440501 75 Water 5 10 16118 120392118200 Doaks, Orville 19630824 162 Water 5 10 16119 120390016000 Fosnaugh, Geo. 19430101 68 WTST 5 10 16120 120392083400 Riley, Carl #1 1 19870420 260 Water 5 10 16121 120390016200 Waller, Hellen 19410101 111 Water 5 10 16122 120390049400 Miller, Ben 19370101 118 Water 5 10 16123 120390016300 Waller, George 19460101 98 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-6

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 5 10 16124 120390016301 Waller, George 19460601 230 Water 5 10 16125 120390016400 Altman, Jacob 19400101 232 Water 5 10 16126 120390016500 Stillabower, W. A. 19400101 75 Water 5 10 16127 120392102300 Groves, Harold R. #2 2 19920618 257 Water 5 10 16128 120392096200 Kizer, Betty 1 19900702 276 Water 5 10 16129 120392093300 Spencer, Alice 292 Water 5 10 16130 120392096500 Decatur, City of 36-1 350 Water 5 10 16131 120392096600 Decatur, City of 36-2 350 Water 5 10 16132 120392096700 Decatur, City of 36-3 19890420 360 Water 5 10 16133 120392096800 Decatur, City of 36-4 340 Water 5 10 16134 120392096900 Decatur, City of 36-5 342 Water 5 10 16135 120392121900 Decatur, City of 3 19891022 339 Water 5 10 16136 120392122100 Decatur, City of 5 19900928 316 Water 5 10 16137 120392122200 Decatur, City of 6 19901006 335 Water 5 10 16138 120392122400 Decatur, City of 8 19901116 340 Water 5 10 16139 120392122500 Decatur, City of 9 19901130 332 Water 5 10 16140 120392122600 Decatur, City of 10 19910122 320 Water 5 10 16141 120392122000 Decatur, City of #4 19891031 335 Water 5 10 16142 120392122300 Decatur, City of #7 19901026 349 Water 5 10 16143 120392071200 Reeser, Harold 1 19770929 73 Water 5 10 16144 120390016600 Reeser, Merle 19410101 150 Water 5 10 16154 120390016800 Campbell, Roy 19390101 91 Water 5 10 16155 120392077300 Wapella Test Hole 1 19840406 100 Water 5 10 16157 120392109700 Weldon City Test Hole 1-63 165 WTST 5 10 16158 120392105600 Weldon, City of 4-62 293 WTST 5 10 16159 120392109800 Weldon, City of 2-62 195 WTST 5 10 16160 120392109900 Weldon, City of 3-62 180 WTST 5 10 16161 120390038600 Weldon, Village of 3 19630101 167 Water 5 10 16162 120390055600 Weldon, Village of 1 19710301 166 WTST 5 10 16163 120390057900 Weldon, Village of 3 19720301 163 Water 5 10 16164 120390058500 Weldon, Village of #4 4 19721001 170 Water 5 10 16165 120390017000 Moore, Maria 19410101 134 Water 5 10 16166 120390017100 Leischner, Winnie G. 1 19400101 85 Water 5 10 16167 120390049000 Shinneman, Elmer 19680605 78 Water 5 10 16168 120392104200 Carr, Betty 2 19930803 98 Water 5 10 16169 120390017300 Martin, Juanita 19450401 235 Water 5 10 16170 120392071300 Baker, Kenneth #1 1 19790408 97 Water 5 10 16171 120392071400 Leischner, William b 1 19780721 107 Water 5 10 16172 120390017400 Odaffer, Ray 19460201 79 Water 5 10 16173 120390017500 Davis Estate 19440801 78 Water 5 10 16174 120392113400 C.H. Moore Estate 2 19940811 172 Water 5 10 16175 120390017600 Hunt, Florence 19410101 82 Water 5 10 16176 120390017700 Royce, John 19460101 79 Water 5 10 16177 120392067000 Wachob, Charles 1 19761126 88 Water 5 10 16179 120392151700 Miley, E.J. & Karen 20011002 210 Water 5 10 16180 120390017800 Walters, Oliver 19460101 212 Water 5 10 16181 121470018700 Husinga, H. B. 19410101 137 Water 5 10 16182 121470006600 Rogers, S. L. 2 19430101 173 Water 5 10 16183 121472042200 Kinnman, Mrs. Dick 1 19770330 209 Water 5 10 16184 121472078600 Walpole, Everence 19441001 84 Water 5 10 16185 121472079000 Odaffer, Wm. 19390101 87 Water 5 10 16186 121472119900 Remmers, John H. 19980507 94 Water 5 10 16187 121472107900 Kingston, Carl 19391231 90 Water 5 10 16188 121472078700 Kingston, Carle 19390101 90 Water 5 10 16189 120390017900 Galloway, John 290 Water 5 10 16190 120392123300 Bennett, Larry 19910501 Water 5 10 16191 120392091900 Garst Research Center #1 1 19880731 258 Water 5 10 16192 121472078800 Briggs, Dewey 19390101 93 Water 5 10 16193 121470025900 Briggs, Mrs. G. D. 200 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-7

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 5 10 16194 121472078900 Oldwelder, John 19390101 81 Water 5 10 16195 121470006700 Prospect School 19310101 180 Water 5 10 16196 121470006800 Enterprise School, Dist. 91 19400101 85 Water 5 10 16203 121472101000 Deland-Weldon Unit 57 School WTST 5 10 16204 121470025700 Ammann, John 19550101 290 Water 5 10 16205 121472095200 Hicks, Jack 1 19910830 83 Water 5 10 16206 121472121800 Nichols, Robert 19980919 90 Water 5 10 16273 121472121900 Mennenga Const. 1 19980404 81 Water 5 10 16274 121472083700 Lane, Al 19390101 90 Water 5 10 19204 120392097300 Thorp Seed Co. 19890214 383 Water 5 10 19205 120392077200 Thorpe Seed Co. #1 1 89 Water 5 10 19206 120390019900 Honneman, Howard 19390101 96 Water 5 10 19207 120390020000 Mastin, M. C. 19470901 50 Water 5 10 19208 120390020100 Swearingen, Charles E. 1 19400101 46 Water 5 10 19209 120390020200 Walsh, James 1 19400101 52 Water 5 10 19210 120392106700 Wapella Grain Elevator B-8 21 WTST 5 10 19211 120390020300 Wapella H. S. 19330101 312 Water 5 10 19212 120390020400 Woollen, Otis 19410101 111 Water 5 10 19213 120392106800 Walden, August 1 57 WTST 5 10 19215 120392097400 Hull, Jim #1 1 19890811 365 Water 5 10 19216 120390057800 Fleenor, James W. #1 1 19720425 335 Water 5 10 19217 120390020500 Ives, True 19450601 62 Water 5 10 19218 120390020600 Ives, True 19460401 60 Water 5 10 19219 120390020700 Welch, James 19390901 44 Water 5 10 19222 120390020800 Davenport, Geo. 19451001 59 Water 5 10 19223 120390020900 Decatur Farm Management 1 19400201 183 Water 5 10 19224 120392078800 Thayer, Marvin 19841022 137 Water 5 10 19225 120392124300 Douin, Tom #1 19960522 120 Water 5 10 19226 120392125600 Howard, Steve & Coni #1 19960718 206 Water 5 10 19227 120392139900 Lowe, Craig 1 19990706 183 Water 5 10 19228 120392143300 Mann, Walter 1 20000515 185 Water 5 10 19229 120392132000 Miller, Bill & Lisa 1 19970716 120 Water 5 10 19230 120390021100 Prudential Insurance Co. 19400101 175 Water 5 10 19231 120390021000 Sprague, Charles 19441201 106 Water 5 10 19232 120392140000 Denney, Ron & Marion 1 19990323 312 Water 5 10 19233 120392141600 Lang, Terry 1 19991124 121 Water 5 10 19234 120392134500 Norris, Rick 19980702 111 Water 5 10 19235 120390007100 Russell, Helen L. #4 4 19630401 178 Water 5 10 19236 120390021200 Strange, Ralph 19441001 100 Water 5 10 19237 120392126500 Sullivan, Rick #1 19970107 106 Water 5 10 19238 120392121600 Tilley, Mike #1 19951018 126 Water 5 10 19239 120392140400 Usinger, Chris 1 19981008 302 Water 5 10 19240 120392152200 Altorfer Ag. Machinery 1 20011113 330 Water 5 10 19241 120392146100 Bray, Mike 20001027 177 Water 5 10 19242 120392099100 Clintonia Township #1 1 19900723 318 Water 5 10 19243 120392097500 Connolly, Gary D. 1 19900725 57 Water 5 10 19244 120392136900 Rich, Charles B. 19981016 330 Water 5 10 19245 120392137000 Rockhold, Max T. 19981114 323 Water 5 10 19246 120392141700 Schmid, Jesse 19991110 336 Water 5 10 19247 120392137900 Sullivan, Rick & Kathy 19980714 194 Water 5 10 19248 120392106900 Ward, Frank 1 64 WTST 5 10 19249 120392066900 Midwest Freight Car Co. #1 1 19760921 335 Water 5 10 19250 120392130300 Thrall Car Mfg. 19971001 330 Water 5 10 19251 120390021300 Glenn, Frank 19400101 87 Water 5 10 19252 120392117200 Barnes, Jeff #2 19941210 325 Water 5 10 19253 120392077100 Thorpe Seed Co. #2 2 19831213 369 Water 5 10 19255 120390052000 I. C. R. R. #2 2 19230101 350 Water 5 10 19256 120392146500 Peterson, Corwin G. 20001011 332 Water 5 10 19257 120392104300 Finfrock, Gail 1 19931112 335 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-8

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 5 10 19258 120392102400 Hall, James 1 19920514 332 Water 5 10 19259 120390021400 Lilliard, R. 19400601 113 Water 5 10 19260 120392092000 Nanbec Corporation 1 19880831 320 Water 5 10 19261 120392067300 Rich, C. R. 1 19770501 118 Water 5 10 19262 120392067400 Rich, C. R. 2 19770501 111 Water 5 10 19263 120392097600 Thayer, Marvin 1 19900510 330 Water 5 10 19264 120390021600 Provine, Ira 19420101 104 Water 5 10 19265 120390021700 Provine, Ira 19460201 173 Water 5 10 19271 120392151600 Massey, Nick S 20011004 91 Water 5 10 19274 120390052600 Chenoweth, Ralph #10 10 19680815 120 Water 5 10 19275 120392102500 Cooper, Tom 1 19920423 104 Water 5 10 19276 120392146000 Fitzgerald, May Louise 2 20001108 279 Water 5 10 19277 120390021500 Lehman, Charles #1 1 19751110 306 Water 5 10 19278 120392143800 Lippert, Rob 1 20000718 76 Water 5 10 19279 120392126600 McKinley, Robert O. #1 19961212 294 Water 5 10 19280 120392147600 Parker, Rich 2 20010502 295 Water 5 10 19281 120392141900 Patterson, Wayne A. 19990629 75 Water 5 10 19282 120390054700 VanLoom, John 19701001 66 Water 5 10 19283 120390054800 VanLoom, John 19700801 70 Water 5 10 19284 120390054900 VanLoom, John 19701001 78 Water 5 10 19285 120390055000 VanLoom, John 19701001 76 Water 5 10 19286 120390055100 VanLoom, John 19701001 75 Water 5 10 19287 120390054200 VanLoom, John E. 19700701 78 Water 5 10 19288 120390055200 Brax, James 1 19700908 110 Water 5 10 19289 120392130400 Bray, Mike 19971002 103 Water 5 10 19290 120392106300 Evans, Norman #2 19950630 140 Water 5 10 19291 120390060000 Finfrock, G. G. 19730612 108 Water 5 10 19292 120390058100 Finfrock, Gale 19720708 94 Water 5 10 19293 120392062200 Finfrock, Gale D. #2 2 19740901 112 Water 5 10 19294 120390021900 Lillard, Russell 19440701 278 Water 5 10 19295 120392082700 Murphy, Gene 19870930 44 Water 5 10 19296 120392094500 North, Raymond 3 19840919 115 Water 5 10 19297 120390022000 Walker, Carl 19460101 115 Water 5 10 19298 120392063600 Westside Park Estates #3 3 19750901 86 Water 5 10 19299 120392102600 Cleary Buildings 1 19920624 105 Water 5 10 19300 120390022400 Clinton #4 4 19540101 372 Water 5 10 19301 120390022500 Clinton City #5 5 19450101 360 Water 5 10 19302 120390022600 Clinton City Well #4 4 19480701 345 Water 5 10 19303 120390051300 Clinton Theater 19360101 131 Water 5 10 19304 120392147400 Clinton, City 3 19230401 360 Water 5 10 19305 120390022100 Clinton, City of test 54-1 19540101 360 WTST 5 10 19306 120390022200 Clinton, City of test 54-2 19540101 349 WTST 5 10 19307 120390022300 Clinton, City of test 54-3 19540101 343 WTST 5 10 19308 120390058200 Clinton, City of 1-72 19720511 360 WTST 5 10 19309 120390058600 Clinton, City of 2-72 19721018 350 WTST 5 10 19310 120390049900 Clinton, City of #1-71 1-71 19711116 320 WTST 5 10 19311 120390056600 Clinton, City of #2-71 2-71 19711118 349 WTST 5 10 19312 120390030900 Clinton, City of #8 8 19730701 352 Water 5 10 19313 120392112200 DeWitt County Bldg. TH 1-84 19860531 360 Water 5 10 19314 120390059300 Marco Chemicals 1 19730101 356 Water 5 10 19315 120390022700 Pollock, Fred 19410101 100 Water 5 10 19316 120392082800 West Side Park 4 19871007 118 Water 5 10 19317 120390051400 19210101 374 Water 5 10 19318 120390022900 Ammon, Irvin 19460201 78 Water 5 10 19319 120390056400 Armstrong, John 19710815 81 Water 5 10 19320 120392111200 Clinton, City of 10 19890819 370 Water 5 10 19321 120392111300 Clinton, City of 11 19891005 370 Water 5 10 19322 120392111400 Clinton, City of TH1-87 19870827 370 Water 5 10 19323 120392111500 Clinton, City of TH2-87 19870902 370 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-9

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 5 10 19324 120390023000 Jasper, W. J. 19441201 150 Water 5 10 19325 120392107100 Kaufman, S. 1-60 345 WTST 5 10 19326 120390059100 Rickgauer, Wayne 1 19721201 331 Water 5 10 19327 120390022800 Thompson, F. 19470801 84 Water 5 10 19328 120390023100 Warner, Lloyd 19450401 67 Water 5 10 19329 120392124500 Mears, Chet 19960819 81 Water 5 10 19330 120390023200 Stiver Estate 19440101 68 Water 5 10 19339 120392098000 Thorp Seed Co. #2 2 19900605 60 Water 5 10 19340 120392107300 Thorp Seed Company B-3 21 WTST 5 10 19341 120392107200 Thorp Seed Company #B-2 21 WTST 5 10 19423 120390025700 Jasper, Jesse 19401201 120 Water 5 10 19424 120392134600 Lamb, Anna 2 19980619 165 Water 5 10 19425 120392139100 Zimmerman, Jerry 1 19990203 69 Water 5 10 19426 120392093600 Seifert, Neva 19881231 75 Water 5 10 19427 120392098500 Snow, Bill 19900426 210 Water 5 10 19428 120392083500 Williams well 19880228 70 Water 5 10 19429 120392124100 Williams, Paul#2 19960425 231 Water 5 10 19434 120392102900 Danilson, John #2 2 19920925 200 Water 5 10 19435 120392100600 F/C Presbyterian Church 2 19911212 186 Water 5 10 19437 120392078400 Mid-America Commodities 1 19800528 197 Water 5 10 19439 120392100700 Sosamon, Loran 2 19911122 70 Water 5 10 19440 120392112900 Fruin, John C. 2 19940323 170 Water 5 10 19441 120390049600 Fuller, Mrs. 19370101 66 Water 5 10 19442 120392091400 Hammer, Bill 1 19880608 168 Water 5 10 19443 120392138100 Homann, Dan 19981214 174 Water 5 10 19444 120392132400 Johnson, Doug 1 19961017 219 Water 5 10 19445 120392107500 Reynolds, Fred 1-56 WTST 5 10 19446 120392104600 Gibbs, Jim 1 19930930 170 Water 5 10 19447 120392116700 Jones, Robert #1 19941007 175 Water 5 10 19448 120392147500 Rollins, Warren 1 20010403 179 Water 5 10 19449 120392133200 Trimble, David 19971208 50 Water 5 10 19450 120392143400 Trimble, David 2 20000410 171 Water 5 10 19451 120392142200 Croson, Don 1 20000202 175 Water 5 10 19452 120392105500 Evans, Dana 2 19940221 75 Water 5 10 19453 120392116300 Duncan, Carl 170 Water 5 10 19454 120392072000 Reynolds, Fred L. #1 1 19770816 84 Water 5 10 19455 120392132500 Roderick, Bret & Linda 19970618 195 Water 5 10 19456 120392152300 Watts, Jim 20020115 102 Water 5 10 19457 120390053300 Massey, Leland 19690810 45 Water 5 10 19468 120392142900 Dasher, Virgil 265 Water 5 10 19469 120390027900 Swigart, Carl 19290101 175 Water 5 10 19470 120392126000 Thomas, Helen #2 19961011 115 Water 5 10 19471 120390055800 Reeser, John 90 Water 5 10 19472 120392072300 Reeser, John 1 19770603 100 Water 5 10 19473 120390028000 Stensel Brothers 19440101 84 Water 5 10 19474 120392072400 Wisegarver, George #1 1 19770826 186 Water 5 10 19475 120392104700 Reynolds, Don 1 19931130 181 Water 5 10 19476 120390028100 Bosserman, School 19390801 73 Water 5 10 19496 120392117400 Baker, Garfield 19461231 92 Water 5 10 19497 120392115700 Gamboa, Jeff #1 19941025 88 Water 5 10 19498 120392072500 Barton, Duanne 11 19770705 97 Water 5 10 19499 120390028600 Wisegarver, Wayne 19460101 82 Water 5 10 19507 120390049800 Jack, Herman 1 19640101 190 Water 5 10 19508 120390050000 Jack, Herman #2 2 19640101 94 Water 5 10 19509 120392145900 Mozingo, John 1 20001111 170 Water 5 10 19510 120392078500 Resser, Raleigh 1 161 Water 5 10 19511 120390028700 Hurley, S. V. 19410101 82 Water 5 10 19512 120390028800 Duffner, Carl 19460101 155 Water 5 10 19513 120390028900 Stoddard, B. M. 19470201 97 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-10

