Text

NUREG-0854 - Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation.
	ML19079A225
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	05/31/1982
From:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0854
	Download: ML19079A225 (234)
	v • d • e

NUREG-0854 Rnal *Environmental Statement related to the operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1

. Docket No. 50-461 Illinois Power Company, et al.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation May 1982 ...

NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W ..

Washington, DC 20555

2. The NRC/GPO Sales Program, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555

3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, *circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation*. notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and appJicant and licensee documents and correspondence.

The following docume~ts in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the NRC/GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor rep9rt~, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also_available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulation~ in the Code-of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.

Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-N RC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sp_onsoring the publication cited.

Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free upon written request to the Division of Tech-nical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk ~venue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.

GPO Printed copy price: $7. 00

NUREG-0854 Rnal Environmental Statem ent related to the operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-461 Illinois Power Company, ~t al.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation May 1982

ABSTRACT This final environmental statement contains the second assessment of the environmental impact associate d with operation of Clinton Power Station Unit 1 pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 10 CFR Part 51, as amended, of the NRC' s regula-tions. This statement examines: the affected environment, environ-menta 1 consequences and mitigatin g actions, . and envi ronmenta 1 and economic benefits and costs. Land-use and terrestri al- and aquatic-ecological impacts will be small. Air-quali ty impacts will also be small. However, steam fog from the station's cooling lake has the potential for reducing visibilit y over nearby roads and bridges. A fog-monitoring program for roads and bridges near the lake has been recommended. Impacts to historic and prehistor ic sites wi 11 be negligibl e. Chemical discharges to Lake Clinton and Salt Creek are expected to have no appreciable impacts on water quality under normal conditions and wi 11 be required to meet conditions of the station I s NPDES permit. The hydrotherma 1 analyses indicate that under certain meteorological conditions (1-in year drought), the plant would have to be operated at reduced power levels in order to meet the therma 1 standards es tab 1 i shed by the Il 1 i noi s Po 11 ut ion Control Board Order PCB 81-82. The effects of routine operation s, energy transmiss ion, and periodic maintenance of rights-of-way and transmission line facilitie s should not jeopardize any populations of endangered or threatene d species. No significa nt impacts are anticipat ed from normal operational releases of radioacti vity. The risk associate d with accidenta l radiation exposure is very low.

Contentions associate d with environmental issues accepted during the operating -license hearing are related to assessment of effects of low-level radiation . The net socioeconomic effects of the project will be beneficia l. The action called for is the issuance of an operating license for Unit 1 of Clinton.

iii

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS This Final Environmental Statement was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (the staff).

1. This action is adminis trative.

2. The proposed action is the issuance of an operatin g license to the *Illinoi s Power Company for the startup and operatio n of the Clinton Power Station Unit 1 located in DeWitt County, about 10 km (6 mi)* east of Clinton ,

.Illinoi s, and 100 km (60 mi) northea st of Springf ield, Illinois .

The facility will employ*a boiling- water reactor producing 2894 megawatts thermal (MWt). A steam turbine- generat or will use this heat to provide a net electric al output of 933 megawatts (MWe) .. The maximum design thermal output of the unit is 3039 MWt. The source of cooling water is Lake Clinton , which was created when the applica nt constru cted a dam near the confluence of the Salt Creek and the North Fork of the Salt Creek, 90 km (56 mi) east of where Salt Creek joins the Sangamon River.

3. The information in this statement represe nts the second assessment of the environmental impact associa ted with Clinton Power Station Unit 1 pursuant to the guidelin es of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's Regulations. After receivin g an applica tion in October 1973 to constru ct this station~ the staff of the Atomic Energy Commission (now Nuclear .Regulatory Commission) carried out a review of impacts that would o~cur during its constru ction and operatio n.

That evaluat ion was issued as-a Final Environmental Statement - Construc-tion Phase i"n October 1974. After this environmental review, a safety review, an evaluati on by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and public hearings i'n Clinton ,. Champaign, and Decatur, Illinois , between

June 17, 1975, and January 8, 1976, the Commission issued constru ction permit Nos. CPPR-137 and CPPR-138 in February 1976 for the constru ction of Clinton Units i and 2. In August 1980 the applica nt applied for operatin g license s for Units 1 and 2 and.submitted the required safety and environ-mental reports in support of the applica tion. However, the applica nt requested by letter dated October 30, 1981 that the licensin g review for

Throughout the text of this document most values are presented in both metric and English units. For the most part, measurements and calcula tions were origina lly made in English units and subsequently converted to metric. The number of signific ant figures given in a metric conversion is not meant to imply greater or lesser accuracy than that implied in the origina l English value.

V

Clinton Unit 2 be postponed until such time as construction of Unit 2 is substantially completed. Therefore the action under consideration in this document is the licensing of only Unit 1. As of October 1981, the construction of Unit 1 was about 81% complete. The applicant estimates a fuel-loading date of January 198~ for the unit.

4. The staff has reviewed the activities associated with the proposed opera-tion of the station and the -potential impacts, both beneficial and ad-verse, which are summarized as follows:

a. Electric energy production costs from the Clinton station are estimated to be 13 mill/kWh (in 1984 dollars) (Sec. 6.4.2.1).

b: Of the 5700 ha (14,100 acres)* of site land, physical alteration of about 4820 ha (11,900 acres) of land for the station has occured.

About 4148 ha (10,250 acres) is being managed by the Illinois Department of Conservation and provides recreational activities (Secs. 4.2.1, 4.2.2, and 5.2).

c. All the water used for operating the station will come from Lake Clinton, which receives its inflow from the drainage basins of Salt Creek and North. Fork Salt Creek. The average water use due to

. forced evaporation from Lake Clinton during norma 1 operation of Unit 1 is 9.37 x 10 6 ms (7600 acre-ft) per year. There are no water users on Salt Creek, the Sangamon River, or the Illinois River downstream of the Clinton site that could be adversely affected by the reduced flows (Sec. 5.3.1).

d. Chemical discharges to Lake Clinton and Salt Creek are expected to have no appreciable impacts on water quality under normal conditions, and wi 11 be required to meet conditions of the stat ion's NP DES permit (Sec. 5.3.2).

e. The applicant shall continue monitoring groundwater on the site. If mitigation against migration of pollutants to the groundwater becomes necessary, it shall be instituted in a timely manner (Sec. 5.3.2.1).

f. The results of thermal modeling indicate that under certain meteoro-logical conditions (1-in-50-year drought), the plant would have to be operated at reduced power levels in order to meet the thermal standards established by the Illinois Pollution Control Board Order PCB. 81-82 (Sec. 5.3.2.2). .

g. The effect of seepage from the settlement pond on groundwater quality is expe~ted to be insignificant (Sec. 5.3.2).

h. An effect of the alterations in the flooding characteristics of Salt Creek caused by the construction of the station and cooling lake may be an increase in recession time of Trenkle Slough during the 100-year flood event, which may reduce the effectiveness of some agricultural land drains during major floods in the Trenkle Slough Drai*nage vi

Distric t. The applica nt, however, has completed channel improvements*

upstream of the reservo ir which appear to be lowering the flood levels in Trenkle Slough (as compared to those under precons truction conditio ns) for minor floods. Hence, the net effect of the reservo ir and channe 1 improvements is indeterminate at this ti me. Si nee cons~ruction activiti es for the main dam had already begun at the time that Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, was signed in May 1977, it is the staff's conclusion that conside ration of alterna tives to the modification of Salt Creek as caused by the main dam is neither required nor practica ble (Sec. 5.3.3).

i. Steam fog from the station 's cooling lake has the potentia l for reducing visibil ity over nearby roads and bridges .. Rime ice falling from trees and poles along the edge of roads can reduce traction on the road surface . Both fog and rime ice may create highway -traffic safety problems~ The staff recommends a fog-monitoring program for roads and bridges near the lake. If such problems occur, the appli-cant will be required to take mitigati ng actions (Sec. 5.4.1).

j. The aquatic biota of Lake Clinton and downstream Salt Creek will not be. adversely affected by the chemi ca 1 and therma1 discharges during operatio n of Unit 1 (Sec. 5.5.2).

k. The environmental effects resultin g from routine station operat.ion, energy transmi ssion, and the periodic maintenance of rights-of-way and transmi ssion line faciliti es should not jeopard ize any popula-tions of .endangered or threaten ed species (Sec. 5.6).

1. The operatio n of the station is not expected to affect any cultura l sites on or eligible for the National Registe r of Historic Places (Sec. 5.7).

,m. Socioeconomic effects of the station 's operation are expected to be minimal with the exception of substan tial tax benefits to DeWitt.

County, Harp Township, Unit 15 School Distric t, and Jr. College Distric t 537 (Sec. 5.8).

n. No measurable radiolog ical impact on man or biota other than man is expected to result from routine operatio ns (Sec. 5.9.3).

o. Production cost savings and benefit /cost analyses given in this statement are broad enough and conserv ative enough to account for the small potenti al reduction in plant availab ility due to thermal limitati ons mentioned in item f above (Sec. 6).

5. A draft stateme nt w~s made availab le to the public, to the Environ-mental Protecti on Agency, and to other specifie d agencies in December 1981.

vii

6. On the basis of the analyses and evaluations set forth in this statement, and after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and economic costs at the operating-license stage, it is concluded by the staff that the action called for under NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51 is the issuan_ce of an operating license for Clinton 1, subject to the following conditions for the protection of the environment:

a. Before engaging in additional construction or operational activities that may result in a significant adverse environmental impact that was not evaluated or that is significantly greater than that evaluated in this statement, the applicant shall provide written notification of such activities to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and shall receive written approval from that office before proceeding with such activities.

b. The applicant shall carry out the environmental monitoring programs outlined in Section 5 of this statement, as modified and approved by the staff, and implemented in the technical specifications and environmental protection plan that will be incorporated in the operating license for Clinton 1.

c. If adverse environmental effects or evidence of irreversible envi-ronmental damage is detected during the operating life of the st~tion, the applicant shall provide the staff with an analysis of the problem and a proposed course of action to alleviate it.

viii

CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT * * * * * * * * * * *

iii

. .*. y SUr-t1ARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

LIST OF FIGURES. * . * * . *

xii xiii LIST OF TABLES * * * *

F.OREWORD * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . xv

1. INTRODUCTION ***** .* ... .... 1-1 1.1 Administrative History *. 1-1 1.2 Permits and Licenses *. ..... .. 1-2

2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ** ... . .... . 2-1

3. ALTERNATIVES . * * * . . . * *

3-1

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT **.*.*

. .. 4-1 4-1 4.1 R,sum~ ***** * ~ * * *

4.2 Project Description * . . . * . * . . * . .

4-2 4.2.l External Appearance and Station Layout *. 4-2 4.2.2 Land Use. * * . * * * * . * * * * *. . ~ . 4-2 Use * . . . . * . * * * * . * . .

4-5

4. 2. 3 Water

4. 2. 4 Coo1i ng System * * * .* * * * * . *. * * * .... 4-5 4-5 4.2.5 Radioactive-Waste Treatment . * . * * *

4.2.6 Nonradioactive-Waste-Management Systems 4-6 4.2.7 Power-Transmission Systems * * * * . *

4-12 4.3 Project-Related Environmental Descriptions 4-14

4. 3.1 Hydrology . * . .* . . . . * * . .