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 5 10 19532 120390029200 Maxwell, Floyd 19451201 85 Water 5 10 19533 120390029300 Graves, H. C. 1 19400101 95 Water 5 10 19534 120392107800 Lindsey, Robert & Vernel 1-67 105 WTST 5 10 19535 120390029400 King, A. J. 19410101 99 Water 5 10 19536 120392123500 Foster, Jim #1 19951121 72 Water 5 10 19537 121470018000 King, A.J. 19441001 94 Water 5 10 19546 121470017100 Lancaster, K. (Mrs.) 19440401 69 Water 5 10 19547 120390029500 Hursh, George 19410101 55 Water 5 10 19548 121472117600 Gamboa, Jeff 1-97 19971002 100 Water 5 10 19549 121470008500 Fahrnkopf, Harrison 19440101 185 Water 5 10 22594 120392121000 Douglas, Gordon #2 19951020 64 Water 5 10 22595 120392119700 Feather, Sherri 19950810 32 Water 5 10 22616 120392079000 Atkins, Dave 1 19850411 98 Water 5 10 22617 120392120600 Barringer, John 19950928 345 Water 5 10 22618 120392104900 Bridges, Steve 1 19931111 345 Water 5 10 22621 120392119200 Ishmael, Robert 19950726 37 Water 5 10 22622 120390057700 McCrarry, A. D. 19711130 33 Water 5 10 22623 120392142700 St. Patricks Cemetary 1 19991014 70 Water 5 10 22624 120392120800 Theobald, Keith 19950810 365 Water 5 10 22625 120392119800 Short, Donald 19950809 62 Water 5 10 22626 120392148200 Snow, Lonnie 20010615 60 Water 5 10 22627 120392132700 Wood, Debra 1 19970624 120 Water 5 10 22628 120392094600 Karr, Richard 2 19841119 44 Water 5 10 22629 120390031300 Progress School 1 19380101 49 Water 5 10 22630 120392126100 Leggett, Clyde #2 19960829 80 Water 5 10 22631 120392105000 Swanzy, Mark 1 19931004 70 Water 5 10 22632 120392107900 Jahn, Elisha 1 70 WTST 5 10 22633 120390031400 Moore, Mary 19470201 73 Water 5 10 22634 120392142600 Shannon, Tim 2 19990708 55 Water 5 10 22635 120392133400 Adams, Madge 2 19980327 344 Water 5 10 22637 120392074800 Matson, Rick 370 Water 5 10 22642 120392132800 Akers, Tom & Linda 1 19970624 200 Water 5 10 22643 120392136600 Brouillette, Christian 19981002 188 Water 5 10 22646 120390055500 Pullen, Walter W. Est. 19710403 64 Water 5 10 22647 120392140700 Rich, Troy & Amy 1 19990601 196 Water 5 10 22648 120390031600 Davis, Grant 1 19390101 72 Water 5 10 22649 120392148500 Sampson, Bud 1 20010409 83 Water 5 10 22650 120390031700 Spray, Lyle 19450201 53 Water 5 10 22651 120390002300 Wapella City 19410101 78 Water 5 10 22652 120392063700 Wapella, Village of 2 19500101 79 Water 5 10 22653 120392094200 Wapella, Village of 3 19840923 80 Water 5 10 22654 120390031800 Welsh, Wm 19390101 78 Water 5 10 22655 120390031900 Reader 19390901 99 Water 5 10 22656 121132357800 Young, Bob 1 19991029 95 Water 5 10 22657 121132155700 Scheets, Steve 2 19860811 117 Water 5 10 22658 121132357900 Trent, Eldon 1 68 Water 5 10 22659 121130060600 Roberts, Howard W. 19680824 97 Water 5 10 22660 121132353800 Toohill, William 19980304 52 Water 5 10 22661 120390052100 Cope, C. E. 19370101 151 Water 5 10 22662 120392121300 Davis, Robert H. Est. #1 19951116 113 Water 5 10 22663 120392073100 Haas, Jack #2 2 19780815 129 Water 5 10 22664 120392145700 Priest, Bob 2 20001114 345 Water 5 10 22665 120392136700 Ryan, Raymond 2 19980804 50 Water 5 10 22666 120390032200 Ryan, Thomas 19430101 51 Water 5 10 22667 120392144100 Filkin, Gary 1 20000703 315 Water 5 10 22669 120392130200 Toohill, L & M 2 19970910 219 Water 5 10 22670 120390032400 Johnson, R. L. 2 19440801 27 Water 5 10 22671 120390032600 Quade, Arthur 19450901 102 Water 5 10 22673 120390032500 Lucker, Frank 19450301 195 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-11

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 5 10 22674 120390032700 Reeder, John 2 19420101 66 Water 5 10 22675 120392135000 DiVerde, Charles 19980714 68 Water 5 10 22676 120392133500 Frautschi, Bill 1 19980504 90 Water 5 10 22677 120392133600 Halverson, Eric 1 19970603 103 Water 5 10 22678 120392137100 McClurg, David 1 19980505 106 Water 5 10 22679 120390032800 Davis, A. E. 1 19420101 82 Water 5 10 22680 120390053500 Houghan, N. J. 19690901 84 Water 5 10 22681 120392081800 Toohill, Lawrence #1 1 19870423 140 Water 5 10 22682 120392132900 Supilnyk, Roman & Eleanor 19970528 43 Water 5 10 22708 121130024900 Dolly, Geo. R. 2 19451101 154 Water 5 10 22710 121132257300 Bane, Lois 19480722 75 Water 5 10 22711 121132384900 Castle, Verle 20010713 100 Water 5 10 22712 121130003300 Smith 1 19570101 105 Water 5 10 22713 121132151000 Toohill, Carl 1 19850516 52 Water 5 10 22714 121132141300 Toohill, Joseph #2 19800804 46 Water 5 10 22715 121132390600 Toohill, Timothy 20010720 65 Water 5 10 22716 121132257500 Razor, Leland 19660101 96 Water 5 10 22717 121132258300 Razor, Leland 19660701 60 Water 5 10 22718 121132257400 Razor, Leland 19580702 70 Water 5 10 22720 120390033000 Equitable Life Association 19400101 59 Water 5 10 22722 120390033200 Simson, Frank L. 19451001 188 Water 5 10 22723 120390033300 Vance, Bert 19450601 71 Water 5 10 22724 120392099700 Rutledge, Beryl W. 19661231 75 Water 5 10 22725 120392062400 Schumacher, Pete 19660101 76 Water 5 10 22726 120392067700 Vance, Lloyd 2 19780705 163 Water 5 10 22727 120392133700 Howe, Joe 19971003 55 Water 5 10 22728 120392073200 Dean, Don 1 19770511 73 Water 5 10 22729 120392078700 Dean, Donald 2 19810128 57 Water 5 10 22730 120392098900 Dean, Richard 19890831 50 Water 5 10 22731 120392117500 Russell, William H 19950126 67 Water 5 10 22732 120390033400 Britten, Newton 19400101 64 Water 5 10 22733 120392133800 Dean, Rick 1 200 Water 5 10 22734 120392081200 Pinson, Deon 1 19860925 150 Water 5 10 22735 120392093800 Ruthledge, William 19890131 37 Water 5 10 22736 120392103100 Voegtlin, David #1 1 19920828 165 Water 5 10 22737 120390055900 Wendell, Clint 19710301 105 Water 5 10 22738 120390033500 Swigart, Harry 19410101 54 Water 5 10 22739 120392091600 Brooks, Paul 1 19880615 140 Water 5 10 22740 120390053600 Simpson, Elma 19691103 84 Water 5 10 22741 120390050200 McCarty, John R. 19760701 157 Water 5 10 22742 120392099000 Hartsock, Fred R. #2 2 19900514 178 Water 5 10 22743 120392140200 Tucker, William D. 19990610 80 Water 5 10 22744 120392113800 Jones, Jeff 1 19940708 200 Water 5 10 22745 120392114300 Jones, Jeff 19940826 57 Water 5 10 22746 120390033700 Walden, Belle 19460201 50 Water 5 10 22747 120390033701 Walden, Belle 19460601 68 Water 5 10 22748 120392152800 Walden, William R. 20020111 40 Water 5 10 22749 120390033800 Equitable Assurance Co. 19390101 168 Water 5 10 22750 120392135400 Wendell, Lawrence 1 19980826 46 Water 5 10 22751 120392068900 Wendell, Steve 19380101 47 Water 5 10 22752 120390033900 Miller, Welby 1 19441001 203 Water 5 10 22753 120390034000 Miller, Welby 2 19441101 81 Water 5 10 22754 120390034100 Turner Sisters 1 19420101 64 Water 5 10 22755 120392116800 Warren, Shelby 19450903 190 Water 5 10 22756 120390034200 Warren, Welby 19450901 190 Water 5 10 22757 120390047800 Warren, Wilby 19580101 190 Water 5 10 22758 120392137400 Emerson, Tony 1 19981218 198 Water 5 10 22759 120392133900 Kane, Kevin 2 19980325 80 Water 5 10 22760 120390041301 Kelley 2 19870225 2672 WATRS DEL-096-REV0 A-12

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 5 10 22761 120390034300 Kelley, R. M. 19400101 379 Water 5 10 22762 120390052700 Grady, Mrs. Julia 3 19681010 86 Water 5 10 22763 120390034400 Moody, John 19440801 148 Water 5 10 22764 120392082900 Walash, Robert 19870930 77 Water 5 10 22765 120392091700 Warren, Norma 19880531 48 Water 5 10 22766 120392082400 West, Philip 19870831 68 Water 5 10 22767 120392147900 Wright, Randy 1 20010425 213 Water 5 10 22813 120392133000 Yeagle, Robert 1 19970605 180 Water 5 10 22896 120390051000 Porter, Chas. 16 Water 5 10 22897 120390037100 Ready, R. C. 83 Water 5 10 22898 120392116500 Merriken, Dick 2 19911016 158 Water 5 10 22899 120392145100 Mozingo, John 20000613 164 Water 5 10 22900 120390037200 Riggs, H. E. 19440501 77 Water 5 10 22901 120390037300 Schmall, A. H. 19460501 46 Water 5 10 22902 120392113300 West, Phil 1 19940609 74 Water 5 10 22903 120392094400 Zacharias, Bryce 1 19800904 170 Water 5 10 22905 120392109500 Glenn, Lester 1-56 185 WTST 5 10 22906 120392119300 Halcomb, Doug #2 19950725 100 Water 5 10 22909 120392061500 Reeser, Rod 19721004 77 Water 5 10 22910 120390060400 Reeser, Rodney M. 2 19721014 79 Water 5 10 22912 120392140300 Spieker, Lowell 2 19990511 75 Water 5 10 22914 120390048700 Walsh, Bob 250 Water 5 10 24917 121132244400 Wheet, Tony 2 19900111 101 Water 5 10 24918 121130053100 Custom Farm Service #1 1 165 Water 10 15 24986 121130095400 Elledge, Charles 1 19721110 95 Water 10 15 24987 121130087000 Evans, Evan 1 19700930 96 Water 10 15 24988 121132125100 Heavilin, Larry W. 19770817 77 Water 10 15 24989 121132237200 Krieg, Simon 3 19400101 64 Water 10 15 24990 121130087100 Petty, Cecil 1 19700930 100 Water 10 15 24991 121132344400 Zacholski, Sheila 1 19970729 97 Water 10 15 24992 121132375800 Bossingham, Phil 1 20001011 65 Water 10 15 24993 121132321300 D.C.A. Construction, Inc. #1 19950626 67 Water 10 15 24994 121132237300 Humphry Estate 1 19400101 68 Water 10 15 24995 121132370700 Wills, Michael 1 20000518 85 Water 10 15 24996 121132291400 Woodring, Bruce & Brenda 1 19920929 46 Water 10 15 11459 121152293800 Nelson, Bonnie 20010423 139 Water 10 15 11460 121152264500 Layton, William 19971118 141 Water 10 15 11461 121152246000 Village of Oreana 4 19900920 150 Water 10 15 11462 121152190400 Creekmur, John A. 1 19860805 157 Water 10 15 11669 121152259300 Myers, Ralph 19960827 241 Water 10 15 11670 121152276300 Sickbert, Gary 19980922 245 Water 10 15 11671 121152186200 Simpson, Ed 1 19841210 138 Water 10 15 11672 121150062500 Dunbar, Frank 19050101 132 Water 10 15 13680 121150057000 Stafford, Mrs. 19410101 115 Water 10 15 13689 121152294100 Cordes, Dennis 1 20010307 56 Water 10 15 13690 121152298600 Ruwe, Chad 1 20010820 56 Water 10 15 13691 121152290900 Sill, Lynn 20000826 45 Water 10 15 13709 121150057400 Ennis, George 19390101 84 Water 10 15 13710 121150057500 Maroa City Test 1 19390101 288 WTST 10 15 13711 121150092900 Maroa, City of 3 19390101 292 Water 10 15 13712 121150057600 Shoemaker, Joe 19410101 77 Water 10 15 13713 121152134400 Williams, Neal (Roger) 19630101 78 Water 10 15 13714 121152302100 Four Winds Trailers Water 10 15 13715 121152126900 Jannusch, Hilton 60 Water 10 15 13716 121150057700 Reeser, Richard 19410101 236 Water 10 15 13717 121150096800 Tozer, Richard W. 19640101 75 Water 10 15 13718 121152249900 Brodnicki, Derek 19950523 58 Water 10 15 13719 121152256600 Brown, Gary 19960328 62 Water 10 15 13720 121152285400 King, William 19990524 70 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-13

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 13721 121152223000 Maschoff, Charles 1 19791114 70 Water 10 15 13722 121152127000 Gall, Elsie 2 19771206 210 Water 10 15 13723 121150057900 Austin, George 1 19400101 80 Water 10 15 13724 121152276500 Stoutenborough, Jim 19980923 124 Water 10 15 13725 121152229100 Mashburn, Robert E. 1 19920305 293 Water 10 15 13726 121150058000 Parker Hatchery 19451001 88 Water 10 15 13727 121152285500 Tedder Realty (Mundt property) 19991012 75 Water 10 15 13728 121150058100 Harmony School 1 19400101 60 Water 10 15 13729 121152279900 Leach, Trevor 19990320 75 Water 10 15 13730 121152276600 Stahl, Ken 19981112 73 Water 10 15 13731 121152276700 Wilson, Don 19980909 71 Water 10 15 13732 121152223100 Stivers, Mark 1 19890629 181 Water 10 15 13733 121152302500 Leach, Steve 20011212 202 Water 10 15 13734 121152211400 Gall, Elsie Mrs. 19840626 143 Water 10 15 13735 121152224500 Rohrschield, Bill 1 19910625 132 Water 10 15 13736 121152263700 Grider, Ken 19970904 190 Water 10 15 13737 121152249200 Landry, Terry 19941213 57 Water 10 15 13738 121152248000 Landry, Terry #1 19941201 220 Water 10 15 13739 121152251600 Sprague, Robert #1 19950804 56 Water 10 15 13740 121152280000 Rodgers, David 19980821 168 Water 10 15 13741 121152261900 Forsyth, Village of TH# 2-80 Water 10 15 13742 121152276800 Foulke, David 19981008 155 Water 10 15 13743 121152127100 Maroa Fertilizer 53 Water 10 15 13744 121150086700 Sronce, Robert 1 19670802 120 Water 10 15 13745 121152274200 Jones, A. Ray 19980521 48 Water 10 15 13746 121152286700 Jones, Ray A. & Phyllis J. 20000330 46 Water 10 15 13747 121152289600 Maxwell, Don 20000331 55 Water 10 15 13748 121152274900 McKee - Morrison EER 19980728 150 WTST 10 15 13749 121152285700 Morrison, Daniel 2 19990923 46 Water 10 15 13750 121152289700 Norton, Brian 20001116 33 Water 10 15 13751 121152276900 Pebbles, Neal 19980914 45 Water 10 15 13752 121152272100 Peebles, Neal & Rhonda 1 79 Water 10 15 13753 121152277000 Stiner, Robert 1 19981016 32 Water 10 15 13765 121150057800 Ennis Estate 19410101 235 Water 10 15 13774 121152223300 Ripley, Kevin 1 19890731 260 Water 10 15 13775 121152111100 Shuey, Don 19590101 220 Water 10 15 13776 121152223400 Taylor, Brad 1 19890420 280 Water 10 15 13777 121152277100 Agee, Dale 19981028 265 Water 10 15 13778 121152286300 Summers, Linn 1 19990720 270 Water 10 15 13779 121152192600 Voorees, William 1 19870529 270 Water 10 15 13780 121152195900 Maschoff, Leo 1 19871024 240 Water 10 15 13781 121150059100 Groves, Ott 19410101 155 Water 10 15 13782 121152270500 Moyer, Jim & Sandy 19970624 158 Water 10 15 13783 121152226500 Boyd, Dale 3 19640101 7 WTST 10 15 13784 121152237400 Boyd, Dale 4 19640101 10 WTST 10 15 13785 121152237500 Boyd, Dale 5 19640101 8 WTST 10 15 13786 121152237600 Boyd, Dale 6 19640101 11 WTST 10 15 13787 121152237700 Boyd, Dale 7 19640101 9 WTST 10 15 13788 121152237800 Boyd, Dale 8 19640101 8 WTST 10 15 13789 121152237900 Boyd, Dale 9 19640101 8 WTST 10 15 13790 121152238000 Boyd, Dale 10 19640101 11 WTST 10 15 13791 121152238100 Boyd, Dale 12 19640101 12 WTST 10 15 13792 121152238200 Boyd, Dale 13 19640101 7 WTST 10 15 13793 121152189800 Brinkman, Darrell 1 19860514 224 Water 10 15 13794 121152230900 Campbell, Bob 19920620 236 Water 10 15 13795 121152289900 Garner, Steve 20000919 200 Water 10 15 13796 121152205400 Hanback, David 1 19880930 242 Water 10 15 13797 121152181900 Horve, Mike 1 19791210 220 Water 10 15 13798 121152223500 Horve, Mike 1 19900721 242 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-14

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 13799 121152231000 Kaufman, Kevin 19920620 242 Water 10 15 13800 121152237200 Kaufman, Teal 1 19931220 240 Water 10 15 13801 121152182000 Maltby, Dave 19801212 210 Water 10 15 13802 121152182100 McQuiggan, Tom 1 19791211 220 Water 10 15 13803 121152293700 Netherton, Brad 20010331 210 Water 10 15 13804 121152203400 Patterson, Bill 19880831 240 Water 10 15 13805 121152223600 Punches, Dennis 1 19890906 242 Water 10 15 13806 121152223700 Rainey, John 1 19901205 188 Water 10 15 13807 121152190600 Roberson, Alan 1 19860820 239 Water 10 15 13808 121152223800 Simmons, Roger 19891115 242 Water 10 15 13809 121152128100 Spesad, Gary 1 19781012 82 Water 10 15 13810 121152252200 Stout, Dan #1 19950903 270 Water 10 15 13811 121152182200 White & Maltby Inc. 1 19791206 82 Water 10 15 13812 121152252300 Zimmerman, Parker 19950912 262 Water 10 15 13813 121152244700 Argenta School WTST 10 15 13814 121152244800 Argenta, Village of WTST 10 15 13815 121152226600 Boyd, Dale 1 19640101 8 WTST 10 15 13816 121152226700 Boyd, Dale 2 19640101 8 WTST 10 15 13817 121152226800 Boyd, Dale 11 19640101 7 WTST 10 15 13818 121152226900 Boyd, Dale 14 19640101 7 WTST 10 15 13819 121152227000 Boyd, Dale 15 19640101 11 WTST 10 15 13820 121152227100 Boyd, Dale 16 19640101 11 WTST 10 15 13821 121152227200 Boyd, Dale 17 19640101 9 WTST 10 15 13822 121152227300 Boyd, Dale 19640101 WTST 10 15 13823 121152227400 Boyd, Dale 19 19640101 8 WTST 10 15 13824 121152252400 Powers, Ken 19950831 242 Water 10 15 13825 121152246500 Village of Argenta (1-93) 3 270 Water 10 15 13826 121150066200 Argenta, Village Of T 1-61 19610607 254 WTST 10 15 13827 121150016200 Argenta, Village of 2 19610822 254 WTST 10 15 13828 121150059200 Argenta, Village of 19540301 233 Water 10 15 13829 121152291600 Conner, Dan 20001026 195 Water 10 15 13830 121152289300 Cobstill, Ian 20000816 216 Water 10 15 13831 121152232500 Rowe, Norman 1 19921014 226 Water 10 15 13832 121152251700 Rowe, Norman#1 19921014 226 Water 10 15 13833 121152291500 Jackson, Sidney 20001025 173 Water 10 15 13834 121152272300 Malone, Patrick 19980529 168 Water 10 15 13835 121150062600 Parr, Nathan 177 Water 10 15 13836 121152264900 Aukamp, Roger 2 19971120 136 Water 10 15 13837 121152285900 Eades, Paul & Tina 1 19991214 144 Water 10 15 13838 121152223900 Frank, Terry 19901108 242 Water 10 15 13839 121152297900 Nichols, Robert 20010728 135 Water 10 15 13840 121472070500 Martin, Edgar 19441201 87 Water 10 15 13841 121472070600 Rannabarger, Ralph 19440801 63 Water 10 15 13847 121150059500 Rannebarger, Earl 19450601 104 Water 10 15 13848 121150059600 Decatur, City of 7 19540201 300 Water 10 15 13849 121150101200 Friends Creek Park 1 19711101 305 Water 10 15 13850 121150093300 Chapman, Francis (Beebe) 100 Water 10 15 13851 121472108000 Padgett, Carol 1 19921012 228 Water 10 15 13852 121470025800 Chapman, Francis 19000101 100 Water 10 15 13853 121470027900 Chapman, Francis 19720301 193 Water 10 15 13854 121470028100 Miller, Walter 1 19720412 136 Water 10 15 13856 121470029000 Cisco Well 1-50* 19500101 111 Water 10 15 13857 121472103800 Cisco, Village of 4 19910403 294 Water 10 15 13858 121472114200 Ruch, Gary 19960808 242 Water 10 15 13859 121472070700 Cisco Grain Company 19450701 90 Water 10 15 13860 121152286000 Allen, Mark & Tammy 19990601 200 Water 10 15 13861 121152111400 Friends Creek Park 2 19750701 228 Water 10 15 13862 121150059700 Houston, Ross 19450501 80 Water 10 15 13863 121152257600 Johnson, Doug 19960612 260 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-15

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 13864 121150059800 Decatur, City of 10 19540201 260 Water 10 15 13865 121152255300 Huber, Kim & Karen 19951204 262 Water 10 15 13866 121152229200 Lovelace, Robert 1 19920307 262 Water 10 15 13867 121152274300 McCoy, Dave 19980811 261 Water 10 15 13868 121150060000 Kendall, J. W. 19330101 94 Water 10 15 13869 121152127400 Walters, Gary 19780503 216 Water 10 15 13870 121472070900 Cook, Harry 19451101 100 Water 10 15 13871 121472040700 Reeves, Jeane 1-77 19770317 225 Water 10 15 13872 121472099400 Ater, Warren S. WTST 10 15 13873 121472049700 Baker, Kim 1 19791017 213 Water 10 15 13874 121472065200 Gulley, Melvin H. 246 Water 10 15 13875 121470012200 Oplinger, Russell 1 19401107 111 Water 10 15 13876 121470019200 Qurrey, R. F. 19410101 94 Water 10 15 13877 121472110300 Clemments, Kent #1 19950425 110 Water 10 15 13878 121470012300 Decatur, City of 15 19540701 256 Water 10 15 13879 121472086300 Brame, J. E. 1 19400101 37 Water 10 15 13880 121150060100 Decatur, City of 19 19540701 255 Water 10 15 13881 121152247100 Kendall, John W. 19640724 199 Water 10 15 13882 121152270700 Smith, Leslie L. 19970512 242 Water 10 15 13883 121150059900 Wilkinson, P. A. 19460901 49 Water 10 15 13884 121152256900 Guillou and Assoc., Inc S 19880101 240 Water 10 15 13885 121152109900 Illinois, State of 1 19750201 230 Water 10 15 13886 121152270800 McKinney, Charles 19970415 230 Water 10 15 13887 121152257500 Musick, Ken #1 19960614 242 Water 10 15 13888 121152302200 Pride of the Prairie Rest Area Water 10 15 13889 121152270900 Edwards, A. Dale 19961017 236 Water 10 15 13890 121152189700 Kaufman, Curtis 1 19860505 101 Water 10 15 13891 121152224000 Ferguson, Rodney 1 19900621 242 Water 10 15 13892 121152237300 Ferguson, Virgil 1 19930930 233 Water 10 15 13893 121150104300 Edwards, Elizabeth 1 19730112 218 Water 10 15 13894 121152210500 Pattengill, Loren Trust 1 19881130 235 Water 10 15 13895 121472088300 Marsh, Perry 1 19890725 220 Water 10 15 13898 121472052300 Coon, Opal 19841006 220 Water 10 15 13899 121472112700 Greenwood, Norman Water 10 15 13900 121472099500 Canode, L. C. WTST 10 15 13915 121472056500 Riley, Dean 19850504 133 Water 10 15 13916 121472053500 Prough, Larry 1 19800321 110 Water 10 15 13917 121472114800 Robson, Richard #1 19961010 85 Water 10 15 13918 121472038600 Bushanan Fennimore 1 19770516 103 Water 10 15 13919 121472071000 Clark, J. E. 19410101 52 Water 10 15 13920 121470029200 University of Ill. Farm 4 19721012 166 Water 10 15 13921 121472071100 University of Illinois* 19651220 195 Water 10 15 13922 121472092000 Bordson, Gary 19920212 130 Water 10 15 13923 121470030100 Zybell, Cory H. Estate* 19180101 163 Water 10 15 13924 121472124300 Carr, Steve 1-99 19990923 210 Water 10 15 13925 121472119800 Drake, Marty 1 19980518 106 Water 10 15 13926 121472120300 Franklin, Jeff 1 19980702 96 Water 10 15 13927 121472110900 Huisinga, David #1-95 19951024 125 Water 10 15 13928 121472123500 Huisinga, Doug 1 19990510 112 Water 10 15 13929 121472071200 Jackson, W. A. 19410101 89 Water 10 15 13930 121472126000 Marry, Mike 1 20000229 107 Water 10 15 13931 121472112500 Miller, Doug #1 19960214 110 Water 10 15 13932 121472110600 Morris, Richard #1 19950918 109 Water 10 15 13933 121472121500 Schweitzer, Mark 1 19980903 90 Water 10 15 13935 121472064700 Wells, Terry L. 1 19880624 154 Water 10 15 13936 121472118900 Whitney, Burl 1 19970626 91 Water 10 15 13961 121472120400 Carlson, Scott 1 19980701 110 Water 10 15 13976 121472099800 Monticello 1 WTST 10 15 13977 121472041200 Nelson, Dale 1-78 19780719 165 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-16

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 13978 121472094200 Peddycoart, Richard 19930831 254 Water 10 15 13979 121472094300 Remmers, Floyd 1 19920422 124 Water 10 15 13980 121472124500 Warner, Paul 1 19990817 117 Water 10 15 13981 121472047100 Wolfe, Donald D. 1 19781123 210 Water 10 15 13982 121470006300 Allerton, Robert 19440501 178 Water 10 15 13983 121470012800 Decatur, City of 3 19540201 320 Water 10 15 13984 121470006500 Natioal Petro Chem Corp. TH 6 19510101 315 WTST 10 15 13985 121472073200 Allerton Farm-U. of Ill. 1-66 19660225 240 Water 10 15 13986 121470012900 Decatur, City of 8 19540201 268 Water 10 15 13987 121472073300 Allerton Farms-U.of Ill. 1-63 19630503 220 Water 10 15 13988 121472099900 Allerton Park 1-63 WTST 10 15 13989 121472094400 Gerht, Dennis #1 1 19921228 228 Water 10 15 13990 121472112800 Univ of Ill, 4-H Club Camp Water 10 15 14000 121470018800 Allerton, R. H. 19410101 151 Water 10 15 14002 121152302300 Decatur, City of 2 255 Water 10 15 14008 121472124600 Shaffer, Jeanie 1 19990903 277 Water 10 15 15822 120392105800 Aupperle-Tiemke, Ryan 19990330 101 Water 10 15 15823 120392146800 Edwards, Lisa & Floyd, Julie 20000717 116 Water 10 15 15824 120392120100 Holtman, Larry #1 19950819 273 Water 10 15 15825 120392130000 Piatt, John 1 19970517 290 Water 10 15 15826 120392120300 Stevens, Richard #1 19950817 260 Water 10 15 15827 120392120200 Wilson, LeRoy #1 19950821 275 Water 10 15 15828 120392143100 Carter, Claro 20000503 172 Water 10 15 15829 120392092700 Gibson, Dave & Cindy 110 Water 10 15 15830 120392069000 Moore, Daniel 9 19760804 147 Water 10 15 15831 120390009300 Rowe, A. N. 19320101 140 Water 10 15 15832 120392077400 Beck, Leroy 19810729 140 Water 10 15 15833 120392095400 Koshinski, Terry 19900912 272 Water 10 15 15834 120390009400 Bell, Arabella 19410101 90 Water 10 15 15835 120392115000 Benz, Ronald 1 19941011 42 Water 10 15 15836 120390054300 Beriz, Ronald #1 1 19700412 53 Water 10 15 15837 120392113900 Brown, Ellsworth 19940722 106 Water 10 15 15838 120392106000 Sturgeon, Ruth #1 19950324 135 Water 10 15 15843 120390056200 Ryan, Robert 19740101 92 Water 10 15 15844 120392114000 Stewart, Howard 19940818 83 Water 10 15 15845 120392131400 Cyrulick, Tom 19970813 232 Water 10 15 15846 120392120400 Cyrulik, Michael T. 19950908 240 Water 10 15 15847 120392095500 Cyrulik, Thomas 1 19891120 228 Water 10 15 15848 120392069100 Dobbs, Marie 13 19770824 189 Water 10 15 15849 120392137600 Henson, Dolores 19981215 60 Water 10 15 15850 120390009500 Johnson, Virsa O. 19460501 61 Water 10 15 15851 120390009600 Kennedy, James 19410101 89 Water 10 15 15852 120392095600 Knox, Roger 1 19901101 262 Water 10 15 15853 120392077500 Long, Bobbie 19810821 49 Water 10 15 15854 120392080600 Long, Dale 1 19860606 56 Water 10 15 15855 120392075200 Moletoris, Randolph 19791115 117 Water 10 15 15856 120392131500 Smith, John 1 19970520 260 Water 10 15 15857 120392131600 Smith, John 1 19970715 265 Water 10 15 15858 120392126300 Askins, Bruce 19961206 81 Water 10 15 15859 120392105900 Aupperle, Ryan 1 19990528 84 Water 10 15 15860 120392140900 Aupperle, Ryan 19990706 106 Water 10 15 15861 120392151000 Byers, Avon 1 20010906 110 Water 10 15 15862 120392079100 Dellinger, Melvin 19850430 40 Water 10 15 15863 120392141000 Dillow, Mark 1 19991112 103 Water 10 15 15864 120392144200 Gallone, Gary 1 20000714 98 Water 10 15 15865 120392141100 Hall, Lowell 1 19990830 104 Water 10 15 15866 120392137700 Huddleston, Roger Homes 19981009 80 Water 10 15 15867 120392143000 Jiles, Earl 1 20000403 116 Water 10 15 15868 120392081700 Knopp, John 1 19861015 84 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-17

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 15869 120392145800 Koons, Kenneth 1 20001122 107 Water 10 15 15870 120390053100 McDavitt, Dale 19690627 182 Water 10 15 15871 120392144800 Sheering, John & Lisa 1 20000520 79 Water 10 15 15872 120392095700 Sullivan, Bernard 19900606 75 Water 10 15 15873 120392140800 Underwood, Neal & Debbie 1 19990831 112 Water 10 15 15874 120392152100 Willoughby, Gene 1 20011106 270 Water 10 15 15875 120392075300 Banning, Elmer #3 3 19800709 235 Water 10 15 15876 120392062600 Hoffer, Gertrude Est. 19740903 103 Water 10 15 15877 120390010200 Kenney Comm H S 19400101 258 Water 10 15 15878 120390010100 Kenny Comm. High Sch.,Dist.117 19400101 258 WTST 10 15 15879 120392069300 Rybolt Farm Museum 17 19771017 20 Water 10 15 15880 120392069200 Rybolt, Theron 15 19770916 46 Water 10 15 15881 120392145200 Van Hyning, Mike 20000731 28 Water 10 15 15882 120392146900 Williams, Paul 20000727 51 Water 10 15 15883 120390010300 Willoughby, Dewey 19460101 71 Water 10 15 15884 120390010400 Cantrell, H. K. 19400801 191 Water 10 15 15885 120390002000 Kenney, Village of T.H. 1 19560901 266 WTST 10 15 15886 120390002700 Kenny, Illinois TH 2 19570101 249 WTST 10 15 15887 120392077600 Standard Oil Company 19810727 180 Water 10 15 15890 120392069400 Holland, Virginia 7 19770625 43 Water 10 15 15891 120390010500 Greene, J. M. 19400801 85 Water 10 15 15892 120390010600 Crosno, Harold 19450401 112 Water 10 15 15893 120392131700 Huffman, Randy 19970728 122 Water 10 15 15894 120392103500 Rogers, John 1 19931216 135 Water 10 15 15896 120390059700 Preston, Howard 3 19730610 95 Water 10 15 15897 120390049200 40 Water 10 15 15939 120392119100 Craig, Walter #1 19950614 110 Water 10 15 15940 120392066200 State of Illinois 19760717 131 Water 10 15 15941 120392069700 Tallent, Larry 19780601 55 Water 10 15 15942 120392069800 Winchell, Michael 19780601 47 Water 10 15 15943 120392080500 Martin, Ed 1 19860521 270 Water 10 15 15944 120392100100 McNees, Ben #1 1 19910730 253 Water 10 15 15945 120392144600 Bass, Mark 20000515 265 Water 10 15 15947 120392100200 Stevens, Rich 1 19910607 274 Water 10 15 15998 120392096100 Tindill, Mike 1 19891108 302 Water 10 15 15999 120392101000 Berringer, Ray 2 19910823 280 Water 10 15 16000 120392075500 Cleave, Mary 1 19801101 290 Water 10 15 16001 120392070700 Glenn, Charles 14 19770907 267 Water 10 15 16002 120390054400 Glenn, Jack 19700720 102 Water 10 15 16003 120392068200 Glenn, Jeff 19780701 95 Water 10 15 16004 120390060200 Hamblin, Robert 1 19730802 293 Water 10 15 16005 120390012400 Parker, Mrs. 19390101 99 Water 10 15 16006 120392141400 Short, Steve 1 19990630 63 Water 10 15 16007 120392138700 Visionary Builders 19990324 70 Water 10 15 16008 120390053200 Braden, Craig (Braden,David) 19690701 168 Water 10 15 16009 120392146300 Merrick, Mike & Kathy 20000703 310 Water 10 15 16010 120390059800 Preston, Larry 4 19730601 278 Water 10 15 16011 120390012500 Rybolt,Cora & Thomas,Carrie 19390101 140 Water 10 15 16012 120392130500 Shaw, Mary 19971030 161 Water 10 15 16013 120392135600 Thomas, Todd 1 19980710 183 Water 10 15 16014 120390012600 Braden, Vervin 19440101 147 Water 10 15 16015 120392116900 Little Galilee Christian #4 19941012 340 Water 10 15 16016 120390049700 Little Galilee Christian Ch 2 19740316 316 Water 10 15 16018 120392070800 Scott, Louise 10 19761010 273 Water 10 15 16020 120390032100 Eick, Laverne 19720401 97 Water 10 15 16021 120392150700 Howell, Zack 1 20010827 296 Water 10 15 16034 120390013000 Alsup 150 Water 10 15 16035 120390052400 Alsup Estate 1 19300101 142 Water 10 15 16036 120392077800 Perkins, Samuel E. #6 6 19831013 124 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-18