4-14

4. 3. 2 Water Quality . * . . ** * * . . . 4-16 4.3.3 Climatology and Air Quality *** 4-17

4. 3. 4 Ecology . . * * * * * . . * * *

4-20 4.3.5 Endangered and Threatened Species *.* .. .. .. 4-21 4-22

4. 3. 6 Historic and Prehistoric Sites * * * * * * * * * * *

4.3.7* Connunity Characteristics **** ~ . 4-23 4-23 References* * * . * * . . * * * * * * * . *

5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS . * . 5-1 5.1 R,sumf. * * * *..*.** 5-1 5.2 Land Use * * * * * * . . * . . * * * ~ ~ **.. 5-1

5. 3 Water ~ . * * * * . . * . . . * * . * . . . . * . 5-2 5.3.1 Use ....................... . 5-2 5.3.2 Quality * . * . . . * * * . * * . * * . . * . . 5*3 5.3.3 Hydrologic Alterations and Floodplain Aspects 5-5 ix

CONTENTS (Continued)*

Page 5.4 Air Quality . . . . . . . 5-9 5.4.1 Fog and Ice . . . . . .. . 5-9 5.4.2 Emissions and Oust . . . . . . . . . . . s-10

5. 5 Eco 1ogy * * * * * * * * * * *

5-10 5.5.i Terrestrial . . . . 5-10 5.5.2 Aquatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12 5.6 Endangered and Threatened Species ... . . 5-14 5.7 Historic and Prehistoric Sites 5-15 5.8 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . 5-15 5.8.1 Community . . . . * . . 5-15 5.8.2 Public Health . . * . . 5-15 5.9 Radiological Impacts . . . . . 5-17 5.9.1 Regulatory Requirements 5-17 5.9.2 Operational Overview . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . 5-18 5.9.3 Radiological Impacts from Routine Operations. 5-19.

5.9.4 Environmental Impact of Postulated Accidents. 5-32 5.10 The Uranium Fuel Cycle ....... . 5-67 5.11 Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . 5-68 5.12 Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-71 References . . . . * * . . . . . . . . . .~

5-71

6. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. . . . .. . 6-1 6.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects . . . . . . 6-1 6.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 6-1 6.3 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity . . * . . ....... . 6-1 6.4 Benefit-Cost Summary. 6-4 6.4.1 Benefits . . . 6-4 6.4.2 Costs * . . . 6-4 6.4.3 Conclusions . 6-4

7. LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 7-1

8. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT WERE SENT. . . . . . . . . . *8-1

9. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 9-1

.APPENDIX A. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT . * . . A-1 APPENDIX B. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT FOR CLINTON POWER STATION . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . 8-1 APPENDIX C. EXAMPLES OF SITE-SPECIFIC DOSE-ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS C-1 APPENDIX D. NEPA POPULATION-DOSE ASSESSMENT . 0-1 X

CONTENTS (Continued)

APPENDIX E. REBASELINING OF THE RSS RESULTS FOR BOILING-WATER E-1 REACTORS. * . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX F. CONSEQUENCE MODELING CONSIDERATIONS F-1 APPENDIX G. IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE . G-1 APPENDIX H. LETTER FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, CONCERNING ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE CLINTON POWER STATION. H-1 xi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.1 Staff's Predicted Discharge Temperature into Lake Clinton for One-Unit Operation at 100% Load Factor . . . . * * . * . 4-10 4.2 Transmission Line Rout~s * ~ * . * . . . . . . . . . . 4-13

4.3 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Station Site, Period of Record . . * . . . . . * . . : . * . . . 4-19 5.1 Preconstruction Flood-Prone Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7 5.2 Flood-Prone Area with Dam in Place . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8 5.3 Potentially Meaningful Exposure Pathways to Individuals. 5-20 5.4 Schematic Outline of Atmospheric Pathway Consequence Model 5-48 5.5 Probability Distributions of Individual Dose Impacts . .. 5-50 5.6 Probability Distributions of Population Exposures. . . 5-51 5.7 Probability Distribution of Early Fatalities . . . . . 5-52 5.8 Probability Distribution of Cancer Fatalities. . . . . 5~53 5.9 Probability Distribution of Mitigation Measures Cost 5-57 5.10 Individual Risk of Dose as a Function of Distance. . . . 5-62 5.11 Isopleths of Risk of Early Fatality per Reactor Year to an Individual . . . . . . * . . . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-63 5.12 Isopleths of Risk of Latent Cancer Fatality per Reactor Year to an Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-64 F.1 Sensitivity of Probability Distribution of Early Fatality to Evacuation Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-5 xii

LIST OF TABLES Page

~

4.1 Clinton Power Station Land-Use Comparison . . . . . . . . . 4-3 4.2 Results of the Staff's Predicted Temperatures for Year 1955 4-11 4.3 Derived Discharge Data for Salt Creek at Dam Site . * . . 4-14 4.4 Chemical and Bacteriol ogical Constitue nts Measured during Preoperational Environmental Monitoring . * . . . . * . * * . 4-16 4.5 Peoria, Illinois, Mixing Heights . . * . * . . . . . . . . . 4-18 5.1 Estimated Composition of Waste Stream Leaving_ the Wastewater Treatment Ponds and Applicable Limitations . . . . . . . . . S-4 5.2 Summary of Criteria Temperatures for Fish Species Likely To Be in Lake Clinton when Operation Begins * . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14 5.3 Estimated Clinton Power Station Unit 1 Real Estate Taxes 5-16 5.4 Incidence of Job-Related Mortaliti es . . . . . ~ . . . . . . 5-23 5.5 (Summary Table S-4) Environmental Impact of Transport ation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nucl.ear Power Reactor * . . * . * . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . .

S-25 5.6 Preoperational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Summary . * * . . . . . . . . . . * * . . . . . . * . 5-31 5.7 Approximate Doses During a Two-Hour Exposure at the Exclusion Area Boundary from Selected Design Basis Accidents * * * * . 5-42 5.8 Summary of Atmospheric Releases *;n Hypothetical Accident Sequences in a BWR (Rebaselined) . . * . . . . . . . * . . . 5-44 5.9 Activity of Radionuclides in Clinton Reactor Core at 3039 MWt 5-45 5.10 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Probabili ties . . . . . 5-54 5.11 Average Values of Environmental Risks due to Accidents per Reactor-Year . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-60 5.12 (Table S-3) Table of Uranium fuel Cycle Environmental Data 5-69 6.1 Benefit-Cost Summary for Clinton 1 . . 6-2 C.l Calculated Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous Effluents from Clinton Power Station . . * . . . . *

C-4 C.2 Summary of Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (x/Q) and Relative Deposition Values for Maximum* Site Boundary and Receptor locations near the Clinton Power Station * . . . * . * . . . C-6 C.3 Nearest Pathway Locations Used for Maximum Individual Dose Commitments for the Clinton Power Station. . * . . . . . . . C-7 C.4 Annual Dose Commitments to a Maximally Exposed Individual near the Clinton Power Station. . * * . . * . . . . . * * . . . . C-8 C.S Calculated Appendix I Dose Commitments to a Maximally Exposed Individual and* to the Population from Operation of Clinton Power Station. * * * * . * . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9 C.6 Calculated RM-50-2 Dose Commitments to a Maximally Exposed Individual from Operation of the Clinton Power Station . * . C-10 xiii

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page C.7 Annual Total-Body Population Dose Commitments, Year 2000 . . *

c-11 C.8 Calculated Release of Radioactive Materials in Liquid Effluents from Clinton Power Station . . . . * . . . * * . * . * . . . . . c-12 C.9 Summary of Hydrologic Transport and Dispersion for Liquid Releases from the Clinton Power Station .... C-13 E.l Key to BWR Accident Sequence Symbols . . . . . . * . . . . E-4 G.1 Radon Releases from Mining and Milling Operations and Mill Tailings for Each Year of Operation of the Model 1000-MWe LWR *. G-5 G.2 Estimated 100-Year Environmental Dose Commitment for Each Year of Operation of the Model 1000-MWe LWR * * * * * . . . . G-5 G.3 Population-Dose Commitments from Unreclaimed Open-Pit Mines for Each Year of Operation of the Model 1000-MWe LWR . . .

G-7 G.4 Population-Dose Commitments from Stabiliz~d-Tailings Piles for Each Year of Operation of the Model 1000-MWe LWR . . . . G-7 xiv

FOREWORD This environmental statement .was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (the staff), in accor-dance with the Commission's regulati on, 10 CFR Part 51,' which implements the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

This environmental review deals with the impacts of operation of the Illinois

Power Company's Clinton Power Station Unit 1. Assessm ents relating to opera-tion that are presented in this statement augment and update those described in the Final Environmental Statement - Construction Phase (FES-CP) that for was issued in October 1974 in support of issuance of a construc tion permit Clinton Units 1 and 2.

The *information to be found in the various sections of this statement updates the FES-CP in four ways: (1) by evaluating changes to facility design and operation that will result in differen t environmental effects of operatio n (including those which would enhance as well as degrade the environm ent) than those projected during the preconstruction review; (2J by reporting the results of relevan t new information that has become availabl e subsequent to the issuance of the FES-CP; (3) by factoring into the statement new environmental policies and statutes that have a bearing on the licensin g action; and (4) by identi-fying* unresolved environmental issues or surveill ance needs which are to be resolved by means of license conditJo ns. No unresolv ed issues have been identifi ed in this statement for the case of Clinton. Two surveill ance needs have.been identifi ed, namely the monitoring of fog and ice and of the tempera-tures at the ~ischarge point and at Salt Creek downstream of Lake Clinton.

Introductions (resumes) in appropriate sections of this statement summariz e both the extent of updating and the degree to which the staff conside rs the subject to be adequately reviewed.

Copies of this statement are availabl e for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC, and at the Warner Vespasian Library, Clinton, Illinois . Single copies may be obtained by writing to:

Directo r, Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. J.H. Williams 1~ the NRC Licensing Project Manager for this project. He may.be.contacted at the above address or at 301/,92-9777.

xv

1. INTRODUCTION The proposed actio n is the issuance of of an operating licen se to the Illin ois Power Company for start up and operation the Clinton Power Stat ion Unit 1 in DeWitt County near Clinton, Illin ois. Eigh ty percent of the unit is owned by Illin ois *Power Company, 10.5% by Soyland Powe r Cooperative, Inc. (Soyland),

(WIPCO).

and 9.si by Western Illin ois Power Cooperative, Inc.

The generating system cons ists of a boiling-w ater reac tor, steam turb ine-gene rato r, a heat -dis sipa tion system, and asso ciate d auxi liary faci litie s and engineered safeguards. Waste heat will- be ted diss ipate d to the atmosphere from a cooling lake, Lake Clinton, which was crea thewhen the appl ican t constructed a dam near the confluence of Salt Creek Cree and North Fork of the Salt Creek, about 90 km (56 mi) east of where Salt k.joins the Sangamon River.

The rated thermal capa bilit y of the Unitg 1isreac tor is 2894 MWt (ER-OL,*

Jtftle net, and the design Sec. 3.2. 1); the design elec trica l ratin(ER-OL,933Sec. 3.2. 1).

thermal (stre tch) capa bilit y is 3039 MWt 1.1 ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY On July 23, 1973, Illin ois Power Company (the appl ican t) filed an appl icati on with the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC ), now Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC), for a permit to cons truc t Clinton1973 Power Stat ion Units 1 and 2. This appl icati on was docketed on October 30, . The conclusions resu lting from the staf f's environmental review were issuewing d as a Final Environmental Statement -

Construction Phase in October 1974. Follotor Saferevie ws by the NRC regulatory ds, public hearings were staf f and its Advisory Committee on Reac Boardguar in Clinton and Champaign, held before an Atomic Safety and Licensing On September 30, 1975, the ASLB Illin ois, between June 17 and July 3, 1975.ental and site suit abil ity considera-issued Part ial Init ial Decision on environm d to Illin ois Power Company in tion s. A Limited Work Authorization was issue ty issu es were held in Decatur, October 1975. Hearings on health and safe ASLB rendered its second deci sion ,

Illin ois, on January 7 and 8, 1976. The heal th and safe ty questions, on deali-ng with the remaining radi olog icalNos. CPPR and CPPR-138 were issued February 20, 1976. Construction Permit ectiv ely. -137 Upon appeal by intervenors in February 1976 for Units 1 and 2, resp ic Safety and Licensing fro~ the part ial init ial decision of the ASLB, the Atom

11 Clinton Power Stat ion Environmental Report, Operating License Stage,"

issued by Illin ois Power Company in AuguL, st 1980. Hereinafter this document is cite d in the body of the text as ER-O usua lly followed by a spec ific ronmental Statement -

sect ion, page, figu re, or table number. The Final Envi rred to as the FES-CP.

Construction Phase, published in October 1974, is refe 1-1

1-2 Appeal Board (ASLAB) considered the. matter and affirmed the ASLB decision on July 29, 1976.

On January 31, 1978, Illinois Power Company requested on amendment to CPPR-137 to add Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc. and Western Illinois Power Cooperative, Inc. as co-owners of Unit 1. Amendment 1 was issued in September 1978 and identified the applicant as Illinois Power Company Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc.

Western Illinois Power Cooperative, Inc.

On August 29, 1980, Illinois Power Company, acting for itself and as an agent for Soyland Power Coop., Inc., and Western Illinois Power Coop., Inc., sub-mitted an application , including a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and Environmental Report (ER-OL), requesting issuance of operating licenses for Clinton Units 1 and 2. These documents were docketed on September 8, 1980.

Operational safety and environmental reviews were then initiated. The action being considered here is the issuance of an operating license for only Unit 1.

Unit 2 has been deferred by the applicant and constructio n stopped.

As of October 1981, constructio n of Clinton Unit 1 was about 81% complete.

The applicant estimates that Unit 1 will be ready for fuel loading in January 1984. .

1.2 PERMITS AND LICENSES The applicant has provided a status listing in Section 12 of the ER-OL plus Supplement 1, as of June 1981, of environmentally related permits, approvals, and licenses required from Federal and state agencies in connection with the proposed project. The staff has reviewed the listing and is not aware of any potential non-NRC licensing difficultie s that would significant ly delay or prec 1ude the proposed operation of the stat ion. The issuance of a water quality certificatio n pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water Pollution Control, is a necessary prerequisit e for the issuance of an operating license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This certificatio n was received by the applicant on August 25, 1975. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a National P.ollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with modificatio n pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 to the

. applicant on October 21, 1977 (Appendix B).

2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The Commission has amended 10 CFR Part 51, "Lice nsing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Prote ction ,

11 effec tive April 26, 1982, to provide that need for power* issue s wi 11 not be consi dered in ongoing and future operating licen se proce edings for nucle ar power plant s unless a showing of special circumstances is made under 11 11 10 CFR Sectio n 2.758 or the Commis-sion otherwise so requires (47 FR 12940 , March 26, 1982) . Pursuant to the amended regul ation s, need for power issue s need not be addre ssed by operating licen se applicants in environmental repor ts to the NRC, nor by the staff in environmental impact statements prepared in connection with operating licen se appli catio ns. See 10 CFR Sections 51.21~ 51.23(e), and 51.53(c).

This policy has been determined by the Commission tonucle be justif ied whether or not the additional capacity to be provided by the The ar facil ity may be needed to meet the appli cant's load respo nsibi lity. at theComm ission has deter -

mined that the need for power is fully consideredg of insuf ficien const ruction permit t need could *

(CP) stage of the regulatory review where a findin licen se (OL) review facto r into denial of issuance of a CP. At the ructed operating and a findin g of insuf -

stage , the proposed plant is subst antia lly const l of the operating licen se.

ficie nt need would not, in itsel f, resul t in denia antia l information which The Commission was furth er influenced by the subst lower in operating costs than supports the conclusion that nuclear plant s are conventional fossi l plant s. If conse rvatio n, or other facto rs, lowers antic i-pated demand, utilit ies remove generating facil itiesfacil from servic e according to their costs of operation, with the most expensive ituteities removed first .

Thus, a completed nuclear plant would serve to subst See also for less economical generating capacity (47 FR 12940, March 26, 1982). 46 FR 39440, August 3, 1981.

Accordingly, this final environmental statement does snot consider "need for with opera-power. 11 Section 6 does, however, consider the saving associated tion of the nuclear plant .

2-1

3. ALTERNATIVES The Commission has amended its regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, effect ive April 26, 1982, to provide that issues relate d to altern ative energy sources will not be considered in ongoing *and future operating licens e proceedings for nuclear power plants unless a showing of special circumstance s is made under 10 CFR Section 2.758 or the Conunission otherwise so be requires (47 FR 12940, March 26, 1982). In addition, these issues need not addressed by operating licens e applicants in environmental reports to the NRC,with nor by the staff in environmental impact statements prepared in connection 51.53( operating license applications. See 10 CFR Sections 51.21, 51.23(e), and c).

In promulgating this amendment, the Commission noted that altern ative energy source issues are resolved at the CP stage and the CP is grante d only after a finding that, on balance, no obviously superi or altern ative to the proposed nuclear facili ty exists . The Commission conclu ded that this determ ination is unlikely to change even if an altern ative is shown to be margin ally environ-mentally superior in comparison to operat ion of the nuclea r facili ty because ion of the nuclea r plant would have over of the economic advantage which operat 1982). See also 46 FR available altern ative sources (47 FR 12940, March 26, 39440, August 3, 1981.

By earlie r amendment (46 FR 28630, May 28, 1981), the Comm ission also provided that consideration of altern ative sites will not be undert aken at the OL stage, except upon a showing of special circumstance ent does s under 10 CFR Sec-tion 2.758. Accordingly, this final environmental statem not consider altern ative energy sources or altern ative sites.

3-1

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1 RESUME The following sections provide a descr iption of the Clinton facil ity and relate d environment with respe ct to changes that have occurred since the FES-CP review. The staff has performed a one-units review instead of a two-Section 1.

unit review as was done in the FES-CP, for reason and layout ofin Clinton 1 discu ssed Some minor changes have been made in the designhas been devoted to farm land (Sec. 4.2.1 ). More of the appli cant's property onment of the Tall Grass than was origi nally planned because of the aband(Sec. 4.2.2 ). The Clinton Prair ie resto ration proje ct* origi nally proposed meet all its water supply Power Statio n will use water from Lake Clinton togroundwater will continue to needs except at the visit or's cente r, where some essen tially unchanged from be used (Sec. 4.2.3 ). The cooling system remainswidth of the discharge flume the descr iption in .the FES-CP, except the bottom cant has electe d to meet ~he has been reduced sligh tly (Sec. 4.2.4 ). The appli to Appendix I, 10 CFR 50, radioactive-waste-treatment requirements of the Annex ing of the condenser with dated September 4, 1975 (Sec. 4.2.5 ). Periodic clean been an increase in the acids may be necessary (Sec. 4.2.6 .1). There has .1). The thermal analy sis amount of chlorine biocide to be used (Sec. 4.2.6ation provid ed.by the appli -

was redone for one-unit operation based on of inform the sanita ry waste system has cant (Sec. _4.2.6.2). The design capacity emerg ency diese l generators been increased sligh tly. There will only be three one transm ission line for one-unit operation (Sec. 4.2.6 .3). The routin g of d mean annua l disch arge at the dam has been changed (Sec. 4.2.7 ). The derive FES-C P, Sectio n 2.5.1 . The site is, sligh tly diffe rent from that cited in the will be a small perce ntage of the volume of sediment deposited in 30 years lake capacity (Sec. 4.3.1 ).

The observance of methane in groundwater wells led uality ~o a decision to utiliz e Lake Clinton for servi ce water (Sec. 4.3.2 ). Air-q data for the region surrounding the Clinton site which were not avail able at the CP stage are pr~sented; (Sec. 4.3.3 ). A remnant prair ie stand has been expanded in lieu of the origi nally proposed prair ie resto ration (Sec. 4.3.4 .1). The developing bioti c community of Lake Clinton is described (Sec.in4.3.4 .2). There is a poten tial for the establishment of the Asiat ic clam patho the lake (Sec. 4.3.4 .2).

There is a poten tial for the establishment of human ation genic encep haliti c amoebae in the lake (Sec. 4.3.4 .2). Current inform on endangered and threatened species is provided (Sec. 4.3.5 ). Current -infor mation on community (Secs. 4.3.6 chara cteris tics and on histo ric and prehi storic sites is *provided and 4.3.7 , respe ctive ly).

4-1

4-2 4.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4.2.1 External Appearance and Station Layout A general description of the external appearance, plant layout and land use is provided in Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the FES-CP. An architectural rendering of Clinton Power Station Units 1 and 2 is also presented in Figure 3.1.1 of the applicant's ER-OL.

Since publication of the FES-CP and the ER-OL architectural rendering, the major change that has* occurred is the deferra1 of Clinton Unit 2 and the decision to proceed with the construction of only Unit,1. Until construction work is resumed on Unit 2, only Unit 1 structures will be visible. Thus, the Unit 2 reactor building, turbine building, auxiliary buildings and railroad spur will not appear. The 112 spray modules in the cooling canal are not now included.

Other changes which have occurred since the FES-CP include expansion of the sewage treatment plant to include two additional holding tanks, moving of the parking lot across the road to east of the power station and placing the visitors center to the west side of the lake at Route 54.

The configuration of the site boundary remains essentially the same as shown in Figure 4.1 of the FES-CP.

4.2.2 .Land Use The site consists of 5703 ha (14,092 acres), down from the earlier estimated size of 6160 ha (15,210 acres) indicated in the FES-CP (Sec. 2.1.2). Physical alteration of about 4820 ha (11,900 acres) of site property has occurred.

Table 4.1 presents a land-use comparison of preconstruction use and present station use of total acreage.

With the completion of land acquisition and construction activities, some land use within the site differs from what was described in the FES-CP (Sec. 2.1.2).