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 16037 120390013200 Branden, V. L. 1 19400101 88 Water 10 15 16038 120390013300 Ford Sisters 19410101 63 Water 10 15 16039 120392087400 Harbach, Gillan & Nixon Inc #1 1 19880930 277 Water 10 15 16040 120392079400 Hoffman Trucking 1 19850926 270 Water 10 15 16197 121470006900 Goken, Mrs. O. 1 19400101 99 Water 10 15 16198 121472069400 Brock, Kenneth #1 1 19840906 107 Water 10 15 16199 121470026500 Troxell, Kenneth 2 19701228 121 Water 10 15 16200 121472079300 McFadden, H.S. 19100101 88 Water 10 15 16201 121472079400 Doyle, J. L. 19200101 115 Water 10 15 16202 121472079600 Wisegarver, Carter C. (Res.) 19200101 120 Water 10 15 16207 121472081600 Porter Bros. 19450801 85 Water 10 15 16208 121472079800 Barnes (Res.) 19350301 40 Water 10 15 16209 121472079900 Bickel, H. E. (Res.) 19050101 78 Water 10 15 16210 121472080200 Bickel, J. E. (Res.) 19230101 101 Water 10 15 16211 121472080000 Bowsher, C. P. (Garage) 19090101 40 Water 10 15 16212 121472080300 Bowsher, C.P. (Res.) 19160101 85 Water 10 15 16213 121472080100 City Park 80 Water 10 15 16214 121472129700 De Land, City o 3 19520101 81 Water 10 15 16215 121470004400 Deland B3 19610101 80 Water 10 15 16216 121470004500 Deland 4 19610101 79 Water 10 15 16217 121470007300 Deland City Test 3 19350101 165 WTST 10 15 16218 121470007500 Deland City Test 7 19350101 87 WTST 10 15 16219 121470007100 Deland City Test #1 1 19350101 165 WTST 10 15 16220 121470007200 Deland City Test #2 2 19350101 192 WTST 10 15 16221 121470007400 Deland City Test #4 4 19350101 98 WTST 10 15 16222 121470004100 Deland TH B2 19610101 85 WTST 10 15 16223 121470004200 Deland TH B1 19610101 90 WTST 10 15 16224 121470029100 Deland, Village of 1 19351201 83 Water 10 15 16225 121472050900 Deland, Village of 1-80 19801218 162 Water 10 15 16226 121472051000 Deland, Village of 2-80 19801223 179 Water 10 15 16227 121472051100 Deland, Village of 3-80 19801230 178 Water 10 15 16228 121472051200 Deland, Village of 1-81 19810206 171 Water 10 15 16229 121472054200 Deland, Village of 6 82 Water 10 15 16230 121472054300 Deland, Village of 7 79 Water 10 15 16231 121472081000 Dresback, J. R. #2 2 19200101 96 Water 10 15 16232 121472081100 Fonner, P. E. (Res.) 1 19160101 100 Water 10 15 16233 121472081300 Heller, Jim (Res.) 25 80 Water 10 15 16234 121472081400 High School 23 19200101 95 Water 10 15 16235 121472081500 Jones, Warren (Res.) 17 90 Water 10 15 16236 121470007600 Kidd, J. R. 19420101 103 Water 10 15 16237 121472080400 Madden (Res.) 21 75 Water 10 15 16238 121472080500 Myers, George (Res.) 5 19131231 48 Water 10 15 16239 121472080600 O'Brian, George 14 19150101 75 Water 10 15 16240 121472082000 Parrish, Sherman (Res.) 11 45 Water 10 15 16241 121472080700 Paugh, Grace (Res.) 6 80 Water 10 15 16242 121472080800 Pitts, J. M. (Res.) 13 76 Water 10 15 16243 121472081700 Porter, C. J. 22 19090101 76 Water 10 15 16244 121472081800 Porter, C. J. 4 19140101 76 Water 10 15 16245 121472081900 Reed, A. 38 76 Water 10 15 16246 121472082400 Reed, R. E. 1 19600101 WTST 10 15 16247 121472082100 Trenchard(sm town property 24 100 Water 10 15 16248 121472082200 Trenchard, G. R. (Res.) 3 100 Water 10 15 16249 121472082300 Troxel, Mrs. (Res.) 20 73 Water 10 15 16250 121472104300 Village of Deland TH 1-82 19820331 90 Water 10 15 16251 121472104400 Village of Deland TH 2-82 19820331 90 Water 10 15 16252 121472082600 Webb, Wilson (Res.) 15 19170101 70 Water 10 15 16253 121472082500 White, V. B. (Res.) 8 62 Water 10 15 16254 121472088900 Timmons, George 1 Water 10 15 16255 121472032900 Timmons, George* 90 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-19

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 16256 121472111300 Garrett, John #2 19950907 98 Water 10 15 16257 121472082800 Rudisill #31 31 19200101 100 Water 10 15 16258 121472082700 Trigg, George #33 33 19200101 110 Water 10 15 16259 121472055900 Incobrasa Illinois Ltd. 1 19850404 110 Water 10 15 16260 121472042300 Chicap Pipe Line Co. 1-76 19760827 100 Water 10 15 16261 121472083000 Huisinga, H. B. 34 50 Water 10 15 16262 121472082900 Huisinga, H. B.* 19470801 98 Water 10 15 16263 121472083100 Hurst, L. B. 46 85 Water 10 15 16264 121472083200 Stoddard, Minnie 45 100 Water 10 15 16265 121472083400 Borton, B. 44 90 Water 10 15 16266 121472083500 Dillon, Bob 37 70 Water 10 15 16267 121472123900 Gantz, William 19950621 77 Water 10 15 16268 121472085600 Kingsboro, Fern Est. 19541231 83 Water 10 15 16269 121472083300 Rudisill, B. M. 19390101 84 Water 10 15 16270 121472124800 Brewer, Mike 19990903 76 Water 10 15 16271 121470007700 Deland City Test #5 5 19350101 110 WTST 10 15 16272 121472083600 Gantz, I.W. 36 100 Water 10 15 16275 121472119000 Reed, Lola 1 19970516 84 Water 10 15 16276 121472083800 McNitt, Hattie 39 19170101 90 Water 10 15 16277 121472056700 Ahlrich, Ray 1 19860411 165 Water 10 15 16278 121472095300 Strohl, Dick #1 1 19920515 163 Water 10 15 16279 121472084000 Trenchard, W. B.* 19470801 81 Water 10 15 16280 121472084100 Equitable Life Ins. Co. #47 47 76 Water 10 15 16281 121472034100 Kirby, John Trust* #1 1 19750417 178 Water 10 15 16282 121472039100 Kirby Farm Estate 19771028 164 Water 10 15 16283 121470001400 Whiteside, Hazel 19480101 71 Water 10 15 16286 121472111700 Brennan, Mike #1 19931028 210 Water 10 15 16287 121472120500 Dalton, Charles 1 19980713 170 Water 10 15 16288 121472122000 Frank, Brad 1 19981216 102 Water 10 15 16289 121472084200 Doss, W. J. 19410101 84 Water 10 15 16290 121472089000 Harris, Michael 19890508 158 Water 10 15 16291 121472042400 Huesinga, Don 19770525 99 Water 10 15 16292 121472047400 Marquis, Mrs. J. R. 1 19780821 178 Water 10 15 16293 121472084300 Strohl, J. F. 43 19160101 90 Water 10 15 16294 121470018500 Leischner 212 Water 10 15 16295 121470018600 Leischner 146 Water 10 15 16296 121472084400 Moore, C. H. Estate 42 76 Water 10 15 16297 121472084500 Remmers, John 40 19160101 217 Water 10 15 16298 121472089100 Richards, Mike 19900515 68 Water 10 15 16299 121472042500 Robinson, Richard 19770102 102 Water 10 15 16300 121472122400 Stoddard, Bruce 1 19941115 82 Water 10 15 16301 121472084700 Welsh, W. W. 19450601 77 Water 10 15 16302 121472095500 Hardy, Gerald 1 19930526 89 Water 10 15 16303 121472069500 Kirkland, Dale 19841016 220 Water 10 15 16304 121472065400 Norse Farms #2 2 19880706 86 Water 10 15 16334 121470023400 Hardimon, Larry 1-69 19690701 165 Water 10 15 16335 121472095800 Hiser, Lynn #1 1 19930730 208 Water 10 15 16337 121472101400 Gessford Farm WTST 10 15 16338 121472452200 Incobrasa, Il., Ltd. Corp. 80 Water 10 15 16339 121472071800 Kirkland, Chester 19450901 66 Water 10 15 16340 121472066400 Madden, Arthur #1 1 19880823 111 Water 10 15 16462 121472089900 Kelley, J.B. 1 19891023 112 Water 10 15 16464 121472031500 Maden, Gaylord 19630101 100 Water 10 15 16465 121472072200 Perkins, Jim 19450101 71 Water 10 15 19123 120392121100 Lubbers, Jackie 2 19950828 123 Water 10 15 19124 120392146700 Christianson, Richard 1 20000913 215 Water 10 15 19127 120392143500 Klemm, Robert 20000519 155 Water 10 15 19128 120392061900 Klemm, Walter 19100101 160 Water 10 15 19129 120392062000 Klemm, Walter et al 19100101 130 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-20

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 19130 120392129500 Ball, Fred 126 Water 10 15 19131 120390049500 Cline Est. 100 Water 10 15 19132 120390018100 McCool, Bert 19410101 119 Water 10 15 19133 120392128700 Central School 19060101 152 Water 10 15 19134 120390018200 Harpenau, Leo 19470301 154 Water 10 15 19135 120390053700 Harpennu, Lloyd 19691110 138 Water 10 15 19136 120392134300 Lecouris, Vera 2 19980716 220 Water 10 15 19137 120392133100 Turney, Josh 2 19980129 304 Water 10 15 19143 120392134400 Sequel Land Co. 3 19980708 188 Water 10 15 19144 120392125400 Sequel Land Co. #1 19960917 265 Water 10 15 19145 120392125500 Sequel Land Co. #2 19960918 200 Water 10 15 19146 120390018600 Shiveley, Nathan #1 1 19400101 118 Water 10 15 19147 120392112600 Bolton, Terry 1 19940225 255 Water 10 15 19148 120392117000 Inter-D-Pork #2 19941013 135 Water 10 15 19149 120392075700 Baker, Wilbur 19791221 200 Water 10 15 19150 120390018700 Crang, C. E. 19390101 148 Water 10 15 19151 120390018800 Fosnaugh, George 19400101 180 Water 10 15 19152 120392128800 Pollarck Estates J. 14 Water 10 15 19153 120392078200 Austin, Greg 19831130 84 Water 10 15 19154 120392113500 Larkin, John 1 19940718 85 Water 10 15 19155 120392129600 McMath, Robert 1 19970524 325 Water 10 15 19156 120392139600 Yeomans, Dan & Kim 2 19990528 325 Water 10 15 19157 120390024400 Fink, Henry #1 1 19400101 127 Water 10 15 19158 120390018900 McClimans, Dave 19440801 151 Water 10 15 19159 120390019000 Fink, Henry 19400101 138 Water 10 15 19160 120392111100 DeWitt Co. Nursing Home 3 19900418 326 Water 10 15 19161 120390055300 DeWitt County Nursing Home #1 1 19500301 336 Water 10 15 19162 120392138900 Mix, Dave & Renee 19981012 230 Water 10 15 19163 120392147700 Thomas, Brad 3 20010507 159 Water 10 15 19165 120390019100 Johnston, Tom L. 19430101 151 Water 10 15 19166 120392139700 Paddock, Steve 1 19990420 155 Water 10 15 19167 120392110000 West, Raymond 1 19940317 293 Water 10 15 19178 120392078100 DeMent, Ray 7 19821216 135 Water 10 15 19179 120392128400 Deerwester, Rick 1 19961223 138 Water 10 15 19180 120390019800 Dement, Ray W. 19440101 139 Water 10 15 19181 120392139000 Followell, Robert 19981205 135 Water 10 15 19182 120392078300 Foster, Robert 19811006 270 Water 10 15 19183 120392075800 Hallsville Christian Church 19801028 129 Water 10 15 19184 120390019600 Irwin, Mae 19470601 341 Water 10 15 19185 120392075900 Overbey, Thomas 4 19800828 137 Water 10 15 19186 120392121500 Overbey, Tom #2 19951122 140 Water 10 15 19187 120392061400 Presswood, Robt. 19730806 192 Water 10 15 19188 120392065800 Robinson, Helen 19750625 142 Water 10 15 19189 120392065900 Smith, Willard 19750701 142 Water 10 15 19190 120392151900 Thoms, Rebecca 20010918 124 Water 10 15 19191 120390059900 Williamson, Richard 1 19730718 173 Water 10 15 19192 120392071700 Williamson, Richard 18 19771110 136 Water 10 15 19193 120392062700 Smith, Mary 19741010 145 Water 10 15 19194 120392139800 Sprague, Jay 1 19990511 306 Water 10 15 19195 120392130100 Allen, Gene 1 19970522 285 Water 10 15 19196 120392071800 Hammer, Barbara 12 19781219 131 Water 10 15 19197 120392118700 Hoke, Larry 19950513 72 Water 10 15 19198 120392129700 Korneman, Darren 19970512 325 Water 10 15 19199 120392128500 Scogin, Merle 19520108 300 Water 10 15 19200 120392117100 Wallace, Scott & Carolyn #2 19941130 214 Water 10 15 19201 120392114200 Clayton, Bill 19940906 83 Water 10 15 19202 120392120900 Harris, Merle 19951003 79 Water 10 15 19203 120392150800 Hoke, Chad 1 20010823 260 Water 10 15 19214 120390054100 Greene, Leo 19700526 86 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-21

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 19266 120392124400 Arnold, Raymond & Donna 19960612 84 Water 10 15 19267 120392143700 Comfort, Pat 20000517 255 Water 10 15 19268 120392091300 Sickles, Darrell 1 19880731 67 Water 10 15 19269 120392141800 Chapman, Mike 1 19990421 90 Water 10 15 19270 120392063400 Griffin, L. D. 19730101 306 Water 10 15 19272 120390021800 Mooney, Ross 19460101 65 Water 10 15 19273 120392100400 Shaffer, Gary #1 1 19910529 75 Water 10 15 19500 121472075700 Troxel, Kenneth 19450101 106 Water 10 15 19501 121472055100 Eubank, Barbara 19800421 153 Water 10 15 19502 120392067100 Roberson, Roy 2 19761125 174 Water 10 15 19503 120392064600 Farmer City 2-65 19651228 200 WTST 10 15 19504 120392064900 Farmer City 3-65 19651229 180 WTST 10 15 19505 120392107600 Farmer City, City of 2-65-A 200 WTST 10 15 19506 120392125100 Frichtl, Darrel F. 19961004 53 Water 10 15 19514 120390050100 Farmer City 2-65 19651228 200 WTST 10 15 19515 120392107700 Farmer City,City of 3-65-A 185 WTST 10 15 19516 120390029000 Moister, J. 19410101 58 Water 10 15 19517 120390029100 Shubert, Bert 19440901 77 Water 10 15 19518 121472045700 Holoch, Lynn 200 Water 10 15 19519 121472045500 Vistron Corp. 1 19780412 98 Water 10 15 19520 121472117500 Weidner, Kevin 1 19980327 207 Water 10 15 19521 121472107200 Miller, Gary #1 19941110 65 Water 10 15 19522 121472075800 Parr, Ruben (at Mansfield) 19250101 66 Water 10 15 19523 121472109600 Weidner, Lyle #1 19950818 80 Water 10 15 19524 121470102900 Shubert 4-57 19570101 95 WTST 10 15 19525 121472102600 Shubert 1-57 19570101 177 WTST 10 15 19526 121472102700 Shubert 2-57 19570101 175 WTST 10 15 19527 121472102800 Shubert #3-57 19570101 WTST 10 15 19528 121472030700 Shubert, Kenneth 1 100 WTST 10 15 19529 121472030800 Shubert, Kenneth 2 178 WTST 10 15 19530 121472035100 Shubert, Rose 1 19750618 70 Water 10 15 19531 121472035900 Shubert, Rose 1 19740101 18 Water 10 15 19538 121472090400 Bateman, Arthur 19890831 62 Water 10 15 19539 121472035200 Swartz, Cappy 19740523 141 Water 10 15 19540 121472111600 Voss, Alvin #1 19950919 157 Water 10 15 19541 121470029800 Moore, Harlan E. 19720504 135 Water 10 15 19542 121472097700 Sosamon, Doug 1 19921112 140 Water 10 15 19543 121470008400 Swartz, Ross 19430101 95 Water 10 15 19544 121472090500 Huisinga, Stephen 19900618 50 Water 10 15 19545 121472104800 Huisinga, Stephen TH 1-90 19900117 165 Water 10 15 19550 121472107600 Barton, J. L. 41 100 Water 10 15 19551 121472084600 Barton, J.L. 41 19160101 90 Water 10 15 19552 121472103000 Borton, L. 1-69 19690101 237 WTST 10 15 19553 121472064200 Wallace, Mark 2 19880413 135 Water 10 15 19565 121472058000 Kemplin, Kevin 19860507 146 Water 10 15 19589 121472090600 Bragg, Earl M. Jr. 1 19890508 63 Water 10 15 19592 121472103100 James, C. E. 1-61 19610101 65 WTST 10 15 19593 121472103200 James, J. Wilbur 1-56 19560101 248 WTST 10 15 19594 121472103300 James, W. 1-57 19570101 90 WTST 10 15 19595 121472035400 Zeiders, Verne 19720612 61 Water 10 15 19596 121472050500 Zeiders, Verne 19791120 62 Water 10 15 19597 121472057300 Bragg, Robert 1 19851030 177 Water 10 15 19598 121472117700 Burk, Claude & Mildred 19970422 90 Water 10 15 19625 121470022500 Dalton, George 1 19681216 100 Water 10 15 19626 121472077600 Randall 100 Water 10 15 19627 121472097900 Swartz, Lorainne 2 19920328 85 Water 10 15 19628 121472114000 Burton, Charles #2 19960501 183 Water 10 15 19629 121472077700 Copenhaver, W. E. 1-64 19640101 220 Water 10 15 19630 121470017400 Copenhaver, W.E. 19450901 181 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-22