About 135 ha (333 acres) wi 11 be used for station structures and 2250 ha (5560 acres) will be occupied by the station's cooling lake, dam and spillway, discharge flume, and spoils. The cooling lake covers essentially the same area of 1983 ha (4900 acres) as given in the FES*CP (Sec. 3.4.2). The change of land use related to the site preparation, construction activities, and lake formation ;s described in greater* detail in the ER*OL (Secs. 4.1.1 and 4.3.1).

The applicant has abandoned plans for initiating the Tall Grass Prairie restora-tion project in the peninsular portion of the site. A prairie remnant east of the North Fork has, however, been expanded by planting of appropriate grasses and forbs (ER-OL, Sec. 4.5.3). This decision resulted in an increase in the amount of prime farmland to remain in production. Of the 587 ha (1451 acres) presently leased as cropland, 504 ha (1246 acres) are designated as prime farmland. An additional 57 ha (140 acres) of prime farmland in the general area of the station comp 1ex may be restored to agri cul tura 1 use .fo11 owing completion of project construction (ER-OL, Sec. 4.3.1).

4-3 Table 4.1. Clinton Po~er Station Land-Use Comparisont 1 Preconstruction Station Use (acres)t 2 Use (acres)t 2 Lake areat 1 4895 Homesteads 5 Agricultural land 2845 (710 prime)

Timber/brushl and 2000 '

Miscellaneous 50 Timber and grassland (greenbelt)t 2 1450 5871 Agricultural land 7742 (2254 prime) 1451 (1246 prime)

Silphium prairie 60 Station facilities Station complex 980 Discharge flume 285 Dam &Spillway 380 Other facilitiest 3 Marina 150 Visitors center 20 TOTAL 14,092 14,092t4 t 1 Modified from ER-OL, p. 4.3-8.

t 2 Land available for recreational activities. A total of 4150 ha (10,250 acres) of this land has been leased to the Illinois Department of Conser-vation to manage as a recreation/conservation area.

t 3 These facilities are open for public use by the applicant.

t 4 All of the site property was purchased primarily for the construction and operation of the Clinton Power Station. Secondary usage of some of the acreage is p~ovided for agricultural and recreational purposes.

Note: To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.405.*

4-4 Since August 1979, a total of 4217 ha (10,420 acres) of the site has been open

.to public use for recreationa l and wildlife study activities; 4148 ha (10,250 acres) are managed by the Illinois Department of Conservation (!DOC) and 69 ha (170 acres) by the applicant (ER-OL, Sec. 4.1.1). Implementation of the !DOC Wildlife Resources Management Plan--thus promotes multiple use of local resources, i.e., power ,generation, wildlife habitat, public recreation and agricultura l use. Among other considerations of integrated land use, provisions of the IDOC management plan preclude soil tillage (tenant farming operations) in areas characterize d by high erosion potential (e.g., steep slopes and/or highly erosive soils). Additionally, buffer zones such as grasslands or forest vegetation are to be maintained between cultivated crop-lands and adjacent drainageways and/or Lake Clinton (Ref~ 29), thus restricting sediment transport by surface runoff.

As pointed out in Table 4.1, 4150 ha (10,250 acres) have been leased to the Illinois Department of Conservation to manage as a recreation/conservation area. Lake Clinton is the only recreation facility within 8 km (5 mi) of the station. With the exception of Weldon Springs State Park, located 8.8 km (5.5 mi) southwest of the site, which offers fishing, boating, and hiking on a 150-ha (370-acre) park, Lake Clinton constitutes the only other major recre-at iona 1 faci 1 i ty in ttie surrounding area. Lake Clinton offer~ year-round recreationa l facilities providing boating, fishing, hunting, camping, pic-nicking, and hiking. The Illinois Department of Conservation has estimated that in 1980 the site was visited by 520,212 persons and expects the visita-tion to increase to 750,000 persons in 1982 and 1,000,000 persons in 1983 and beyond.

The .construction of the power station and Lake Clinton has resulted in vacat-ing portions of certain roads, relocating portions of roads, and building some new road. The following changes occurred:

(a) New bridges and approaches were built across North Fork of Salt Creek (Route 54) and Salt Creek (Route 48), and Route 10 was elevated at the point where the lake crosses under the highway.

(b) A 1500-m (4900-ft) section of County Highway 14 was relocated. The relocation involved 2100 m (7000 ft) of highway and three new bridges.

(c) ln Harp Township 13.8-km (8.6-mi) of road was vacated and three old bridges were removed. About 5.8 km (3.6 mi) of new roads and a new bridge over the North Fork of Salt Creek were built.

(d) In Creek Township 3. 0 km (1. 9 mi) of road was vacated, one old bridge removed and 3.2 km (2 mi) of new roads were built.

(e) In DeWitt Township 8 km (4.9 mi) was vacated and two old bridges removed. One new bridge and 9 km (5.9 mi) of new road were built.

(f) In Nixon Township 0. 2 km (0.1 mi) of road was vacated and about 3.1 km (1.~ mi) of new roads were built.

4-5 4.2.3 Water Use The Clinton Power Station will use water from Lake Clinton to meet its water supply needs. Proposed station use of groundwater was abandoned due to high methane concentrations found in test wells during construct ion. There are no users of the Salt Creek or its North Fork for domestic, industria l, or municipal purposes. Salt Creek water is not used for irrigatio n within 80 km (50 radial mi) downstream from the station. All water supplies for such purposes are obtained from groundwater sources. The nearest public water supply which could be influenced by Salt Creek or its North Fork would be Alton, Illinois, on the Mississippi River, approximately 390 km (242 river mi) downstream of the Clinton Power Station.

Lake Clinton is used by the public for sport fishing~ powerboating, water skiing, and wildlife observation and study, and lakefront areas are being prepared for use as swimming beaches (staff observations, site visits of March and September 1981). The effect of station effluents on lake water quality is covered in Sections 5.3.2 and S.S. Consumptive water use resulting from station operation is discussed in Section 5.3.1.

Groundwater use by the project will be *limited to the Clinton Power Station Visitor Center and recreation al areas during operation. Use of groundwater at these locations will be minimal and will have no significa nt effect on local or regional hydrology.

4.2.4 Cooling System Except for the fact that only one unit will be operated, the station cooling system will remain unchanged from what was described in the FES-CP (Sec. 3.4),

that is, a once-through system withdrawing water from, and discharging water to, an impoundment of Salt Creek, named Lake Clinton.

4.2.4.1 Intake Structure There have been no changes in the cooling water intake structure from what was described in the FES-CP (Sec. 3.4.4).

4.2.4.2 Discharge Structure Other than a reduction in the bottom width of the discharge flume from 43 m

{140 ft) to 37 m {120 ft) {ER-OL, Sec. 3.4.3), the discharge structure will be generally as described in Section 3.4.5 of the FES-CP. The applicant does not plan to install a series of spray modules in the discharge flume for supplemental cooling during the period of one-unit operation as indicated in the ER-OL

{Sec. 3.4.4).

4.2.5 Radioactive-Waste Treatment Part 50.34a of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) requires an applicant for a permit to operate a nuclear power reactor to include a descriptio n of the design of equipment to be installed for keeping levels of radioactiv e materials in effluents to unrestric ted areas as low as is reasonably achievable. The term "as low as is reasonably achievable" means as low as is reasonably achievable taking into account the state of technology and the economics of improvement in relation to benefits to the public health and

4-6 safety and other societal and socioeconomic considerations and in relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the public interest. Appendix I to 10 CFR Part SO provides numerical guidance on design objectives for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors to meet the requirements that radioactive materials in effluents released to unrestricted areas be kept as low as is reasonably achievable.

To meet the .requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, the applicant has provided final designs of radwaste systems and effluent control measures for keeping levels of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas within the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part SO. The applicant elected to meet the requirements of the Annex to Appendix I dated ~eptember 4, 1975, in lieu of performing a cost-benefit analysis as required by Section 11.D of Appendix I. In addition, the applicant has provided an estimate of the quantity

of each principal radionuclide expected to be released annually to unrestricted

areas in liquid and gaseous effluents produced during normal operation, includ*

ing anticipated operational occurrences.

The staff's detailed evaluation of the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems and the capability of these systems to meet the requirements of Appendix I is presented in Chapter 11 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report which was issued in February, 1982. The quantities of radioactive material calculated by the staff to be released from the station during normal operations, including anticipated operational occurrences, are presented in Section 5.9 of this*

environmental statement, along with the calculated doses to individuals and to the population that will result from these effluent quantities. The staff's evaluation concludes that the final designs of radwaste systems and effluent control measures are capable of meeting the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR SO, such that radioactive materials in effluents released to unrestricted areas can be kept as low as reasonably achievable.

Before the issuance of an operating license, the applicant will submit technical specifications that will establish release rates for radioactive material in liquid and gaseous effluents. These specifications will also provide for the routine monitoring and measurement of all principal release points to assure that the facility operator is in conformance with the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

4.2.6 Nonradioactive-Waste-Management Systems As a result of the change in the station's source of makeup and potable water from deep wells to Lake Clinton (Sec. 4.2.3), the designs of the makeup water treatment system and associated waste management systems have been changed from what was described in the FES-CP (Secs. 3.6 and 3.7). Additionally, the analysis of thermal discharge has changed from that given in the FES-CP (Sec. 3.4) in light of plans for one-unit operation.

4.2.6.l Chemicals Makeup and Potable Water Treatment Plant makeup and potable water will be taken from Lake Clinton and then treated by prechlorination, clarification and solids removal--using alum or sodium aluminate and a coagulant aid, lime softening, and sand filtration. Plant

4-7 makeup water wi 11 undergo further treatment using carbon fi 1trat ion and demineralization (ER-OL, Secs. 3.3.4.1 and 3.6.2).

Wastes generated during backwash cleaning of the sand and carbon filters, removal .of sludge from the clarification basins, lime softener blowdown, and demineralizer regeneration and condenser cleaning will be routed to two waste-water treatment ponds, located southwest of the plant near the edge of Lake Clinton, with a total capacity of about 1.9 x 10 4 m3 (5.0 x 10 6 gal). The supernatant effluent from the wastewater treatment ponds will be neutralized by addition of acid, caustic, or lime and then sand filtered before discharge to Lake Clinton via the discharge flume. If the quality of wastewater does not meet NPDES effluent limitations (Appendix B) provisions have been made for routing the sand filter effluent back to the wastewater treatment ponds. The sludge collected in the wastewater treatment ponds will be dredged when neces-sary and transported offsite to a licensed landfill (ER-OL, Sec. 3.6.4).

Although the wastewater treatment ponds will not be lined, infiltration of seepage from the ponds into the aquifers in the vkinity of the station will be impeded by the low permeability (less than 10- 5 cm/s) of the rock and soils in the site area (ER-OL,. Sec. 2.4.3.4).

Cooling Water Treatment Biocides. The concentration of chlorine to be used for Unit 1 condenser biofouling control has been increased about one-third since the FES-CP was issued (FES-CP, Sec. 3.6.2). Plans now call for about 4 mg/L--average (5.3 mg/L--maximum) of chlorine to be injected into the circulating water upstream of the condenser for periods of about 30 minutes three times daily.

The free available chlorine (FAC) concentration during chlorination will be about 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L, which will be reduced to about 0.1 mg/Lat the condenser outlet. Total residual chlorine (TRC) levels are dependent upon a variety of reactions--with inorganic compounds, ammonia, and organic compounds, as well as reactions prompted by sunlight--in which chlorine is consumed (Refs. 1-3).

On the basis of expected water quality in Lake Clinton, the staff estimates that the TRC concentration during chlorination will be about 1.5 to 2.5 mg/L, which will be reduced to about 0.3 mg/Lat the condenser outlet. Only one unit will be in operation, and thus untreated circulating water from the second unit.will not be available to reduce the chlorine concentration through reaction and dilution upon mixing, as was anticipated in the FES-CP (Sec. 3.6.2).

However, the staff estimates that the long transit time in the discharge flume (about 3.9 hours1.041667e-4 days 0.0025 hours 1.488095e-5 weeks 3.4245e-6 months ) will reduce residual chlorine through further reactions as an oxidizing agent (Refs. 4-6), resulting in a reduction of FAC to well below 0.1 mg/Land TRC to below 0.2 mg/L prior to discharge into Lake Clinton (ER-OL, Secs. 3.3.1 and 3.6.1).

As described in Section 4.3.4.2, if the Asiatic clam becomes established in Lake Clinton, the clams may block the power plant condenser tubes. This possibility was not considered in the FES-CP. In waters similar to those expected in Lake Clinton, an effective method to control juvenile Asiatic clams is to asphyxiate them by creation of anaerobic conditions. During condenser outages, water in the cribhouse is allowed to remain undisturbed for about 36 hours4.166667e-4 days 0.01 hours 5.952381e-5 weeks 1.3698e-5 months while adding oxygen scavengers (about 150 to 200 mg/L sodium meta-bisulfite, 5 to 8 mg/L hydrogen sulfide, and 0.3 ppm cobalt chloride).

At the end of the treatment period, water is neutralized by reaeration prior to discharge. Reaeration restores the dissolved oxygen content and oxidizes sodfom meta-bisulfite and hydrogen sulfide to sulfates (Ref 7).

4-8 Scale Control. The applicant estimates that it may be necessary to remove scale from the condenser after five to seven years of operation (and, possibly, at similar intervals thereafter) (ER-OL, Response to Question 291.9).

If scale develops, chemical scale control will be considered using_sulfuric, formic, or phosphoric acid in a 5% to 15% solution during a condenser outage.

Cleaning of the condenser is expected to produce about 1900 m3 (5 x 10 5 gal) of waste, plus rinse water; the waste solution will be neutralized, precipi-tated in one of the two wastewater treatment.ponds, and filtered, as described in the section on makeup and potable water treatment (ER-OL, Response to Question 291.9). Following treatment, the wastewater will be discharged into Lake Clinton, resulting in an initial increase of about 1 ppm in the salt concentration in the lake, which should be reduced to immeasurable quantities shortly after condenser cleaning is completed.

4.2.6.2 Thermal The applicant has reevaluated its thermal plume predictions for Lake Clinton since issuance of both the FES-CP and the ER-OL. This reevaluation was under-taken because (1) the original predictions were for two unit operation, but the applicant has decided only Unit 1 will be in operation for an indefinite period of time, and (2) there have been advances in thermal field predictive techniques since the applicant's original analysis.

During the construction-permit stage, the applicant used a one-dimensional (longitudinal) thermal-plume model (called LAKET) to predict the thermal effect of station operation upon the Clinton cooling lake and the thermal impact of the water discharged into Salt Creek below the dam (FES-CP, Sec. 5.3).

In its revised hydrothermal analysis, the applicant used the Laterally Averaged Reservoir Model (LARM) to simulate the two-dimensional (longitudinal and vertical) variations of both the velocities and temparatures in Lake Clinton (Ref. 8). The applicant computed the hydrodynamic and temperature regimes in Lake Clinton for a heat-rejection rate of 6.2 MMJ/hr (5.9 x 109 Btu/hr) with one-unit operation at 100% load factor (plant factor) and for the climato-logical and hydrological conditions of 1978 and 1955. The year 1978 was used to provide a verification case under no heat load (filling of the lake was completed in May 1978, and some actual lake-temperature data were available).

The year 1955 was selected because it experienced the highest summer water temperatures in the 26 years (1953-1978) of record (Ref. 8, Sec. 4.2.3) and because it corresponds to the l-in-50-year drought (ER-OL, Sec. 5.1.2).

The cooling water temperature rise for one-unit operation at maximum load was calculated to be 10.1C0 (18.2F 0 ) based on a total station heat rejection rate of 6.2 MMJ/hr (5.9 x 10 9 Btu/hr) and a flow rate of 41 m3/s (1447 cfs). The0 temperature reduction in the discharge flume was estimated to be about O.SC (0.9F 0 ) for the 1955 meteorological conditions and about 1.0C0 (1.8F 0 ) for the 1978 conditions.

The applicant presented the newly predicted lake temperature data for one-unit operation in the Thermal Demonstration Report (TOR) and submitted the report in 1980 to the Illinois Pollution Control Board (!PCB) to support the applicant's petition for alternative thermal standards for Unit 1.

4-9 In October 1981, the applicant, in response to the staff 1 s question about the .

applicant*s thermal demonstration, indicated* that for one-unit operation at 100%

load, the station heat-rejection rate would be 7.0 MMJ/hr (6.61 x 10s Btu/hr)

(Ref. 9). Also, at lake elevation of 210 m (690 ft) MSL, it was reported that the circulating water flow rate would be 38.8 m3 /s (1370 cfs), and the service water flow rate would be 2.8 m3 /s (98 cfs) (about 95% of this will go to the discharge flume). Therefore, the combined circulating and service water flow rate would be 41.6 m3 /s (1468 cfs) instead of 41 m3/s (1447 cfs) as previously reported, and the resulting water temperature rise, at 100% power, would be ll.2C (20.1F ) instead of 10.1C 0 0 0 (18.2F 0

) . The Applicant 1 s lake temperature distribution data for the revised heat-rejection and cooling-water-flow rates were not available to the staff.

The staff conducted an independent hydrotherma1 analysis for Lake Clinton using the above fl ow and temperature data and the transient temperature prediction model called 11 MITEMP 11 developed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for natural reservoirs and cooling impoundments (Refs. 10,11).

The MITEMP program is a flexible, multipurpose computer code that contains several submodels for predicting temperature structure and flow pattern in natural impoundments, deep stratified cooling ponds, and shallow, vertically mixed cooling ponds.

The staff* simulated the hydrothermal performance of Lake Clinton for the conditions during the period of May through October in the extreme dry year of 1955. Meteorological data for Springfield, Illinois, were used (Ref. 12).

Based on the applicant's lake drawdown analysis, the staff assumed that the lake level would be at the extreme low level of 209 m (685.5 ft) MSL (ER-OL,

p. 3.4-1) with no flow over the spillway. The only downstream water released from the cooling lake to Salt Creek was considered.to*b e discharged through the submerged lake outlet, which has a crest elevation of 204 m (668 ft) MSL.

-The simulation was first performed for the case with the station operating at 100% load factor, which represents the worst-case situation* in terms of poten-

tial thermal impact.

The cooling water flow rate used by the staff is somewhat different from the value provided by* the applicant. Since the lake elevation would drop to 209 m

{685.5 ft) MSL under the 1955 conditions, the intake pumping rates would be 3 expected to be less than 38.8 m3 /s (1370 cfs) for circulating water and 2.8 m /s (98 cfs) for service water, which as the applicant pointed out, are the pumping rates at lake elevation of 210 m (690 ft) .MSL (Ref. 9). The staff calculated that at lake elevation of 209 m (685.5 ft), the circulating and service water flow rates would be 37 m3 /s (1310 ~fs) and 2.7 m3 /s (95 cfs). The combined cooling water discharge rate into the lake would be 39.6 m3 /s (1400 cfs),

s i nee only-. 95% of the service water would go into the discharge flume. At 100% load factor, the station heat rejection rate of 7.0 0MMJ/hr (6.61 x 109 Btu/

0 hr) would result in a combined temperature rise of 11.8C (21.2F ) . 0 Assuming 0 that the temperature reduction in the discharge flume would be 0.5C (0.9F )

for the conditions of the year 1955, the water-temperat ure rise for the dis-0

) at 100% power.

0

.charge into Lake Clinton would therefore be 11.3C (20.3F A staff evaluation of the given pond characteristic s indicated that Lake Clinton would tend to be stratified. Therefore, the deep stratified cooling pond submodel of the MITEMP program was used by the staff for its simulation.

The simulated discharge temperatures in the lake as computed by the staff are shown in Figure 4~1 and in Table 4.2 for one-unit operation at 100% load

120--------...-------r---------,

1955 Meteorological Conditions la- 110 0

tU

a e

cu 100 0.

e

~

., 90 0

a

.c:

u u,

0

80 10-*----------------------- ---------------------------- --------------

September October Moy June July August Figure 4.1. Staff's Predicted.Discharge Temperature into Lake* Clinton for One-Unit Operation at 100%

Load Factor. [°C = (°F* - 32) x 0.555]

4-11 Table 4.2. Results of the Staff's Predicted Temperatures for Year 1955 (Lake Surface Elevation= 685.5 ft MSL).

Maximum Annual Maximum Cooling Water Flume Discharge Frequency Discharge Water Temperature Temperature Temperature above Temperature to*

Discharge Rise Reduction to Laket 1 ' 2

99°Ft 1 ' 3 Salt Creekt 1 ' 4 (cfs) (FO) *(FO) (OF) (%) (DF) 100% Load Factort 5 1400 21.2 0.9 110.4 16.4 90.l 1463t 6 20.lt 6 0.9 109.5 16.0 90.0

~-----~----~--------------------------------------~-------------

78% Load Factort 7 1400 16.5 0.9 105.5 11.8 85.7 1463t6 15.7t6 0.9 104.7 10.0 85.6 t 1 See Section 5.3.2.2 for details of the IPCB thermal standards.

t 2 IPCB standard is 108.3°F.

t 3 !PCB standards limit frequency of occurrence of releases above 99.0°F.

t 4 IPCB standard is 90.0°F.

t 5 Heat-rejection rate= 6.61 x 10 9 Btu/hr.

t 6 Data provided by the applicant.

t 7 Heat-rejection rate= 5.16 x 109 Btu/hr.

Note: 0 c = (°F - 32) x 0.555; m3 /s = cfs x 0.028 factor. The max.imum temperature of water re 1eased from Lake Clinton to Salt Creek is also presented in Table 4. 2. In addition to using the cooling water flow rate and the water temperature rise as derived by the staff to perform thermal analysis, the staff also predicted.the lake temperature by using the flow and temperature data provided by *the applicant. These results are also shown in Table 4.2.