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 19631 121472115500 Gullion, Dave 19960503 210 Water 10 15 19632 121472055300 Harris, B.B. Estate 19820415 213 Water 10 15 19633 121472091100 McConkey, Mike 2 19900809 172 Water 10 15 19634 121470021900 Royster, F.S. 1 19680223 220 Water 10 15 19635 121472098000 Stanley Elev. %Am. Reinsurance 19920818 220 Water 10 15 22493 121132143800 Hanlin, Wayne 19830921 50 Water 10 15 22495 120390029600 Graff Ina Co. 1 19340101 124 Water 10 15 22496 120390029700 Ball, T. D. 2 19400101 58 Water 10 15 22497 120392129800 Runge, Art 19970423 90 Water 10 15 22505 120390030400 Ball, T. D. #1 1 19400101 168 Water 10 15 22506 120392129000 Starkey, John 19430920 134 Water 10 15 22507 120392152500 Davis, Chris 1 20011219 332 Water 10 15 22508 120392146600 Combs, Don & Dorothea 1 20000918 107 Water 10 15 22509 120392119900 Klecha, Paul 19950814 220 Water 10 15 22510 120392115500 Peasley, Melvin 2 19940901 340 Water 10 15 22511 120392148600 Williamson, Robert 20010814 342 Water 10 15 22512 120392062800 Hohnias, Gus Est. 19741101 115 Water 10 15 22513 120392113000 Schmid, Phillip 1 19940614 91 Water 10 15 22514 120392142400 Followell, Shelly 1 19990730 149 Water 10 15 22515 120392152400 Hartley, Patrick & Gail 1 20011120 170 Water 10 15 22516 120392133300 Taylor, Raymond 19971022 63 Water 10 15 22520 120392080800 Martins, Roger 1 19860523 125 Water 10 15 22537 120392129400 Stark, John 19370101 165 Water 10 15 22538 120390052200 Ball, Mrs. Fred 19370101 120 Water 10 15 22539 120392143200 Smith, Ken 1 20000414 60 Water 10 15 22540 120392072900 Kerley, Ray 13 19781219 132 Water 10 15 22541 120390031000 Lane, Harold 19360101 214 Water 10 15 22542 120392147800 Short, Kent & Karen 1 20010404 64 Water 10 15 22543 121130011000 Texas Empire Pipe Line #1 1 19290101 270 Water 10 15 22544 121132357700 Williams Pipeline 2 19990923 280 Water 10 15 22545 121130011100 Arnold, Joseph 197 Water 10 15 22546 121130011400 Heyworth Test #4 4 19350101 300 WTST 10 15 22547 121130011300 Heyworth Test #A 19350101 106 WTST 10 15 22548 121132202500 Rutledge, Dr. 70 Water 10 15 22549 121132201900 High School Water 10 15 22550 121132188100 Schmidt, Gary 1 19880628 170 Water 10 15 22551 121132202000 Willis, J. W. Water 10 15 22552 121132202100 Brown, Arther 19450201 85 Water 10 15 22553 121132378700 Heyworth, Village o 3 48 Water 10 15 22554 121130094100 Heyworth, Village of 1 19350101 62 Water 10 15 22555 121132327500 Meade, Norman 19951122 295 Water 10 15 22556 121130086300 Truckenbrad, J. C. 19711120 74 Water 10 15 22557 121132202800 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test 4 19670101 44 WTST 10 15 22558 121132203900 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 15 19670101 55 WTST 10 15 22559 121132204300 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 19 19670101 66 WTST 10 15 22560 121132204400 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 20 19670101 72 WTST 10 15 22561 121132204500 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 21 19670101 47 WTST 10 15 22562 121132204600 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 22 19670101 39 WTST 10 15 22563 121132204700 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 23 19670101 27 WTST 10 15 22564 121132204800 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 24 19670101 31 WTST 10 15 22565 121132204900 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 25 19670101 47 WTST 10 15 22566 121132205000 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 26 19670101 61 WTST 10 15 22567 121132205100 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 27 19670101 33 WTST 10 15 22568 121132205200 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 28 19670101 54 WTST 10 15 22569 121132203000 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 6 19670101 22 WTST 10 15 22570 121132203300 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test # 9 19670101 27 WTST 10 15 22571 121132202300 Darrah, D. D. Estate Test #1 19670101 22 WTST 10 15 22572 121132202200 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test 3 19670101 23 WTST 10 15 22573 121132203400 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test # 10 19670101 52 WTST DEL-096-REV0 A-23

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 22574 121132203500 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test # 11 19670101 61 WTST 10 15 22575 121132203600 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test # 12 19670101 33 WTST 10 15 22576 121132203700 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test # 13 19670101 43 WTST 10 15 22577 121132203800 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test # 14 19670101 56 WTST 10 15 22578 121132204000 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test # 16 19670101 22 WTST 10 15 22579 121132204100 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test # 17 19670101 22 WTST 10 15 22580 121132204200 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test # 18 19670101 59 WTST 10 15 22581 121132202700 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test # 2 19670101 33 WTST 10 15 22582 121132202900 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test # 5 19670101 29 WTST 10 15 22583 121132203100 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test # 7 19670101 29 WTST 10 15 22584 121132203200 Darrah, D.D. Estate Test # 8 19670101 15 WTST 10 15 22585 121131220280 Darrah,D.D.Estate Test hole #4 19670101 44 WTST 10 15 22586 121132289000 Carmichael Agri-Service 2 19921105 120 Water 10 15 22587 121132260700 Baldwin, Randall #1 1 19910619 180 Water 10 15 22588 121132312600 Dawson, Dan & Mary #1 19941222 64 Water 10 15 22589 121132258200 L.B. Clark 40 Water 10 15 22590 121132257200 Thomas, Floyd 19540507 73 Water 10 15 22591 121132350100 Oyer, Clarence & Jeanne 19970813 59 Water 10 15 22592 121130011600 Quinton, Ralph 1 19400401 184 Water 10 15 22593 121132368700 Wakefield Est. Lloyd M. 2 20000717 80 Water 10 15 22596 120392099600 Lane, Albion C. 19660228 75 Water 10 15 22597 120392099800 Venard, J. 19460717 171 Water 10 15 22598 120392099900 Harrison Farm 19530207 272 Water 10 15 22599 120390031100 Lierman, E. J. 1 19400801 281 Water 10 15 22600 120390031200 Lierman, E. J. 2 103 Water 10 15 22601 120392150300 Turner, Mercer 2 20010831 347 Water 10 15 22602 120392110100 Waters, John R. 1 19940405 310 Water 10 15 22603 121132257100 Weitag 19630919 45 Water 10 15 22604 120392100900 Westfall, Steve 1 19911219 334 Water 10 15 22605 120392134800 McBurney, Marvin 1 19980801 372 Water 10 15 22606 120392140600 Moran, John 1 19990611 355 Water 10 15 22607 120392131200 Theobald, John 1 19971103 360 Water 10 15 22608 120390059400 Barnett, Earl 19720817 80 Water 10 15 22609 120392150600 Bellis, Grant 1 20010828 325 Water 10 15 22610 120390056500 Durbin, James 19710710 191 Water 10 15 22611 120392138200 Ewen, Gary 19981016 340 Water 10 15 22612 120392134900 Glass, Darrin & Stephanie 1 19980401 398 Water 10 15 22613 120392098600 Kinder, James 1 19890824 48 Water 10 15 22614 120392092600 Toohill, Kenneth 1 19880907 37 Water 10 15 22615 120392104800 Weinheimer, Jim 2 19921204 84 Water 10 15 22619 120392131300 Filken, Mike 19971105 345 Water 10 15 22620 120390059500 Mearda, J. L. 19721013 81 Water 10 15 22636 120392073000 Deatrick, Paul 6 19770101 70 Water 10 15 22638 120392080900 Abbott, Carl 1 19860604 381 Water 10 15 22639 120392138300 Harper, Lana 1 19980717 82 Water 10 15 22640 120392105100 Whitted, Gene 2 19930427 340 Water 10 15 22641 120392130700 Whitted, Gene 2 19970924 366 Water 10 15 22644 120390031500 Burke, A. B. 19440101 75 Water 10 15 22645 120392098700 Lippert, Robert 19891129 62 Water 10 15 22698 121132230300 Beals # 2-61 WTST 10 15 22699 121132230400 Beals # 3-61 WTST 10 15 22700 121132230500 Beals # 4-61 WTST 10 15 22701 121132213600 Beals #1-61 WTST 10 15 22702 121130011800 Zeigler, Dr. 19440901 82 Water 10 15 22703 121130011900 Empire School 19451101 68 Water 10 15 22704 121132124000 Peterson Seed 19780718 64 Water 10 15 22705 121132135900 Peterson Seed 19790702 62 Water 10 15 22706 121132143900 Vance, Don 165 Water 10 15 22707 121132374700 Chastain, Brian 1 20000620 172 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-24

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 22709 121132389200 Phillips, Paul 1 20011205 170 Water 10 15 22719 121130025600 Dewitt, W. C. 19440901 80 Water 10 15 22721 120390033100 Forbes, Wilbur 19451001 200 Water 10 15 22770 121132243500 Swigart, Karl 1 19900827 138 Water 10 15 22771 121132230600 Amdor, L.B. 1 WTST 10 15 22772 121130079500 Franklin, Paul 2 19700831 67 Water 10 15 22773 121132114300 Giles, Claude M. #2 2 19760330 173 Water 10 15 22774 121132132500 Jiles, Claude # 1 19790301 66 Water 10 15 22775 121132230700 Franklin, Okley #1-60 WTST 10 15 22776 121132230800 Saxton, L. B. #2 WTST 10 15 22777 121130101800 Farmer City Packers 1 19731001 202 Water 10 15 22778 121132111800 Lane, K. R. 19720908 203 Water 10 15 22779 121132157500 Schumacher, Pete 1 19870416 203 Water 10 15 22780 121132111100 Farmer City, Village of #3-75 3-75 19750918 200 WTST 10 15 22781 121132120100 Ruch, Kenneth E. #1 1 19770508 73 Water 10 15 22782 121132144000 Gilmore, Clytus 19820518 197 Water 10 15 22783 121132304300 Schrock, Cathy & Greg 19940110 84 Water 10 15 22784 121132348000 McLean County Service Co. 2 19971118 180 Water 10 15 22785 121132108500 Perhay, William #1 1 19741118 176 Water 10 15 22786 121132111900 Weedman Grain 19730714 149 Water 10 15 22790 120392078600 First National Bank 19821130 47 Water 10 15 22791 120390050400 Rankin, W. H. 16 Water 10 15 22792 120390034500 Thomas, Helen 19400101 40 Water 10 15 22793 120390034600 Thomas, J. G. 19440101 175 Water 10 15 22794 120390034700 Weedman M. E. Church 19150101 42 Water 10 15 22795 120390034800 Bracken School 19270101 175 Water 10 15 22796 120390048800 Brenneman, Miss Gertrude 2 19670711 210 Water 10 15 22797 120390034900 Murphy, Wayne 19310101 46 Water 10 15 22798 120392063800 Farmer City, Village of 1-75 19750101 210 WTST 10 15 22799 120390035000 Hurst, Emma 19440701 53 Water 10 15 22800 120392099200 Kelly, Virgel 1-65 210 WTST 10 15 22801 120392105300 Kirby, Dale 2 19930427 186 Water 10 15 22802 120390035100 Mullen, James 60 Water 10 15 22803 120390035200 Murphy, Bert 19330101 56 Water 10 15 22804 120390035300 Collins, Elmer 75 Water 10 15 22805 120392105400 Collins, George 4 19930326 151 Water 10 15 22806 120392083000 Collins, George #1 1 19870917 162 Water 10 15 22807 120392063900 Farmer City, Village of #2-75 2-75 19750901 210 WTST 10 15 22808 120392130800 Sigler, Ron 19970327 152 Water 10 15 22809 120392094300 Harlow Stensel Watkins Farm 19841031 55 Water 10 15 22810 120390035400 Smith, Lowell D. 80 Water 10 15 22811 120390035500 Kincaid, George 19250101 74 Water 10 15 22812 120392138400 Yeagle, Bill 2 19981005 186 Water 10 15 22814 120390035600 Camel, Jas. Heirs 75 Water 10 15 22815 120392137500 Foster, Jim 1 19980923 67 Water 10 15 22816 120392147100 Foster, Jim 1 20000908 66 Water 10 15 22817 120392147200 Foster, Jim 1 20000913 68 Water 10 15 22818 120392147300 Foster, Jim 1 20000912 68 Water 10 15 22819 120392066400 Hoppe, Elmer 19760701 185 Water 10 15 22820 120390035700 Rueger, Don 19451001 75 Water 10 15 22821 120392066300 Arcole Midwest Corp. 19710101 167 Water 10 15 22822 120390001900 Farmer City 55-16 19551001 188 WTST 10 15 22823 120390050500 Farmer City TH 1-65-A 19650624 192 WTST 10 15 22824 120392065000 Farmer City 7-67 19670317 190 WTST 10 15 22825 120392073700 Farmer City 1-79 19790717 196 WTST 10 15 22826 120392073800 Farmer City #2-79 2-79 19790720 190 WTST 10 15 22827 120392124900 Farmer City T.H 2-96 19960502 211 Water 10 15 22828 120392124800 Farmer City T.H (1-96) 11 19970729 200 Water 10 15 22829 120392074900 Farmer City, City of 196 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-25

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 22830 120392075000 Farmer City, City of 10 190 Water 10 15 22831 120392117600 Murphy, Earl 19491231 54 Water 10 15 22832 120390059200 Stagen, Carl 19730101 190 Water 10 15 22833 120390050600 Farmer City TH 1/64 19641111 245 WTST 10 15 22834 120390050700 Farmer City TH 2/64 19641120 185 WTST 10 15 22835 120390059600 Farmer City, City of 1-73 230 Water 10 15 22836 120390035800 Kissack Est. 19300101 51 Water 10 15 22837 120390035900 Kissack Estate 19441001 45 Water 10 15 22838 120390036000 Prudential Insurance Co. 19160101 175 Water 10 15 22839 120392108200 Schnamen, L. 1-63 185 WTST 10 15 22840 120390036100 Schneman, Frank 19000101 173 Water 10 15 22841 120390036200 Sievers, Frank 19460401 40 Water 10 15 22842 120390036300 Sievers, Frank 2 19460101 31 Water 10 15 22843 121472055600 Howe, Narteya 19830831 50 Water 10 15 22844 120390050800 Smith, A. A. 20 Water 10 15 22845 121470021400 Smith, A. A. 3 19670627 42 Water 10 15 22846 121472077900 Smith, A. A. 19450101 61 Water 10 15 22847 120392139300 Grimes, Dave 3 19990121 240 Water 10 15 22848 120390050900 Lindsay, Charles 19090101 31 Water 10 15 22849 120390001100 Farmer City 6 19550601 43 Water 10 15 22850 120390001300 Farmer City 10 19550601 40 Water 10 15 22851 120390001400 Farmer City 11 19550601 40 Water 10 15 22852 120390001500 Farmer City 12 19550601 40 Water 10 15 22853 120390001600 Farmer City 13 19550701 40 Water 10 15 22854 120392108400 Farmer City 9-54 60 WTST 10 15 22855 120392108500 Farmer City 10-54 80 WTST 10 15 22856 120392108600 Farmer City 11-54 20 WTST 10 15 22857 120392108700 Farmer City 12-54 15 WTST 10 15 22858 120392108300 Farmer City #8-54 8-54 190 WTST 10 15 22859 120390025800 Hansen, Eugene #1 1 19761210 162 Water 10 15 22860 120390036400 Kissack Estate 173 Water 10 15 22861 120390001700 Farmer City 55-14 19551001 185 Water 10 15 22862 120390001800 Farmer City 55-15 19551001 183 WTST 10 15 22863 120390048900 Farmer City 7 19670911 180 Water 10 15 22864 120390053800 Farmer City 3-67 19670301 180 WTST 10 15 22865 120392065100 Farmer City 6-67 19670316 189 WTST 10 15 22866 120392065200 Farmer City 5-67 19670315 196 WTST 10 15 22867 120392065300 Farmer City 2-67 19670308 193 WTST 10 15 22868 120392065400 Farmer City 1-67 19670227 196 WTST 10 15 22869 120392065500 Farmer City 4-67 19670301 194 WTST 10 15 22870 120392109300 Farmer City 6-54 WTST 10 15 22871 120392109400 Farmer City 7-54 WTST 10 15 22872 120390051500 Farmer City Test 1 180 WTST 10 15 22873 120390051600 Farmer City Test 17 190 WTST 10 15 22874 120390051700 Farmer City Test 18 175 WTST 10 15 22875 120390051800 Farmer City Test 19 180 WTST 10 15 22876 120390051900 Farmer City Test 21 170 WTST 10 15 22877 120390036700 Farmer City Test Hole 19510101 150 WTST 10 15 22878 120392108800 Farmer City Test Hole 1 19540101 WTST 10 15 22879 120392108900 Farmer City Test Hole 2 19540101 WTST 10 15 22880 120392109000 Farmer City Test Hole 3 19540101 WTST 10 15 22881 120392109100 Farmer City Test Hole 4 19540101 WTST 10 15 22882 120392109200 Farmer City Test Hole 5 19540101 WTST 10 15 22883 120390036600 Farmer City Well 4 19310701 174 Water 10 15 22884 120390036800 Farmer City Well 3 19510901 172 Water 10 15 22885 120390000900 Farmer City, City of 1 19550101 193 Water 10 15 22886 120390001000 Farmer City, City of 5 19550501 160 Water 10 15 22887 120390001200 Farmer City, City of 9 19550601 40 Water 10 15 22888 120390036500 Farmer City, City of 19300101 164 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-26