Based on the MITEMP program and the input data derived by the staff, the predicted maximum discharge temperature into the lake would be about 43.6°C (110.4°F) for 100% load factor. The results also indicated that the maximum discharge temperatures would generally occur around August 5 under the 1955 conditions. The maximum temperature of water released from Lake Clinton to Salt Creek was predicted to be 32.3°C (90.1°F).

In addition, the staff has performed similar mode1ings for other station operating conditions. The results for one-unit operation at 78% load factor are also presented in Table 4.2. This reduced operating level, as discussed

4-12 in Section 5.3.2.2, would produce discharge temperatures into Lake Clinton within the limits established by the IPCB.

The staff has reviewed the temperature distributions in the lake, as provided by the applicant in its thermal demonstration reports (Ref. 8) for slightly different flow-rate and temperature parameters than indicated in Table 4.2.

The observation of the temperature distributions indicated that a large frac-tion of Lake Clinton would have water temperatures at or below 32.2°C (90°F)

.(Sec. 5.5.2.3). The staff believes that this conclusion about lake temperature would remain valid under the station operating conditions indicated in Table 4.2.

4.2.6.3 Other Sanitary Wastes The sanitary waste treatment scheme given in Section 3.7.1 of the FES-CP remains valid. The only change is the design capacity, which has been increased from 142 m3 /day (37,500 gal/day) to 161 m3 /day (42,500 gal/day), primarily to meet the needs of an increased labor force during refueling. The normal operation work force is expected to be about 350 people for one-unit operation (ER-OL, Response to Question 310.1). The staff has determined that based on a water usage rate of 1.5 x 10- 6 m3 /s (35 gal/day) per person (Ref. 13), the design capacity of the sanitary system is sufficient.

Gaseous and Particulate Emissions The only change from the FES-CP (Sec. 3.7.2) is that there will be only three emergency diesel generators for one-unit operation, as opposed to the six originally planned for two-unit operation (FES-CP, Sec. 3.7.2). These genera-tors will be on standby status and will be periodically tested (ER-OL, Sec. 3.7.3).

The total annual discharge of sulfur dioxide is estimated to range between 170 and 270 kg (370 and 600 lb); total annual discharge of nitrogen oxides is expected to range between 100 and 170 kg (230 and 370 lb) (ER-OL, Sec. 3.7.3).

Small amounts of particulates will also be released. The staff considers these estimates to be within the range of emissions normally to be expected from such sources. Another source of air pollution during station operation will be fugitive dust and combustion-product emissions from vehicle operation.

The amounts of such pollutants have not been estimated, but are expected by the staff to be relatively small compared with other sources in the area.

4.2.7 Power-Transmission Systems The completed transmission facilities associated with the station differ from those described in the FES-CP (Sec. 3.8). They are fully described 11 in the ER-OL (Sec. 3.9.1). The major change is the substitution of "Route 1 (south) for "Route 811 to facilitate connection with the Oreana Substation (Fig. 4.2).

Route I contains two parallel rows of single-circuit, wood H-frame structures with 345-kV lines on 8.7 km (5.4 mi) of the applicant's property; the route then continues on private rights-of-way, employing double-circuit, single-column steel structures. The columns carry two 345-kV lines to the intersect and tie-in with the existing Latham Rising Transmission Line 4571, with one 345-kV line continuing from Line 4571 to the Oreana substation. Changes in the corridors of transmission line routes F-G and Hare minor. The combined length of the three transmission. lines added to the Illinois Power Company

TO IISIIICI IUISTATIOI

\

. \

\u11111-111, . . .

\ mn u1E *s11 CLm4;-*. -- !'!~E- L _J\

POWll .

STITIOI \

\

MIUTIOII \

IOUTE I

~

w I

\ fOIIYTlt MUOI \

~L">.211\t------1f31----.om1----

llOOMIIITOI I-- '

I

"'* NOT TO SCALE

--- Route B TO UTNAN SUISTAT~ICII Figure 4.2. Transmission Line Routes. [Modified from the ER-OL, Fig. 3.9-1.]

4-14 system is about 92 km (57 mi); the associated corridors include about 367 ha (906 acres).

4.3 PROJECT-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTIONS 4.3.1 Hydrology 4.3.1.1 Surface Water The surface water descriptions presented in Section 2.5 of the FES-CP are still valid with the additions and discussions below. In addition, Section 5.3.3 of this report contains a discussion of the hydrologic*effects of alterations in the floodplain as required by Executive Order 11988-Floodplain Management.

Runoff for the Clinton Lake watershed was estimated using discharge data collected at the USGS gaging station near Rowell, 19 km (12 mi) downstream of the Clinton Lake dam. The drainage area monitored at Rowell is 866 km 2 (334 mi 2 ).

The discharges of Salt Creek at the dam site were derived by multiplying the recorded discharges at Rowell by the drainage area ratio 296/334 = 0.886. A 33-year period of record, 1942-1975, was used in runoff calculations for Clinton Lake.

Derived discharge data for Salt Creek at the main dam site are shown in Table 4.3.

The maximum flood of record at Rowell, which occurred on May 16, 1968, produced an estimated peak discharge of 612 m3 /s (21,600 cfs) at the main dam. Such a*

flood has an estimated recurrence interval of about 60 years. Floods greater than 283 m3 /s (10,000 cfs) at Rowell (estimated recurrence interval of 10 years) were recorded in 1943, 1956, 1961, 1964, and 1968.

Table 4.3. Derived Discharge Data for Salt Creek at Dam Site Discharge Magnitude Mean* annual 6 m3 /s (212 ft 3 /s)

Highest mean monthly (April) 13 m3/s (461 ft3/s}

Lowest mean monthly (September) 0.9 m3 /s (32 ft 3 /s)

Maximum peak 612 m3/s (21,600 ft3/s)

Minimum low 17 L/s (0.6 ft3/s)

The minimum recorded flow at Rowell, observed on October 4, 1954, was 20 L/s (0.7 cfs), which has an estimated recurrence interval of 75 years. The drought which produced this record low flow occurred from 1952 to 1957. The correspond-ing minimum flow estimated at the main dam is 17 L/s (0.6 cfs). The estimated seven-day once-in-ten-years low flow for the Rowell gaging station is 76 L/s (2.7 cfs), which translates to approximately 68 L/s (2.4 cfs) at the main dam.

4-15 Because of the flood attenuat ion effect of the lake, the magnitude of flood flows downstream from the dam will be lower than under preconstruction condi-tions. Minimum flows downstream of the dam will be greater than the minimum flow of record because of a guaranteed minimum release from the cooling lake of 142 L/s (5 cfs).

Lake Clinton has a normal pool elevatio n of 690 ft above mean sea level which 8 km 2 ( 4895 acres), and a was reached on May 17, 1978, 7 a surface area 19*.

storage capacity of 9.15 x 10 m3 (74,200 acre-ft) at normal pool elevatio n.

The hydrologic analyses and hydraulic design for the main dam and the lake are based on a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) condition with a Standard Project Flood (SPF) as an antecedent flood. The PMF water surface elevatio n in the lake at the dam site is estimated to be 708.8 ft.

A determination was made of the expected reductio n in lake capacity due to tation rate of 240 m 3 /km2 /yr (0.5 acre-ft/ mi 2 /yr) was sedimentation. A sedimen selected on the basis of. data obtained from three sources: (1) turbiditsedi- y measurements made during a six-year period, 1950.to 1956, at Rowell, (2) mentation surveys and studies conducted by the Illinois State Water Survey on 85 reservo irs in Illinois , and (3) turbidit y measurements made on the sitetheof Lake Clinton beginning in 1972. Using the selected sedimentation rate, be volume of sediment deposited in Lake Clinton at the end of 30 years would about 5. 5 x 10 6 m3 (4450 acre-ft) , or 6% of lake capacity at normal pool elevatio n. Such a loss in capacity should have no effect on normal station operations. Analyses made by the applican t regarding the effect of 50 years of sedimentation on lake flood levels showed no appreciable rise in water surface elevatio n in the upper reaches of the reservo ir.

4.3.1.2 Groundwater The principa l source of potable groundwater in the region occurs in sand andin gravel aquifers associated with glacial deposits . Glacial outwash deposits the Mahomet bedrock valley are the primary source of municipal water in DeWitt County. Other aquifers in limited public and domestic use are sand and gravel lenses in the glacial till and alluvial deposits . The Pennsylvanian bedrock aquifer, underlying the glacial drift, is not generally used as a water source because of the greater accessi bility of glaciall y deposited aquifers .

The Mahomet valley aquifer is as much as 46 m (150 ft) thick and overlain by approximately 61 m (200 ft) of relative ly impervious clayey tills. Water from this aquifer will not be used by the station, as stated in construction phase reports, due to its high methane content (see Sec. 4.2.3).

Local groundwater levels range in elevatio n from stream level in the valleys to 3 to 12 m (10 to 40 ft) below the surface in the uplands between streams.

Regional groundwater movement is westward toward the Illinois River at a gradien t of 0.04% to 0.06% [0.4 to 0.6 m/km (2 to 3 ft/mi)] locally steeper gradien ts occur near stream valleys.

High groundwater levels occur in the upland areas that are poorly drained.

The limited *permeability of the subsoil, the poor natural drainage, and the

subsequent high groundwater 1eve 1s contribu te to a cons i derab 1e drainage problem in the agricult ural uplands. Much of the agricult ural land is drained artifica lly by tile and ditch, some of which discharge into Salt Creek.

4-16 4.3.2 Water Quality 4.3.2.1 Surface Water The staff has performed an analysis of the new monitoring data provided in the ER-OL (Secs. 2.2.2.1 and 2.4.1.6) on water quality in Salt Creek, the North Fork of Salt Creek, and Lake Clinton--during and after lake filling. The applicant's preoperational monitoring program was begun in May 1974 and per-formed on a quarterly basis through September 1975 at four locations: the North Fork, about 13 km (8 mi) upstream of the confluence of Salt Creek and the North Fork; on the Salt Creek about 19 km (12 mi) upstream of the con-

fluence; and two locations [6 km (4 mi) and 11 km (7 mi)] downstream of the confluence. Frequency of monitoring was increased at the above locations to monthly sampling in October 1975. When the main dam was closed in November 1977, the monitoring program was expanded to include five additional sampling loca-tions: two on Salt Creek, 27 km (17 mi) and 26 km (16 mi) upstream of the original confluence; and three in Lake Clinton, one at the point where the discharge flume enters the lake, one near the intake structure, and one in the deepest portion of the lake near the original confluence (ER-OL, Sec. 6.1).