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 22889 120390058400 Farmer City, City of 6 19551201 172 Water 10 15 22890 120392061700 Farmer City, City of 4 19551101 167 Water 10 15 22891 120392061800 Farmer City, City of 2 19450901 167 Water 10 15 22892 120390036900 Scarbough, Alva 19450801 165 Water 10 15 22893 120390037000 Smith, A. A. 19460101 33 Water 10 15 22894 120392082600 Woodlawn Country Club 1 19870908 159 Water 10 15 22895 120390051100 Vance, J. C. 20 Water 10 15 22904 120390057400 Farmer City, City of 4-71 19711103 175 WTST 10 15 22907 120392115600 Leahy, Richard 1 19940915 67 Water 10 15 22908 120392136800 Osborne, Todd 1 19980622 174 Water 10 15 22911 120392066100 Resser, R. M. 19760630 83 Water 10 15 22913 120390037400 Waindle, Edward F. 19460101 66 Water 10 15 22915 120392150400 Ashcoft-Kopp Farms 20010821 28 Water 10 15 22916 120392150200 Emmerson, Verl L. 20010628 165 Water 10 15 22917 120390057100 Farmer City, City of 1-71 19711029 166 WTST 10 15 22918 120390057200 Farmer City, City of 2-71 19711101 173 WTST 10 15 22919 120390057300 Farmer City, City of 3-71 19711102 168 WTST 10 15 22920 120390058300 Farmer City, City of 6 19720719 153 Water 10 15 22921 120392148300 Hammer, Mike 1 20010519 155 Water 10 15 22922 120392116600 Marvin, Virgil 19631231 165 Water 10 15 22923 120390037500 Morgan 19400101 69 Water 10 15 22924 120392082200 Reynold, Fred E. 1 19870725 52 Water 10 15 22925 120392118300 Stickles, Roger#1-94 19940921 173 Water 10 15 22926 120392106200 Stickles, Roger#2-94 19940930 164 Water 10 15 22927 120392117300 Twist, Roger 19941223 165 Water 10 15 22928 120392119400 Russell, Scott #1 19950727 240 Water 10 15 22929 120392110200 Simpson, Eugene 19940421 61 Water 10 15 22930 121472103600 Harris Station 19560101 75 WTST 10 15 22931 121472046500 Petry, C. A. 1 19780520 167 Water 10 15 22932 121472046600 West Fertilizer (John West) 1 19780913 192 Water 10 15 22970 121472103700 Smith, Don 1-66 19661223 210 WTST 10 15 24739 121130060700 Lovins, D. M. 1 19680501 95 Water 10 15 24740 121132354800 Shultz, Gary 19970930 115 Water 10 15 24741 121132212500 McDonald Bros. 19390101 53 Water 10 15 24742 121132224500 Thomas, John 19400401 74 Water 10 15 24743 121132307300 Thompson, Keith 19940810 265 Water 10 15 24745 121132144200 Leight, Al 2 19820421 105 Water 10 15 24759 121132319400 Breese, Todd 19950713 76 Water 10 15 24763 121130025100 Wade, Anna 19410101 117 Water 10 15 24764 121132124700 Brobst, Richard 1 19770810 190 Water 10 15 24765 121132359200 Cleinmark, Dave 1 19991203 171 Water 10 15 24766 121132240300 Cleinmark, Dave #1 1 19921014 190 Water 10 15 24767 121132378800 Country Lane MH 1 125 Water 10 15 24768 121132377000 Darrow, D. & Williams, A. 1 20001018 191 Water 10 15 24769 121132359300 Jacquin, Tammy 1 19991007 146 Water 10 15 24770 121132351000 Johnson, Rick A. 1 19980629 169 Water 10 15 24771 121132243800 Lauher, Fred 1 122 Water 10 15 24772 121132351100 Roth, Miriam 1 19980909 162 Water 10 15 24773 121132191300 Strange, Samuel P. 1 19881220 186 Water 10 15 24776 121132309900 Whitmeyer, Mark 19940912 75 Water 10 15 24777 121132206000 Bartell, Frank 19931130 105 Water 10 15 24778 121132382800 Bartosik, Daniel 2 20010407 93 Water 10 15 24779 121132264800 Gaines, Tom 1 19910829 55 Water 10 15 24780 121132371700 Kauffman, Jack 20001003 88 Water 10 15 24781 121132369900 Kiesling, Bill 2 20000526 55 Water 10 15 24782 121130095000 Ohlendorf, Bill #1 1 19720612 95 Water 10 15 24783 121130095100 Ohlendorf, Bill #1 1 19720720 55 Water 10 15 24784 121130095200 Ohlendorf, Bill #1 1 19720614 80 Water 10 15 24785 121130086800 Ohlendorph, Bill 40 19710612 190 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-27

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 24786 121130086700 Ohlendorph, Bill #21 21 19710610 55 Water 10 15 24787 121130095300 White, Ronald 1 19720620 95 Water 10 15 24788 121132286500 Boitnott, Tom 75 Water 10 15 24789 121132298800 Brooks, Robert 1 19940427 62 Water 10 15 24790 121132289100 Coombs, Glen 19921101 120 Water 10 15 24791 121132112600 Coombs, Glenn 19751031 59 Water 10 15 24792 121132118200 Foreman, E. H. 19761004 77 Water 10 15 24793 121132284200 Fuson, Mickey 19920520 65 Water 10 15 24794 121132312000 Hannes, Gary #3 19941201 85 Water 10 15 24795 121132383700 Iseminger, Duane & Esther 1 20010505 74 Water 10 15 24796 121132344100 Kilhoffer, Kelley 2 19970702 80 Water 10 15 24797 121132211900 Killhoffer, Kelly 1 19930630 28 Water 10 15 24798 121132378900 Longview Subdivisio 1 110 Water 10 15 24799 121132114400 Martin,Wayne Jr. 1 19760101 58 Water 10 15 24800 121132323000 Milton, Gerald #2 19940930 80 Water 10 15 24801 121132278200 Necessary, Joe 1 19920429 100 Water 10 15 24802 121132330500 Patterson, Paul #1 19960716 100 Water 10 15 24803 121132117100 Phoenix III Corp 19760622 47 Water 10 15 24804 121132311200 Smith, Lyle J. 9 43 WTST 10 15 24805 121132294500 Taylor, David 19930831 125 Water 10 15 24806 121132298900 Theobald, Keith I. 19940602 85 Water 10 15 24807 121132377500 Wood, Brad 1 20001016 240 Water 10 15 24808 121132286100 Milton, Glenn 19920615 85 Water 10 15 24809 121132342500 Milton, Kenneth 19970807 55 Water 10 15 24810 121132323100 Ashley, Vernal #2 19950908 100 Water 10 15 24811 121132187800 Clemons, Gary 1 19880520 101 Water 10 15 24812 121132375900 Evans, Garry 1 20000922 102 Water 10 15 24813 121132359400 Lott, Steve 1 19991124 110 Water 10 15 24814 121132162600 McGuire, Mike 1 19871030 91 Water 10 15 24815 121132375200 Ritter, Kevin 3 20001023 72 Water 10 15 24816 121132306500 Rosenberger, Wesley 19940531 365 Water 10 15 24817 121130098600 Cooperider, David 19721201 97 Water 10 15 24819 121132371900 Corbitt, Cheryl 2 20000925 95 Water 10 15 24820 121132144700 Corbitt, Tom 1 19800420 81 Water 10 15 24821 121132382000 Cowden, John 1 20010509 61 Water 10 15 24822 121130088600 Dieter, George #1 1 19701108 157 Water 10 15 24823 121132243900 Holt, Lee 1 19900727 77 Water 10 15 24824 121132348100 Melton, Jerry A. 19980504 110 Water 10 15 24825 121132348200 Melton, Jerry A. 19980509 110 Water 10 15 24826 121132384600 Milton, Gerald (Todd Springer) 19930112 80 Water 10 15 24827 121132136200 Rust, Edward B. 81 Water 10 15 24828 121132304400 Kutemeier, Don 19940930 185 Water 10 15 24829 121132359000 Nicholas, Garth 19960906 32 Water 10 15 24830 121132244000 Shaw, Bob 19900605 94 Water 10 15 24831 121132310000 Zoerb, Jim 19941001 75 Water 10 15 24832 121132359100 Angel, Marty & Dawn 19991022 47 Water 10 15 24833 121132244100 Ensminger, Noble 1 19890809 38 Water 10 15 24834 121132337900 Zimmerman, Dan 2 19970401 85 Water 10 15 24835 121132338100 Zimmerman, Dan 1 19970321 80 Water 10 15 24836 121132342600 Zimmerman, Dan 3 19970404 85 Water 10 15 24837 121132328500 Krieg, Russell #2 19960322 130 Water 10 15 24838 121132339600 New Horizon Christian Church 19970706 80 Water 10 15 24839 121132291100 Spaulding, Les 2 19930520 87 Water 10 15 24840 121132342700 Fitzgerald, Charles 19971001 50 Water 10 15 24841 121130012800 Heyworth Test 7 19350101 114 WTST 10 15 24842 121130012900 Heyworth Test 8 19350101 66 WTST 10 15 24843 121132379000 Heyworth, Village o 2 19590101 59 Water 10 15 24844 121132213100 Brown, A. E. 56 Water 10 15 24845 121132230100 Daniel 82 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-28

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 24846 121130013000 Heyworth Test 2 19350101 335 WTST 10 15 24847 121130013100 Heyworth Test 3 19350101 275 WTST 10 15 24848 121130013200 Heyworth Test Well 5 19350101 91 WTST 10 15 24849 121132213300 Cunningham, F. 128 Water 10 15 24850 121132328900 Geosling, Gary 19951006 325 Water 10 15 24851 121130013300 Heyworth Test 1 19340101 328 WTST 10 15 24852 121130013500 Heyworth Test B 19350101 41 WTST 10 15 24853 121132231000 Heyworth, City of #2 52 WTST 10 15 24854 121130004700 Heyworth,City of 2 19591001 63 Water 10 15 24855 121132301200 Hinthorn, Keith & Terry 1 19940731 312 Water 10 15 24856 121132295100 Hunt, David 19930521 295 Water 10 15 24857 121132299000 Hunt, David 105 Water 10 15 24858 121132305300 Kaufman, Mike 1 19931103 180 Water 10 15 24859 121132213500 Lumber Yard 82 Water 10 15 24860 121132330600 Call, George #1 19960805 251 Water 10 15 24861 121132344200 Sinn, Chuck 2 19961230 265 Water 10 15 24879 121132374000 Schaffer, Ivan Trust 2 20000530 70 Water 10 15 24881 121132324400 Snyder Development 19951010 76 Water 10 15 24882 121132324500 Snyder Development #2 19951009 76 Water 10 15 24884 121132389300 Espinoza, Dave 1 20011017 79 Water 10 15 24885 121132344300 Prochnow, Gerald & Debbie 1 19970722 77 Water 10 15 24886 121132244300 Prochnow, Gerald R. 1 19891219 70 Water 10 15 24887 121132386600 Fish, Bob 1 20010717 140 Water 10 15 24888 121132124800 Hillary, Don #1 19770422 78 Water 10 15 24889 121132299100 Hillery, Donald 2 19940822 90 Water 10 15 24890 121132324600 Milby, Larry #2 19950929 52 Water 10 15 24891 121132278300 Griffin, Ross 2 19920413 130 Water 10 15 24892 121132351300 Griffin, Ross 3 19980730 330 Water 10 15 24893 121132289200 Hamblin, Richard 19921014 125 Water 10 15 24894 121132144300 Baker, Dale 1 19831001 111 Water 10 15 24895 121132161800 Grubb, Gene 2 19870917 125 Water 10 15 24896 121132371100 Klodzinski, Tammy 2 20000726 95 Water 10 15 24897 121130025200 Rust, Adlai #1 1 19391001 80 Water 10 15 24898 121132304500 Brent, Allen 1 19940731 122 Water 10 15 24899 121132332500 Gher, Brad 19950501 140 Water 10 15 24900 121132332600 Adams-Duke Farms #1 19960821 70 Water 10 15 24901 121132234700 Prosser, D. W. #1 19390101 77 Water 10 15 24902 121132156200 Head, Charles 2 19860905 89 Water 10 15 24903 121132339700 Roberts, Jesse 19970728 93 Water 10 15 24904 121132291200 Johnson, Paul 2 19930122 95 Water 10 15 24905 121130025900 Johnson, Emery #1 1 19430101 67 Water 10 15 24906 121132389000 Stutzman, Ronald 2 20011022 103 Water 10 15 24907 121132234800 Tompkins, W. G. #1 19390101 76 Water 10 15 24908 121132301300 Hamman, Stanley 1 19931130 95 Water 10 15 24909 121132370800 Morgan, Brad 1 20000516 85 Water 10 15 24910 121130026000 Rust, Adlai H. #1 1 19401201 170 Water 10 15 24911 121132192000 Rust, Edward B. 2 19840428 86 Water 10 15 24912 121132308600 Yolton Farms #1 19941123 99 Water 10 15 24913 121132192100 Rust, Edward B. 2 19840427 95 Water 10 15 24914 121132388400 Snodgrass, Eric 1 20010406 302 Water 10 15 24915 121130026100 Franklin Estate 19400101 75 Water 10 15 24916 121130053000 Ryan, John 67 Water 10 15 24919 121132352600 Hanshew, Deb & Ken 1 19980806 81 Water 10 15 24934 121132155300 McCauley, Irvine 1 19860627 190 Water 10 15 24935 121130013700 Johnson, J. T. 1 19401201 169 Water 10 15 24936 121132235200 Whitmer, L. G. 19350501 58 Water 10 15 24937 121132359700 Starkey, Jerry 1 19990924 123 Water 10 15 24941 121130026400 Crumbaugh, Clara 19410101 84 Water 10 15 24942 121132347400 Kirby, Lonnie 1 19970605 92 Water DEL-096-REV0 A-29

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Appendix A - Wells Within 15 mi from the Site TABLE A-1 Wells within 15 mi from the Site Distance Interval Well Well Date Depth Well APIa Owner from Site (mi) ID Number Constructedb (ft) Statusc 10 15 24943 121132359800 Myers, Steve 1 19991224 96 Water 10 15 24944 121130003100 Leroy State Bank #1 1 19570101 47 Water 10 15 24945 121132367800 Peters, Marvin 1 20000405 110 Water 10 15 24946 121130012000 Stahley Bros. #1 1 19410101 189 Water 10 15 24947 121132372400 Wolren Corp. 2 20001018 143 Water 10 15 24948 121132235400 LeRoy, City of 19670203 103 Water 10 15 24949 121130012100 Stahley, G. A. #1 1 19410501 112 Water 10 15 24950 121132235500 Whitmer, L. G. #1 19400101 65 Water 10 15 24951 121130066900 Wollrab, James C. #1 1 19690902 178 Water 10 15 24952 121132144500 City Of Leroy 8 19820809 105 Water 10 15 24953 121132235600 Kline, E.D. #1 19400101 58 Water 10 15 24954 121132313100 LeRoy, City of 19820809 105 Water 10 15 24955 121132313200 LeRoy, City of #TH1-82 19920326 200 Water 10 15 24956 121130055801 LeRoy, City of #4 19680508 80 Water 10 15 24957 121132120400 LeRoy, Village of 2-77 19771019 100 WTST 10 15 24959 121132118600 Leroy, City of 1-77 19770401 115 WTST 10 15 24960 121130055800 Leroy, City of #4 4 19400101 78 Water 10 15 24961 121132123900 Leroy, City of #7 7 19780306 76 Water 10 15 24962 121132269100 Leroy Lanes Water 10 15 24963 121132365600 Thornton, Neil & Deb 1 19990922 74 Water 10 15 24964 121132144600 Ford, Arlo 2 19820423 124 Water 10 15 24965 121132115100 McLaughlin, James 19660101 140 Water 10 15 24966 121132244600 McLaughlin, Mike 3 19890327 123 Water 10 15 24967 121132120200 Amdor, John G. 2 19770418 86 Water 10 15 24968 121130086400 Golden, Kenneth 19720109 78 Water 10 15 24969 121132186300 Hail, Michael 1 19880918 73 Water 10 15 24970 121132260500 Hendren, Merle 1 19910630 88 Water 10 15 24971 121132299200 LeRoy Country Club 2 19940525 50 Water 10 15 24972 121132236400 LeRoy Damsite 1 19411201 61 Water 10 15 24973 121132236500 LeRoy Damsite 2 19411201 27 Water 10 15 24974 121132236600 LeRoy Damsite 3 19411201 30 Water 10 15 24975 121132236700 LeRoy Damsite 4 37 Water 10 15 24976 121132236800 LeRoy Damsite 5 19411201 26 Water 10 15 24977 121132236900 LeRoy Damsite 6 19411201 32 Water 10 15 24978 121132237000 LeRoy Damsite 7 19411201 36 Water 10 15 24979 121132269200 Leroy Country Club Water 10 15 24980 121132305400 Moberly, Mark 1 19940916 71 Water 10 15 24981 121130080900 Golden,Glen 1 19700901 100 Water 10 15 24982 121132159800 Kinnison, Jerry 2 19870622 41 Water 10 15 24983 121132125000 Price, Georg 1 19770712 169 Water 10 15 24984 121132120600 Allis Chalmers 19770705 75 Water 10 15 24985 121130086900 Dardano,Pasqual 1 19710930 90 Water 10 15 24997 121132155800 Brooks, Larry 1 19860915 49 Water 10 15 24998 121132108600 Cook, George 19741125 54 Water 10 15 24999 121132237400 Crago, C.F. 19400101 47 Water 10 15 25000 121130076700 Mathews, Joe 40 Water 10 15 25001 121132331800 Mayer, Harold 19961122 260 Water 10 15 25002 121132373300 Mayer, Harold 2 20000811 184 Water 10 15 25003 121130088700 Gibson, Mack Leon 19720401 43 Water 10 15 25024 121132339900 Collins, Dean R 2 149 Water 10 15 25025 121132340000 Collins, Dean R 3 227 Water 10 15 25026 121132339800 Collins, Dean R. 1 240 Water 10 15 25027 121132244700 Hendren, Ken 2 19900709 90 Water 10 15 25037 121132136600 Althouse, Delmar 19801022 194 Water Source: Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS). GIS Layer of Well Locations. 2002.