The chemical and bacteriological constituents measured during the preopera-tional monitoring program are listed in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4. Chemical and Bacteriological Constituents Measured during Preoperational Environmental Monitoringt 1 General Water Quality Parameters Nutrients Alkalini_ty, total Ammonia Chlorine, total Biochemical oxygen demand (5-day)

Conductance, specific Nitrate Oxygen, dissolved Organic carbon, total Oxygen, saturation Organic nitrogen, total pH Orthophosphate, soluble Temperature Phosphorous, total Total dissolved solids Si _l i ca, so 1ub 1e Total suspended solids Turbidi~y Trace Metals Copper Bacteriological Lead Bacteria, fecal coliform Mercury Bacteria, fecal streptococci Zinc t 1 From ER-OL, Table 6.1-1.*

4-17 Some changes in water quality were observed from the data reported in the FES-CP (Sec. 2.5.3), primarily due to point sources of domestic waste, nonpoint sources of agricultura l runoff, and filling of Lake Clinton. The concentra-tions of aquatic ~utrients and bacteria were often quite high. The range of total phosphorous concentrations often exceeded the standard of the Illinois Pollution Control Board (0.05 mg/L), and ranged from 0.02 to 0.6 mg/L in upstream Salt Creek; 0.04 to 0.33 mg/Lin the upstream North Fork; 0.015 to 0.12 mg/L in Lake Clinton; and 0.06 to 0.6 mg/Lin downstream Salt Creek.

Fecal coliform colonies or counts (FC), which were not reported in the FES-CP, frequently exceeded the Illinois standard (400 FC/100 ml), and ranged from 130 to 150,000 FC/100 ml in upstream Salt Creek, 240 to 10,000 FC/100 ml in upstream North Fork, 0 to 1600 FC/100 ml in Lake Clinton, and 0-4700 FC/100 ml in downstream Salt Creek. Dissolved oxygen levels followed natural seasonal trends and generally met the minimum specified level of 5.0 mg/L. Concentra-tions of trace metals monitored were below their respective Illinois standards.

Because of the potential for the establishment of encephaliti c human pathogenic amoebae in Lake Clinton (Sec. 4*. 3. 4. 2), and because the 1ake is used by the public for water contact recreation (Sec. 4.2.3), the staff recommends that monitoring for such amoebae be added to the existing monitoring program in accordance with recommendations of the Illinois Department of Public Health so that appropriate mitigation can be designed if the organisms are found.

4.3.2.2 Groundwater Groundwater quality in the station vicinity has shown no appreciable change from that described at the construction-permit review stage, with the excep-tion of groundwater in the buried Mahomet Bedrock Valley. In 1979, water containing a high methane concentration was obtained from a test well located about 1.5 km (1 mi) south of the station. As a result, all plant water needs will be supplied by surface water (ER-OL, Sec. 2.4.2 and Table 2.4-16).

4.3.3 Climatology and Air Quality 4.3.3.1 Climatology The Clinton site in east-centra l Illinois is situated in a continental-type climate with marked annual temperature variation. Average minimum temperature in January is -8°C (18°F) while average maximum is 29°C (84°F) in July (Ref. 14).

Extreme temperature values measured at Decatur, Illinois (Ref. 15), near the site, show a minimum of *26°C (*15°F) and a maximum of 45°C (113°F) through April 1975 .. Extremes observed onsite (Ref. 16) ranged from -28.8°C (-20°F) to 35.2°C (95°F). Mean annual precipitatio n in the area is about 940 mm (37 in),

with normal monthly precipitatio n that varies from 53 to 123 mm (2.1 to 4.8 in).

The larger amounts occur from April through June. Snowfall has been observed from November through April and for the winter season averaged 534 mm (21 in) for the period 1950-1974. *

Thunderstorms and tornadoes are observed in the site vicfoity and thunderstorm days averaged about 50 per year (Ref. 16). The thunderstorms generally result either from the passage of frontal systems over the area or from warm unstable air transported into the area from *the Gulf of Mexico during the summer.

Tornadoes, which can occur with the more vigorous thunderstorms, have been

4-18 reported in Illinois 404 times during 1953-1971 (Ref. 17). Thus an average of 21 tornadoes per year can be expected .statewide. Maximum wind speed observed in the region through 1976 at Springfield, Illinois (Ref. 18), was 120 km/hr (74 mph). Average monthly wind speed is approximately 18 km/hr (11 mph) in the region, with the prevailing winds from the south to the south-southwest directions most of the year. However, during January through March, northwest winds prevail. Onsite winds measured at the 10-m (33-ft) level during 1972-1977 are shown in Figure 4.3 and reflect the general wind flow typical for the region.

Diffusion characteristic~ in the site vicinity can be represented by average mixing height conditions as described by Holzworth (Ref. 19) for Peoria, Illinois (Table 4.5). The mixing height has diurnal and seasonal variation, with best conditions observed in the summer afternoon and less favorable conditions in the summer morning.

Table 4.5. Peoria, Illinois, Mixing Heights (meters)

Season Winter Spring Summer Autumn Annual Morning 392 431 305 321 362 Afternoon 594 1433 1532 1104 1168 4.3.3.2 Air Quality This section provides a discussion of air quality not previously presented in the FES-CP.

Air quality data are not collected in the site vicinity, but are collected at five Illinois air pollution monitoring stations in the region: Bloomington, 40 km (25 mi) north of the site; Champaign, 53 km (33 mi) to the east; Decatur, 32 km (20 mi) to the south; Springfield, 76 km (47 mi) to the southwest; and Peoria, 82 km (51 mi) to the northwest (ER-OL, Fig. 2.3-14).

Annual summaries of air quality data collected at these five locations since the FES-CP was issued are available in References 20,21, for five atmospheric pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been set--total suspended particulates (TSP), sulfur dioxide (50 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), oxidants/ozone (as ozone, 03 ), and nitrogen dioxide (N0 2 ). These data indicate that air quality at the monitoring stations is in compliance with NAAQS for S0 2 , CO, and N0 2

For ozone, the Illinois ~ourly standard (0.008 ppm) is frequently exceeded; however, the Federal NAAQS (0.12 ppm) is never exceeded.

Peoria and Decatur are in violation of the annual NAAQS for TSP, and the 24-hour NAAQS for TSP is occasionally violated at all sites except Champaign.

4-19 N

NNW NNE NW NE WNW ENE 1 0" w E WSW ESE SW SE SSW SSE s

1.5-3.0 >8.0 w~ . . -""'".

MPS 0.3-1.4 3.1-8.0 Figure 4.3.* Wind Rose, 10-Mete r Level, Clinton Station Site, Period of Record. [From ER-OL, Fig. 2.3-1.]

4-20 4.3.4 Ecology 4.3.4.1 Terrestrial Station Staff analysis of monitoring data acquired by the applicant since the issuance of the FES-CP (ER-OL, Sec. 2.2.1) indicates that the terrestrial biotic descrip-tion of the site as presented in the FES-CP (Sec. 2.7.1) remains generally valid.

The applicant has implemented staff recommendations presented in the FES-CP (Sec. 4.3.1). especially with respect to the planting of native grasses on former cropped lands adjacent to the lake, and establishing tree plantings of diverse composition. A prairie remnant east of the North Fork has been expanded by planting appropriate grasses and forbs in an adjacent field (ER-OL, Sec. 4.5.3).

The area, named Silphium Prairie, was developed in lieu of the Tall Grass Prairie restoration program originally proposed (FES-CP, Sec. 4.3.1). In general, wildlife breeding, nesting, and forage habitats have been developed .

or enhanced wherever feasible. In their management of the lands leased to the State of Illinois, the Department of Conservation includes specific measures relative to management of recreation activities and wildlife (ER-OL, Response to Question 290.4).

Transmission System The general characterization of terrestrial habitat under the original Route B

as described in the FES-CP (Sec. 3.8) remains valid for the terrestrial habitat under the replacement Route l (ER-OL, Sec. 3.6).

4.3.4.2 Aquatic The description of Lake Clinton design provided in Section 3.4.2 of the FES-CP remains basically valid. Review by the staff of preoperational monitoring data (ER-OL, Sec. 2.2.2, and Sec. 4.4 of Ref. 8) indicates that the biotic community of the lake is developing as predicted in the FES-CP (Sec. 4.3.2).

The following discussion is provided as a brief supplement to the information presented in the FES-CP. More detailed information, including information about the size, relative numbers, and location preference of 42 species of fish, is given in Reference 8.

Much of the lake basin was cleared prior to impoundment, and thus, the lake bottom consists principally of fine silt. the basic surface soil of central Illinois (Ref. 8). Brushy areas are generally confined to coves that were left undisturbed and the upper reaches of each arm of the reservoir. Weedy areas are scattered throughout the shallow sections of the lake, but beginning in 1980 and during 1981 major portions of these weedy areas receded naturally and no longer exist. Even with this reduction of weedy areas, the bushy areas in the lake provide preferred habitat for several fish species, and thermal refuges will be available for the maintenance of fish populations during periods of maximum thermal discharge from the station (Sec. 5.5.2.3).

The dominant species presently are gizzard shad, carp, largemouth bass, blue-gill, and green sunfish. A stocking program to maintain the recreational

4-21 fishery in the lake has been establi shed under the management of IDOC, lakes, subjec t to the approval of the applica nt. Based on studies ~t other coolingbecome self-su stainin g popula tions of severa l native game species should the establi shed in Lake Clinton . Stocked experimental game species include bass x white tiger musky (northe rn pike x muskel lunge), wa*lley e, and the striped bass hybrid. Since these hybrid specie s are infert ile and natura l reprod uction is not expected to maintain the walleye popu_lation, the experimental game specie s may be restock ed, depending on the outcome of their introdu ction into the cooling lake. The thread fin shad is also being stocked to provide addi-tional forage fish. The shad will be restock ed only when it does not succes s-fully overwi nter (Ref. 8).

There is a potent ial for establi shmen t of the Asiatic clam (Corbi culainto fluminea) in Lake Clinton . This exotic species has extended its range well the Midwest (Ref. 22), and has been known to block power-plant conden ser tubes by enterin g the cribhou se as juveni les and maturing in the cribhou se. Chemic al treatm ent may be require d to preven t the small clams from reachin g a size large enough to plug condenser tubes (Ref. 7).

The staff also believe s that there is the potent ial for the establi shmen t of enceph alitic human pathogenic amoebae such as Naegle ria fowleri in Lake Clinton estab-after power produc tion begins. Such organisms are known to have become 30).

lished in other therma lly altered power- plant lakes in Illino is (Ref.

4.3.5 Endangered and Threatened Species The U.S. Department of the Interio r, Fish and Wildli fe Servic e, has of stated (Appendix H) that two endangered species may occur in the vicinit y the site--t he bald eagle (Haliae etus leucoc ephalu s) and the Indiana bat (Myotis sodali s). Only the bald eagle has been observed at the site during the appli-cant's site-m onitori ng program. This species has been sighted at Lake Clinton

-severa l times since 1978, especi ally during the winter (Ref. 23).

The Fish and Wildli fe Service stated that the Indiana bat may occur in the vicini ty of Lake Clinton because the riparia n timber area is good habita t for this species (Appendix H). No individ uals of this species were observe d at the site during the applic ant's monitoring; however, the monito ring program s (ER-OL, Sec. 6.1.4. 3.2.) were not specif ically designed to detect bats.

The staff has determined that sites used as hiberna cula by Indiana bats are not reporte d to occur in DeWitt and contiguous countie s (Ref. 24); staff is howeve r, popula tions are widely dispers ed during the summer (Ref. 25). The at or not aware of any field invest igation conducted to survey bat popula tions to near the Clinton site; thus, inform ation for determining if, or the extent given which, the Indiana bat may freque nt the area is not availab le. However, any that Indiana bats are presen t in the area, the staff does not foresee reason able circumstances whereby operati on of Clinton Unit 1 and related activi ties would jeopard ize the local popula tion of bats.