a ISGS well number that consists of a State code (12), a 3-digit County code, and a 5-digit unique number, and a 2-digit re-drill code b

Date completed 'YYYYMMDD' c

Well Status: Water = water well, WATRS = Water Supply Well, WTST = Water Well Test Hole DEL-096-REV0 A-30

APPENDIX B Schools Within the Region TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Douglas Elementary School Clinton 4.8 16 253 NCES Webster Elementary School Clinton 4.8 19 255 NCES Clinton Cu School District 15 Clinton 5.2 NA NA NA Clinton Junior High School Clinton 5.2 41 467 NCES Lincoln Elementary School Clinton 5.4 15 245 NCES Washington Elementary School Clinton 5.4 18 301 NCES Clinton Christian Academy Clinton 5.7 NA NA NA Clinton Alternative Education Clinton 5.9 NA NA NA Clinton High School Clinton 6 53 738 NCES Richland Community College Clinton 6 65 3,100 IDCCA De Land Elementary School Weldon 7.3 9 121 NCES Deland Weldon Middle School Weldon 7.3 2 26 NCES Maroa Grade School Maroa 10.6 17 288 NCES Heyworth High School Heyworth 11 24 342 NCES Maroa Forsyth School District 2 Maroa 11 NA NA NA Maroa-Forsyth High School Maroa 11 21 279 NCES Maroa-Forsyth Junior High School Maroa 11 4 156 NCES Heyworth Elementary School Heyworth 11.2 37 508 NCES Heyworth Community Unit School Heyworth 11.3 NA NA NA District Argenta Early Learning Center Argenta 12.4 3 131 NCES Argenta High School Argenta 12.4 24 318 NCES Argenta Junior High School Argenta 12.4 NA NA NA Argenta Oreana Junior High School Argenta 12.4 13 163 NCES Argenta-Oreana Community Unit Argenta 12.4 NA NA NA School 1 Argenta-Oreana School Supt Argenta 12.4 NA NA NA Blue Ridge High School Farmer City 12.5 24 299 NCES DEL-096-REV0 B-1

APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Ruth M Schneider Elementary Farmer City 12.5 19 348 NCES School Le Roy Superintendent's Office Le Roy 13 NA NA NA Le Roy High School Le Roy 13.1 25 243 NCES Le Roy Junior High School Le Roy 13.1 9 128 NCES Blue Ridge Community Unit School Farmer City 13.2 NA NA NA District Tri Valley Cu School District Downs 13.4 NA NA NA Tri-Valley Elementary School Downs 13.4 23 320 NCES Le Roy Elementary School Le Roy 13.5 37 463 NCES Deland-Weldon Community Unit De Land 14.5 NA NA NA Deland-Weldon High School De Land 14.5 11 48 NCES Tri Valley Middle School Downs 15.1 29 378 NCES Tri-Valley High School Downs 15.1 23 294 NCES Argenta-Oreana Elementary School Oreana 16.5 33 472 NCES Forsyth Grade School Forsyth 18.1 19 299 NCES Metamorphosis Montessori School Monticello 18.4 NA NA NA H&R Block Tax Service Monticello 18.6 NA NA NA Mc Lean Elementary School McLean 18.8 12 211 NCES Faith Christian School Monticello 18.9 NA NA NA Monticello Community School Monticello 18.9 NA NA NA District Mansfield Elementary School Mansfield 19.3 15 205 NCES Blue Ridge Junior High School Mansfield 19.4 9 138 NCES Brigham Elementary School Bloomington 19.4 38 516 NCES Richland Community College Decatur 19.4 250 5,012 IDCCA Warrensburg Community High Warrensburg 19.4 22 358 NCES School Warrensburg-Latham School Warrensburg 19.4 NA NA NA District 11 Warrensburg Jr High School Warrensburg 19.7 NA NA NA Warrensburg-Latham Elementary/

Warrensburg 19.7 44 807 NCES Middle School Lutheran School Association Decatur 20 29 515 NCES B-2 DEL-096-REV0

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Ridgeview Arrowsmith Elementary Arrowsmith 20 7 115 NCES Stevenson Accelerated School Decatur 20 11 214 NCES Atlanta Elementary School Atlanta 20.3 17 226 NCES Decatur Christian School Decatur 20.3 NA NA NA Mound Middle School Decatur 20.3 26 501 NCES Roosevelt Middle School Decatur 20.3 27 543 NCES Stephen Decatur High School Decatur 20.3 33 730 NCES Sunnyside Center School Decatur 20.3 11 142 NCES Holy Trininty School Bloomington 20.6 NA NA NA Macon Resources Inc Decatur 20.6 NA NA NA Parsons Accelerated School Decatur 20.7 21 366 NCES Pepper Ridge School Bloomington 20.7 40 640 NCES Cerro Gordo Grade School Cerro Gordo 20.9 20 279 NCES Decatur Christian Elementary Decatur 21 NA NA NA Cerro Gordo High School Cerro Gordo 21.1 17 230 NCES Cerro Gordo Middle School Cerro Gordo 21.1 6 145 NCES Cerro Gordo Superintendent Office Cerro Gordo 21.1 NA NA NA Oakland Elementary School Bloomington 21.1 31 513 NCES Village Travel Decatur 21.2 NA NA NA Cornerston Christian Academy Bloomington 21.3 NA NA NA Hairmasters Institute Bloomington 21.4 NA NA NA Suzi Davis Travel Bloomington 21.4 NA NA NA Chesterbrook Academy Bloomington 21.5 NA NA NA Trinity Lutheran School Bloomington 21.5 NA NA NA St Teresa High School Decatur 21.6 NA NA NA Chesterbrook Academy Bloomington 21.7 NA NA NA Irving Elementary School Bloomington 21.7 33 436 NCES St Mary's School Bloomington 21.7 NA NA NA Washington Elementary School Bloomington 21.7 21 429 NCES Grove Elementary School Bloomington 21.8 NA NA NA Bloomington Grove Academy Bloomington 21.9 NA NA NA DEL-096-REV0 B-3

APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source McLean County Christian School Bloomington 21.9 NA NA NA Bloomington School District 87 Bloomington 22 NA NA NA Decatur Memorial Hospital Decatur 22 NA NA NA Bloomington Area Vocational Bloomington 22.1 11 NA NCES Center Bloomington Computer Center Bloomington 22.1 NA NA NA Bloomington High School Bloomington 22.1 85 1,487 NCES Sarah NCES Raymond School of Bloomington 22.1 8 144 NCES Early Education Bloomington Junior High School Bloomington 22.2 77 1,309 NCES Stevenson Elementary School Bloomington 22.2 32 516 NCES William Harris Elementary School Decatur 22.2 18 355 NCES Benjamin Franklin Elementary Decatur 22.3 18 308 NCES School Central Catholic High School Bloomington 22.3 18 578 IDCCA La Petite Academy Bloomington 22.3 NA NA NA Bent Elementary School Bloomington 22.5 27 337 NCES Brush College Elementary School Decatur 22.5 15 298 NCES Illinois Wesleyan University Bloomington 22.5 132 1,014 IDCCA Midwest Christian Academy Bloomington 22.5 NA NA NA Sheridan Elementary School Bloomington 22.6 42 560 NCES Chesterbrook Academy Bloomington 22.7 NA NA NA Illinois Wesleyan University Bloomington 22.7 132 1,014 IDCCA Durfee Elementary School Decatur 22.9 24 460 NCES Mr John's School of Esthetics Decatur 23.1 NA NA NA Oak Grove Elementary School Decatur 23.1 14 339 NCES Douglas Mac Arthur High School Decatur 23.2 49 1,069 NCES Glenn Elementary School Normal 23.2 19 305 NCES Area Technical Academy Decatur 23.3 NA NA NA Colene Hoose Elementary School Normal 23.3 39 704 NCES Decatur Area Vocational Center Decatur 23.3 14 NA NCES Decatur School-Practical Nursing Decatur 23.3 NA NA NA Northpoint Elementary School Bloomington 23.3 38 646 NCES B-4 DEL-096-REV0

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Bloomington Normal School Normal 23.4 NA NA NA Northwest Christian School Decatur 23.4 NA NA NA St Patrick School Decatur 23.4 NA NA NA Thomas Jefferson Middle School Decatur 23.5 28 518 NCES Bemenet Elementary School Bement 23.6 15 233 NCES Bement Community School District Bement 23.6 NA NA NA 5

Bement High School Bement 23.6 13 132 NCES Bement Middle School Bement 23.6 6 95 NCES Bement School Bement 23.6 NA NA NA Chiddix Junior High School Normal 23.6 56 783 NCES Epiphany Catholic Grade School Normal 23.7 NA NA NA Johns Hill Magnet School Decatur 23.7 29 561 NCES Michael E Baum Elementary Decatur 23.7 20 395 NCES School St James Catholic School Decatur 23.7 NA NA NA Sugar Creek Elementary School Normal 23.7 17 313 NCES Washington Elementary School Decatur 23.7 27 570 NCES Oakdale Elementary School Normal 23.8 40 586 NCES Sangamon Elementary School Mahomet 23.8 31 374 NCES Millikin University Decatur 23.9 214 2,079 IDCCA Normal Community High School Normal 23.9 88 1,346 NCES Smiley Jim Decatur 23.9 NA NA NA Dennis Elementary School Decatur 24 16 291 NCES Eugene Field Elementary School Normal 24.1 9 138 NCES Mahomet-Seymour High School Mahomet 24.1 42 620 NCES Southeast Elementary School Decatur 24.1 17 339 NCES Lincoln Trail Elementary School Mahomet 24.2 34 635 NCES Mahomet Junior High School Mahomet 24.2 53 809 NCES Middletown Early Childhood Center Mahomet 24.2 12 244 NCES Dwight D Eisenhower High School Decatur 24.3 49 999 NCES Heartland Community College Normal 24.3 50 2,151 IDCCA DEL-096-REV0 B-5

APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Prairieland Elementary School Normal 24.3 35 692 NCES Parkside Elementary School Normal 24.4 22 295 NCES University High School Normal 24.4 47 617 NCES Mennonite College of Nursing Normal 24.5 6 200 IDCCA Muffley Elementary School Decatur 24.5 16 370 NCES Parkside Junior High School Normal 24.6 52 767 NCES East Park Baptist Church Decatur 24.7 NA NA NA Illinois State University Normal 24.7 1,126 20,504 IDCCA Thomas Metcalf School Normal 24.7 45 468 NCES Calvary Baptist Academy Normal 24.8 NA NA NA College of Fine Arts Dean Normal 24.8 NA NA NA Mt Pulaski Community Unit School Mount Pulaski 24.8 NA NA NA District Mt Pulaski Grade School Mount Pulaski 24.8 26 340 NCES Fairview Elementary School Normal 24.9 22 398 NCES Zion Lutheran Grade School Mount Pulaski 24.9 NA NA NA Lincoln Correctional Center Lincoln 25 7 33 NCES Logan Correctional Center Lincoln 25 12 557 NCES Harristown Elementary School Harristown 25.1 15 243 NCES Mount Pulaski High School Mount Pulaski 25.1 22 206 NCES Olympia High School Stanford 25.1 45 708 NCES Olympia Middle School Stanford 25.3 27 374 NCES Stanford Grade School Stanford 25.3 15 153 NCES Salem Elementary School Decatur 25.4 6 125 NCES Chester-East Lincoln School Lincoln 25.5 27 325 NCES Garfield Elementary School Decatur 25.5 NA NA NA John Adams Elementary School Decatur 25.5 12 263 NCES Lincoln Christian College Lincoln 25.5 28 312 IDCCA Lincoln College Normal 25.5 NA NA NA Midwest School of Welding Lincoln 25.6 6 0 IDCCA Enterprise Elementary School Decatur 25.7 23 388 NCES Holy Family Parish School Decatur 25.7 NA NA NA B-6 DEL-096-REV0

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Normal West High School Normal 25.7 83 1,358 NCES South Shores Elementary School Decatur 25.8 17 300 NCES Towanda Elementary School Towanda 25.8 9 167 NCES Adams Elementary School Lincoln 26 6 133 NCES Lincoln High School Lincoln 26.1 65 980 NCES Washington-Monroe Elementary Lincoln 26.1 19 293 NCES School Lincoln College Lincoln 26.3 55 850 IDCCA Central Elementary School Lincoln 26.5 16 257 NCES Lincoln Junior High School Lincoln 26.5 20 288 NCES Carroll Catholic School Lincoln 26.6 NA NA NA Garfield Montessori School Decatur 26.8 16 301 NCES Lincoln Christian College Lincoln 26.8 28 312 IDCCA Northwest Elementary School Lincoln 26.9 16 229 NCES Jefferson Elementary School Lincoln 27.2 10 95 NCES Niantic-Harristown High School Niantic 27.5 14 141 NCES Niantic-Harristown Junior High Niantic 27.5 6 122 NCES School Niantic-Harristown School District Niantic 27.5 NA NA NA McGaughey Elementary School Mount Zion 27.7 23 403 NCES Zion Lutheran School Lincoln 27.7 NA NA NA Mt Zion Elementary School Mount Zion 28 12 235 NCES Title I Curriculum Center at Wood Decatur 28 10 255 NCES Christian Academy Lincoln 28.1 NA NA NA Mt Zion Intermediate School Mount Zion 28.1 23 444 NCES Mt Zion Junior High School Mount Zion 28.1 18 418 NCES Mt Zion Senior High School Mount Zion 28.1 39 778 NCES West Lincoln-Broadwel Elementary Lincoln 28.6 15 194 NCES School Fisher Junior/Senior High School Fisher 28.8 20 257 NCES Fisher Grade School Fisher 29 24 335 NCES Mary W French Academy Decatur 29 18 379 NCES Danvers Elementary School Danvers 29.2 18 307 NCES DEL-096-REV0 B-7

APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Minier/Armington Elementary Minier 29.2 20 264 NCES School Ridgeview Colfax Elementary Colfax 29.9 24 300 NCES School Ridgeview Community Junior High Colfax 29.9 3 134 NCES School Ridgeview High School Colfax 29.9 20 232 NCES Seventh-Day Adventist School Champaign 30 NA NA NA Illiopolis Community School Illiopolis 30.1 15 253 NCES Illiopolis High School Illiopolis 30.1 9 92 NCES Countryside School Champaign 30.2 NA NA NA St Thomas Moore High School Champaign 30.4 NA NA NA Vernon L Barkstall Elementary Champaign 30.4 28 451 NCES School Kenwood Elementary School Champaign 30.7 32 428 NCES Parkland College Champaign 30.7 243 4,640 IDCCA Robeson Elementary School Champaign 31.1 33 498 NCES Sheet Metal Workers Training Champaign 31.2 NA NA NA Centennial High School Champaign 31.3 95 1,508 NCES Jefferson Middle School Champaign 31.3 56 766 NCES Montessori Elementary School Champaign 31.3 NA NA NA Sadorus Grade School Sadorus 31.3 4 63 NCES Garden Hills Elementary School Champaign 31.4 34 453 NCES St John's Lutheran School Champaign 31.5 NA NA NA Hudson Elementary School Hudson 31.7 18 256 NCES Carrie Busey Elementary School Champaign 31.8 31 400 NCES Westview Elementary School Champaign 32 27 361 NCES Dr Howard Elementary School Champaign 32.1 33 468 NCES Lexington Elementary School Lexington 32.1 23 320 NCES Lexington High School Lexington 32.1 15 185 NCES Lexington Junior High School Lexington 32.1 4 67 NCES St Matthew Catholic School Champaign 32.2 NA NA NA Judah Christian Schools Champaign 32.3 NA NA NA B-8 DEL-096-REV0

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Bottenfield Elementary School Champaign 32.6 25 380 NCES Carlock Elementary School Carlock 32.6 7 151 NCES Franklin Middle School Champaign 32.6 39 556 NCES South Side Elementary School Champaign 32.6 19 254 NCES Central High School Champaign 32.7 79 1,261 NCES First Christian Church Gibson City 32.8 1 12 NCES Holy Cross School Champaign 32.9 NA NA NA Chesterbrook Academy Champaign 33 NA NA NA Columbia Center Champaign 33 14 49 NCES Columbia Elementary School Champaign 33 NA NA NCES Edison Middle School Champaign 33 46 670 NCES Stratton Elementary School Champaign 33 29 365 S GCMS Elementary School Gibson City 33.1 30 478 NCES Gibson City High School Gibson City 33.1 25 325 NCES Parkland College Champaign 33.1 243 4,640 IDCCA Atwood Hammond High School Atwood 33.3 10 146 NCES Mr John's School - Cosmetology Champaign 33.3 NA NA NA Meridian High School Macon 33.4 22 320 NCES University of Illinois Champaign 33.4 1,402 18,198 IDCCA Atwood-Hammond Grade School Atwood 33.5 23 342 NCES Lovington Elementary School Lovington 33.6 22 268 NCES University of Illinois Champaign 33.6 1,402 18,198 IDCCA Emden Elementary School Emden 33.7 9 110 NCES Hopedale Elementary School Hopedale 33.7 10 157 NCES Marquette School Champaign 33.7 9 211 NCES Washington Elementary School Champaign 33.8 24 276 NCES University of Illinois-Urbana Urbana 33.9 2,848 36,936 IDCCA Illinois Mining Institute Champaign 34 NA NA NA Hartsburg-Emden Junior-Senior Hartsburg 34.2 17 172 NCES High School ML King Jr Elementary School Urbana 34.2 27 396 NCES University Lab High School Urbana 34.2 12 297 NCES DEL-096-REV0 B-9

APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Elkhart Elementary School Elkhart 34.3 10 111 NCES Lovington High School Lovington 34.3 11 106 NCES Mount Auburn Elementary School Mount Auburn 34.4 7 89 NCES Tolono Primary School Tolono 34.8 12 155 NCES Unity Junior High School Tolono 34.8 13 186 NCES Leal Elementary School Urbana 34.9 18 315 NCES Unity High School Tolono 34.9 31 445 NCES Concept College of Cosmetology Urbana 35 NA NA NA Tri-City Elementary School Buffalo 35 22 274 NCES Tri-City High School Buffalo 35 17 204 NCES Tri-City Junior High School Buffalo 35 8 161 NCES Urbana High School Urbana 35 88 1,308 NCES Washington Early Childhood Urbana 35 14 221 NCES Center Congerville Elementary School Congerville 35.1 6 94 NCES Christ Theological Seminary Urbana 35.2 NA NA NA Urbana Middle School Urbana 35.3 79 1,068 NCES Deer Creek Mackinaw High School Mackinaw 35.6 24 297 NCES Meridian Middle School Blue Mound 35.6 18 269 NCES Wiley Elementary School Urbana 35.6 24 346 NCES Yankee Ridge Elementary School Urbana 35.7 24 350 NCES Dee-Mack Primary & Junior High Mackinaw 35.9 30 476 NCES School Ironworker Apprenticeship School Urbana 36 NA NA NA Pesotum Grade School Pesotum 36.1 9 171 NCES Thomasboro Grade School Thomasboro 36.1 20 238 NCES Frasca Air Service Inc Urbana 36.2 NA NA NA Thomas Paine Elementary School Urbana 36.3 35 357 NCES Prairie Elementary School Urbana 36.5 28 411 NCES Bethany Elementary School Bethany 37.2 15 188 NCES Broadmeadow Elementary School Rantoul 37.8 17 295 NCES Goodfield Elementary School Goodfield 37.9 5 79 NCES B-10 DEL-096-REV0

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source De Vry Institute of Technology Rantoul 38.1 NA NA NA Arthur Grade School Arthur 38.2 23 341 NCES Delavan Elementary School Delavan 38.2 19 311 NCES Delavan High School Delavan 38.2 15 153 NCES Delavan Junior High School Delavan 38.2 5 83 NCES Parkland College - Tractor Rantoul 38.2 NA NA NA Arthur High School Arthur 38.5 17 161 NCES Arthur Junior High School Arthur 38.5 8 92 NCES N Hollad-Midtown Middle School Middletown 38.5 8 98 NCES New Holland-Middletown Middletown 38.5 6 66 NCES Elementary School Central NCES&M Community High Moweaqua 38.6 25 304 NCES School Champaign-Ford Education Rantoul 38.6 NA NA NA JW Eater Junior High School Rantoul 38.6 32 520 NCES Moweaqua Elementary School Moweaqua 38.6 16 268 NCES Parkland College Rantoul 38.7 NA NA NA Rantoul Township High School Rantoul 38.7 59 849 NCES Northview Elementary School Rantoul 38.8 19 265 NCES Arthur Mennonite School Arthur 39 NA NA NA Bethany Junior/Senior High School Bethany 39 17 169 NCES Gridley Elementary School Gridley 39.1 16 187 NCES Gridley Junior High School Gridley 39.1 5 88 NCES Gridley High School Gridley 39.2 12 117 NCES Philo Grade School Philo 39.2 14 170 NCES Williamsville High School Williamsville 39.4 28 363 NCES Williamsville Junior High School Williamsville 39.4 20 288 NCES Chenoa High School Chenoa 39.5 16 123 NCES Eastlawn Elementary School Rantoul 39.6 23 307 NCES Dee-Mack Middle School Deer Creek 39.8 12 193 NCES Jefferson Park Elementary School El Paso 39.8 24 317 NCES Centennial Elementary School El Paso 39.9 24 330 NCES DEL-096-REV0 B-11

APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Chenoa Elementary School Chenoa 39.9 29 361 NCES Pleasant Acres Elementary School Rantoul 39.9 21 302 NCES El Paso High School El Paso 40 21 295 NCES North Ward Elementary School Tuscola 40.4 27 390 NCES Stonington Elementary School Stonington 40.7 8 141 NCES Taylorville Community School Stonington 40.7 NA NA NA Tremont Elementary School Tremont 40.9 26 432 NCES Tuscola High School Tuscola 40.9 25 334 NCES East Prairie Junior High School Tuscola 41 22 315 NCES Morton High School Morton 41 63 1,020 NCES Tremont High School Tremont 41 25 316 NCES Tremont Junior High School Tremont 41 12 244 NCES Sullivan Elementary School Sullivan 41.6 31 504 NCES Ludlow Elementary School Ludlow 41.7 12 115 NCES Sullivan High School Sullivan 41.7 24 358 NCES Sullivan Middle School Sullivan 41.7 15 261 NCES Eureka Middle School Eureka 42 29 523 NCES Gibson City Melvin Sibley Middle Melvin 42.4 13 250 NCES School Lincoln Elementary School Morton 42.4 22 381 NCES Riverton Elementary School Riverton 42.5 34 639 NCES Riverton Middle School Riverton 42.5 23 449 NCES Grundy Elementary School Morton 42.7 20 314 NCES Eureka College Eureka 42.8 76 525 IDCCA Prairieview Junior High School Thomasboro 42.8 5 60 NCES Villa Grove Elementary School Villa Grove 42.9 27 374 NCES Villa Grove High School Villa Grove 42.9 21 266 NCES Villa Grove Junior High School Villa Grove 42.9 7 140 NCES Blessed Sacrament School Morton 43 NA NA NA Jefferson Elementary School Morton 43 24 355 NCES Davenport Elementary School Eureka 43.1 27 457 NCES Sidney Grade School Sidney 43.1 11 149 NCES B-12 DEL-096-REV0

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Westview Elementary School Fairbury 43.1 30 462 NCES Eureka High School Eureka 43.2 35 512 NCES Morton Junior High School Morton 43.2 29 435 NCES Sherman Elementary School Sherman 43.5 27 483 NCES Saint Joseph Ogden High School Saint Joseph 43.7 30 462 NCES Prairie Central High School Fairbury 43.9 47 667 NCES Illini Central Grade School Mason City 44.4 37 493 NCES Illini Central High School Mason City 44.4 22 309 NCES Paxton-Buckley-Loda High School Paxton 44.5 32 479 NCES Arcola Elementary School Arcola 44.7 28 393 NCES Arcola Junior/Senior High School Arcola 44.7 25 334 NCES West Lawn School Paxton 44.7 1 13 NCES Lettie Brown Elementary School Morton 45 17 310 NCES Clara Peterson Elementary School Paxton 45.1 20 391 NCES Paxton-Buckley-Loda Junior High Paxton 45.1 20 350 NCES School Edinburg Elementary School Edinburg 45.3 11 193 NCES Edinburg High School Edinburg 45.3 12 98 NCES Edinburg Junior HIgh School Edinburg 45.3 5 82 NCES Gifford Elementary School Gifford 45.6 15 197 NCES Cantrall Elementary School Cantrall 45.9 24 449 NCES St Patrick's School Washington 45.9 NA NA NA Washington Middle School Washington 45.9 20 290 NCES Flanagan Elementary School Flanagan 46.1 22 254 NCES Flanagan High School Flanagan 46.1 14 208 NCES Meadowbrook Elementary School Forrest 46.3 12 203 NCES Prairie Central Elementary Forrest 46.3 22 300 NCES Roanoke-Benson High School Roanoke 46.4 15 181 NCES Rochester High School Rochester 46.4 39 578 NCES Rochester Junior High School Rochester 46.4 20 448 NCES Rochester Middle School Rochester 46.4 17 264 NCES Sowers Elementary School Roanoke 46.4 13 213 NCES DEL-096-REV0 B-13

APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Wilcox Elementary School Springfield 46.4 20 347 NCES Bond Elementary School Assumption 46.5 14 193 NCES H&R Block Tax Service Pekin 46.5 NA NA NA Greenview Elementary Greenview 46.6 13 172 NCES Greenview Junior High School Greenview 46.6 4 47 NCES Greenview Senior High School Greenview 46.6 11 97 NCES Lincoln Grade School Washington 46.6 33 547 NCES Prairie Central Junior High School Forrest 46.6 22 325 NCES Roanoke-Benson Junior High Benson 46.6 13 193 NCES School Washington Community High Washington 46.6 67 1,044 NCES School Central NCES&M Middles School Assumption 46.7 17 223 NCES Kemmerer Village School Assumption 46.7 8 28 NCES Athens Middle School Athens 46.8 15 283 NCES Athens Senior High School Athens 46.8 21 293 NCES South Pekin Elementary School South Pekin 46.8 22 295 NCES Rochester Elementary School Rochester 46.9 30 505 NCES Fairview Elementary School Springfield 47 20 325 NCES Pleasant Hill Elementary School Springfield 47 18 240 NCES Rankin Elementary School Pekin 47 17 199 NCES Central Elementary School Washington 47.1 31 517 NCES Prairieview Elementary School Royal 47.1 6 87 NCES Findlay Elementary School Findlay 47.3 10 129 NCES Wanless Elementary School Springfield 47.3 18 231 NCES Mc Clelland Aviation Co Springfield 47.4 NA NA NA Salt Creek Academy Athens 47.4 NA NA NCES Ogden Elementary School Ogden 47.6 13 178 NCES Schramm Education Center Pekin 47.6 7 33 NCES Loda Elementary School Paxton 47.7 14 222 NCES Pekin Community High School Pekin 47.7 115 2,181 NCES Ridgely Elementary School Springfield 47.7 16 249 NCES B-14 DEL-096-REV0

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Illinois Baptist College Washington 47.8 50 480 IDCCA Beverly Manor Junior High School Washington 47.9 30 432 NCES Broadmoor Junior High School Pekin 47.9 29 412 NCES Lanphier High School Springfield 47.9 71 1,356 NCES Matheny Elementary School Springfield 47.9 18 245 NCES Washington Middle School Springfield 47.9 49 673 NCES Don D Shute Elementary School East Peoria 48 16 228 NCES JL Hensey Elementary School Washington 48 25 354 NCES University of Illinois East Peoria 48 NA NA NA CB Smith Elementary School Pekin 48.1 26 394 NCES Dirksen Elementary School Pekin 48.1 14 267 NCES Jefferson Elementary School Pekin 48.1 28 400 NCES Sunset Hills Elementary School Pekin 48.1 11 189 NCES Washington Intermediate School Pekin 48.1 47 662 NCES Willow Elementary School Pekin 48.1 22 327 NCES Wilson Intermediate School Pekin 48.1 33 564 NCES Springfield College-Illinois Springfield 48.2 NA NA NA Withrow Elementary School Springfield 48.2 12 292 NCES Woodrow Wilson Elementary East Peoria 48.2 15 197 NCES School University of Illinois Taylorville 48.3 NA NA NA Visionway Christian School Taylorville 48.3 NA NA NA H&R Block Tax Service Springfield 48.4 NA NA NA North Elementary School Taylorville 48.4 14 342 NCES Springfield Ball Charter School Springfield 48.4 NA NA NCES Taylorville High School Taylorville 48.4 52 876 NCES Taylorville Junior High School Taylorville 48.4 43 712 NCES Able Security Training School Springfield 48.5 NA NA NA McClernand Elementary School Springfield 48.5 25 286 NCES Springfield Southeast High School Springfield 48.5 70 1,379 NCES St John's College Springfield 48.5 NA NA NA St John's Hospital School - Nursing Springfield 48.5 NA NA NA DEL-096-REV0 B-15

APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Lincoln Elementary School Springfield 48.6 24 360 NCES Sased Central-Proj Ican & Pace Springfield 48.6 10 73 NCES Career Logics Institute Pekin 48.7 NA NA NA Feitshans Center Springfield 48.7 33 509 NCES Heritage Elementary School Homer 48.7 13 193 NCES Heritage Junior High School Homer 48.7 8 146 NCES LE Starke Elementary School Pekin 48.7 19 269 NCES Riverton High School Riverton 48.7 20 416 NCES Board of Governors System Springfield 48.9 NA NA NA Iles Elementary School Springfield 48.9 31 580 NCES Robein School East Peoria 48.9 15 204 NCES Southern Illinois University Springfield 48.9 166 4,334 IDCCA Edison Junior High School Pekin 49 28 446 NCES Enos Elementary School Springfield 49 21 286 NCES Humboldt Elementary School Humboldt 49 17 238 NCES Pearson Museum Springfield 49 NA NA NA Siu School of Medicine Springfield 49 NA NA NA University of Chicago Center Springfield 49 NA NA NA Memorial Elementary School Taylorville 49.1 17 371 NCES Douglas School Springfield 49.2 11 111 NCES Glendale Elementary School East Peoria 49.2 14 219 NCES Undergraduate School Springfield 49.2 NA NA NA Heritage Elementary-Broadlands Broadlands 49.4 7 73 NCES Heritage High School Broadlands 49.4 17 158 NCES Springfield High School Springfield 49.4 73 1,310 NCES East Peoria Elementary Schools East Peoria 49.6 NA NA NA Lincoln Elementary School East Peoria 49.6 14 217 NCES Harvard Park School Springfield 49.7 29 408 NCES Jefferson Elementary School Springfield 49.7 32 528 NCES South Elementary School Taylorville 49.7 15 239 NCES East Peoria Community High East Peoria 49.8 70 1,182 NCES School B-16 DEL-096-REV0

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Hazel Dell Elementary School Springfield 49.8 11 208 NCES Laketown Elementary School Springfield 49.8 13 159 NCES Lawrence Education Center Springfield 49.8 4 42 NCES Lincoln Elementary School Pontiac 49.8 18 328 NCES Oehrlein School of Cosmetology East Peoria 49.8 NA NA NA PL Bolin Elementary School East Peoria 49.8 15 216 NCES Elizabeth Graham Elementary Springfield 49.9 26 401 NCES School Armstrong-Oakview Elementary East Peoria 50 12 223 NCES School Central Junior High School East Peoria 50 43 660 NCES Dubois Elementary School Springfield 50 29 539 NCES Kincaid Elementary School Kincaid 50 17 220 NCES Kincaid High School Kincaid 50 12 182 NCES New Start Inc Training Center Kincaid 50 NA NA NA Jane Addams Elementary School Springfield 50.1 20 319 NCES Lincoln Land Community College Springfield 50.1 71 3,100 IDCCA Lincoln Land Musical Arts Center Springfield 50.1 71 3,100 IDCCA Metamora High School Metamora 50.1 55 860 NCES Chatsworth Grade School Chatsworth 50.2 9 136 NCES Heartland Community College Pontiac 50.2 22 234 IDCCA Lincolnland Community College Taylorville 50.2 32 500 IDCCA University of Illinois Peoria 50.2 NA NA NA Black Hawk Elementary School Springfield 50.3 21 196 NCES Central Elementary School Pontiac 50.3 21 333 NCES Washington Elementary School Pontiac 50.4 19 338 NCES Butler Elementary School Springfield 50.5 22 297 NCES Dodds School Springfield 50.5 10 243 NCES Illinois Central College East Peoria 50.5 678 13,930 IDCCA Pontiac High School Pontiac 50.5 49 811 NCES Pontiac Junior High School Pontiac 50.5 32 441 NCES US Grant Middle School Springfield 50.5 46 720 NCES DEL-096-REV0 B-17

APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Illinois First Realty Springfield 50.6 NA NA NA Edwin NCES Lee Elementary Springfield 50.7 25 307 NCES School Southern View Elementary School Springfield 50.7 17 222 NCES Livingston Area Vocational Center Pontiac 50.9 8 NA NCES Benjamin Franklin Middle School Springfield 51 53 773 NCES Germantown Hills Middle School Metamora 51 24 333 NCES Owen Marsh Elementary School Springfield 51.4 16 259 NCES NCES-1 Travel Inc Springfield 51.6 NA NA NA Peoria Regional Office Peoria 52 NA NA NA Robert Morris College Peoria 52 NA NA NA Springfield School-Court Reporting Springfield 52 NA NA NA Illinois Central College Peoria 52.1 NA NA NA University of Illinois - West Springfield 52.1 NA NA NA Insurance Brokers-Agents-Exam Peoria 52.2 NA NA NA Jdr Educational Center Springfield 52.2 NA NA NA Riverview Elementary School East Peoria 52.2 22 322 NCES Sandburg Elementary School Springfield 52.2 14 216 NCES Peoria Barber College Peoria 52.3 NA NA NA Robert Morris College Springfield 52.3 NA NA NA University of Illinois College of Peoria 52.3 NA NA NA Medicine University of Illinois College of Peoria 52.3 NA NA NA Nursing Methodist Medical Center of Illinois Peoria 52.5 NA NA NA Capitol Area School-Practical Springfield 52.6 21 NA NCES Nursing Illinois Welding School Bartonville 52.6 3 28 IDCCA H&R Block Tax Service Springfield 52.7 NA NA NA Esmen School Pontiac 55.7 7 26 NCES West Elementary School Taylorville 58 14 243 NCES Livingston County Academy Pontiac 70 2 9 NCES Blue Mound Elementary School Blue Mound NA 16 266 NCES B-18 DEL-096-REV0

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT APPENDIX B - SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION TABLE B-1 Schools Within the Region Miles from Clinton Number of Number of Name City Power Station Staff a Students a Source Columbia Elementary School Washington NA 2 62 NCES Decatur Correctional Center Decatur NA 0 NA NCES Findlay High School Findlay NA 10 67 NCES Findlay Junior High School Findlay NA 3 32 NCES Hay-Edwards Elementary School Springfield NA 27 331 NCES HELP Arcola Arcola NA 1 36 NCES HELP Sullivan Sullivan NA 2 37 NCES Lincoln Elementary School Monticello NA 26 448 NCES Macon Elementary School Macon NA 15 261 NCES Monticello High School Monticello NA 36 521 NCES Pontiac Correctional Center Pontiac NA 3 110 NCES Saint Joseph Elementary School Saint Joseph NA 40 529 NCES Saint Joseph Junior High School Saint Joseph NA 10 155 NCES Taylorville Correctional Center Taylorville NA 6 372 NCES Teen/Lamb Program Decatur NA 0 20 NCES Washington School Monticello NA 26 422 NCES White Heath Elementary School White Heath NA 10 204 NCES Williamsville Middle School Williamsville NA 7 116 NCES a

If the source did not have individual schools listed then the total number of staff and students was assumed to be equal between all the schools listed and were divided evenly.

Sources: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Available at: http://www.capitolimpact.com. June 2002.

Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (IDCCA). Community profiles. Available at:

http://www.commerce.state.il.us/com/index.html. July 2002.

Note: NA - Information Not Available DEL-096-REV0 B-19

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML032721610&oldid=2643379"