Eight bird specie s listed under the Illino is Endangered Species Act ofsite 1977 (Ref. 26) as threate ned or endangered have been seen at or near the (ER-OL, Sec. 2.2.3) .. Six of these specie s are listed as endangered--the bald rus),

eagle, the marsh hawk (Circus cyaneu s), the brown creepe r (Certh ia familia longica uda),

the Cooper~s hawk (Accip iter cooper ii), the upland sandpi per (Bartra mia

4-22 and the long-eared owl (Asio otus)--and two as threatened--the Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii) and the~ry (Catharus fuscescens). Presence of the river otter (listed by the state as threatened) was indicated by its track-and slide near the site in February 1977 (ER-OL, Sec. 2.2.1.2.2). The applicant found no evidence of breeding populations of any of these $pecies (ER-OL, Sec. 2.2.3.2). However, the staff ~oes not consider the absence of br~eding populations to be uniquely or equally indicative of the importance of onsite habitat resources to the various endangered and threatened species. Further, induced changes in the features of the site (e.g., tree plantings), as well as natural successional development, have and will continue to alter onsite habitat conditions. Such a1terat ions may induce some of these species to reestablish local breeding populations.

The applicant has asserted that 11 no rare or endangered plant species were found 11 during vegetation surveys at the Clinton site, and that "no habitat type was found that was considered unique to central Illinois" (ER-OL, Sec. 2.2.1.1). However, the ginseng plant (Panax guinguefolius) is included in the applicant's inventory of plant species observed onsite (ER-OL, Table 2.2-67); this plant is designated as a threatened species in the "Illinois Li st of Endangered and Threatened Pl ants" that was forma 1ly adopted by the Department of Conservation on April 15, 1980. An appreciable number of plants.

included in the applicant's inventory of observed species are incompletely identified, i.e., by the genus taxon only. In 17 of such instances, the state listing includes one or more species of these genera; thus; the ginseng __ may not be the only state-listed plant species occurring at the site.

There are no known federally listed endangered or threatened aquatic species in the vicinity of the site.

4.3.6 Historic and Prehistoric Sites Sect ion 2. 3 for the FES-CP discusses historic and archeo 1ogi ca 1 sites. In

.this section it was stated that the National Register of Historic Places had no sites listed for DeWitt County. Since that time the C.H. Moore House located in Clinton has been listed in the National Register of Historic Places (Ref. 27). This section also mentioned plans to relocate Valley Mill, an old grist mill, to Clinton and the possible relocation of some iron bridges. The mill was unfortunately vandalized and burned before the relocation could take

place. Ownership of the eight iron bridges was retained by the townships, with seven of the bridges being removed and either salvaged or disposed of.

One bridge remains intact and continues in use in Harp Township. Section 2.3 refers to the 1973 survey made by the Illinois State Museum and discusses future work to be performed on some of the sites which were anticipated to be affected by construction activities. The survey selected 18 sites for more detailed description which were* assigned a cultural affiliation.

Subsequently, subsurface testing was conducted on 10 of 11 sites which were expected to be inundated by the proposed Clinton reservoir. The testing revealed one site, designated as the Pabst site, to be significant (ER-C~,

Appendix 2.6a). The site was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places and accepted* on April 30, 1975. The Pabst site was later salvage excavated (ER-OL, Appendix 2.6b) under an August 1975 Memorandum of Agreement signed by-the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Illinois Historic Preservation Officer, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Pabst collec-tions are curated by the Illinois *state Museum.

4-23 Six of the 18 sites described in the 1973 report *remain essen tially undisturbed on the statio n property. The sites are not located within the area of environ-mental impact relate d to the normal operation of the statio n, to planned recrea tional activi ties, or to any identi fied future construction activi ties on the statio n site. Site ISM OWV95, formerly a cultiv ated field, is located in the immediate vicini ty of a transmission line. Normal inspec tion of trans-mission lines will utiliz e aircra ft with foot patrol s being conduc ted only in extraordinary circumstances.

4.3.7 Community Chara cteris tics The general socioeconomic chara cteris tics of the region, includ ing demography and land use, are presented in Section 2 of the FES-CP . As indica ted in the FES-CP, the plant is located in centra l Illino is in DeWitt County about midway between the cities of Lincoln, 43.6 km (27.1 mi) to the west; Champ aign, 48.1 km (29.9 mi) to the east; Bloomington, 36.5 km (22.7 mi) to the north; and Decatur, 36.0 km (22.4 mi) to the south.

DeWitt County is basica lly agricu ltural with about 95% of the county being in farms. Industry is located mostly in the two larges t cities of the county, which are Clinton (1980 population 8014), 9.7 km (6 mi) west of the site, and Farmer City (1980 population 2252) about 17.7 km (11 mi) northe ast of the site. Some businesses such as small commercial centersa and grain storage are located in smaller communities. DeWitt County grew by totaln of 1133 persons from 1970 to 1980 from 16,975 to 18,108 persons, with Clinto accoun ting for 372 persons of the total increase.

Most of the 16-km (10-mi) area surrounding the site is rural and in addition to Clinton includes DeWitt, Weldon, and Wapella. The 1970 total population within 16 km (10 mi) of the site is estimated to be 13,143 person s and 12,976 persons in 1980, with the population in 2020 estima ted to be 18,608 person s (ER-OL, Fig. 2. 1-12) .

The County Board of DeWitt County intends to control future growth. In a recent ly passed reso 1 ut ion the County Board instru cted the DeWitt County Regional Planning Commission that its revisi on of the Compr ehensiv e Plan and Zoning Ordinance should adhere to the priori ties of mainta ining and preserving a11 of the *agri cul tura 1 1ands of the County, and to contra 1uses the growth and development so as to avoid the admixture of urban and rural in the county, while preserving property values (Ref. 28).

References for Section 4 V. L. Snoeyi nk and D. Jenkens, "Water Chemistry, John Wi 1ey & Sons, 1980.

11 1.

2. S.D. Faust 11 and J.V. Hunter (eds.) , "Princ iples and Applications of Water Chemistry, John Wiley &Sons, 1967.

3. J.D. Johnson (ed.), "Disin fectio n," Ann Arbor Science, 1975.

4. V.L. Snoeyink and F.I. Markus, "Chlorine Residuals in Treate d Efflue nts,"

Report prepared for Illino is Instit ute for Enviro nmenta l Qualit y, Urbana, Illino is, 1973.

4-24

5. V.L. Snoeyink and F.I. Markus, "Chlorine Residuals in Treated Effluents, 11 in Water and Sewage Works 122:35-38, 1974.

6. J.D. Johnson, "Measurement and Persistence of Chlorine Residuals in Natural Waters," in Water Chlorination: Environmental Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 1, R.L. Jolley (ed.), Ann Arbor Science, 1978.

7. J.A. Smithson, "Control and Treatment of Asiatic Clams in Power Plant Intakes," Presented at 43rd Annual Meeting of the American Power Conference, April 27-29, 1981.

8. "Thermal Demonstration Pursuant to Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations, Chapter 3, Section 203 i (10),U prepared by Energy Impact Asoci'ates, Pittsburgh, for Illinois Power Company, July 1980.

9. Letter from G.E. Wuller, Illinois Power Company, to J.R. Miller, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 9, 1981.

10. G.H. Jirka, M. Watanabe, K.H. Octavio, C.F. Cereo, and D.R.F. Harleman, "Mathematical Predictive Models for Cooling Lakes and Ponds, Part A:

Model Development and Design Considerations, " Technical Report No. 238, R.M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, December 1978.

11. K.H. Octavio, M. Watanabe, E.E. Adams, K.R. *Helfrich, and D.R.F. Harleman, "Mathematical Predictive Models for Cooling Ponds and Lakes, Part B: User's Manual and Application of MITEMP; Part C: Transient Analytical Model for Shallow Cooling Ponds," Technical Report No. 262, R. M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Cambridge, April 1980.

12. 11 Local Cl imatol ogi ca 1 Data, Spri ngfi e 1d, I 11 i noi s, 11 U.S. Department of Commerce, 1955.

13. "Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment, Disposal, 11 Metcalf &

Eddy, Inc., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972.

14. 11 Climatography of the United States No. 20: Climate of Urbana, Illinois,"

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service, National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC, April 1975.

15. "Climate of Decatur Illinois," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service, Asheville, NC, April 1975.

16. "Clinton Power Station, Final Safety Analysis Report," .Section 2.3, August 1980.

17. V.A. Ruffner and F.E. Bair, "The Weather Almanac, 11 Gale Research Co.,

Detroit, MI, 1974.

18. "Local Climatological Data, Springfield Illinois, 1976, 11 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service, Asheville, NC.

4-25

19. G.C. Holzworth, "Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds and Poten tial for Urban al Air Pollu tion throughout the Contiguous United State s," Environment Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, January 1972.

"Air Quality Data--1977 Annual Stati stics ," U.S. Environment al Protection

20. 1978.

Agency, EPA-450/2-28-004, Research Triangle Park, September

21. "Air Quality Data--1978 Annual Stati sties , U.S. Enviro 11 nmental Protection Agency, EPA-450/5-79-037, Research Triangle Park, November 1979.

22. O.W. Aldridge and R.F. McMahon, "Growth, Fecundity, and Bioenergetics in a Natural Population of the Asiat ic 11 Freshwater Clam,, Corbi cula manilensis Phill ipi, from North Central Texas, J. Moll. Stud. 44:49 -70, 1978.

Regulatory

23. Lette r from M.S. Pallo , Illino is Power, to J. Lehr, U.S. Nuclear Commission, August 31, 1981.

24. O.W. Schafer and11 K.E. Robeck, "Threatened and EndanLabor gered Fish and Wildlife of the Midwest, ANL/EES-TM-101, Argonne National atory, Argonne, IL, 1980.

25. S.R. Humphrey, A.R. Richter, and J.B. Cope, "Summ er Habitat and Ecology

, 1977.

of the Endangered Indiana Bat, Myotis sodal is, J. Mammology 58(3) 11 tment

26. 11 I 11 i noi s Li st of Endangered and Threatened Species," 111 i noi s Depar of Conservation, April 1979.

27. "Nat iona 1 Register of Histo ric Pl aces, Federa 1 Regis 11 ter, Vo 1. 45, No. 54, Part II, March 18, 1980, and subsequent listin gs.

1981.

28. County Board of DeWitt County, Illino is resol ution passed April. 14, J. Cole, "Clinton11 Lake State Recreation Area, W-76-0.n, Wildl ife Resources

29. rvatio March 1981.

Management Plan, Illino is Department of C~nse

30. R.L. Tyndall, E. Willa ert, 11 and A.R. Stevens, "Pathogeni c Amoebae in Power Plant Cooling Lakes, Elect ric Power Resea rch Insti tute, EPRI EA-1897, June 1981.

5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS 5.1 RESUME In the following secti ons the staff discu sses to and evalu ates the environmental consequences and mitig ating actio ns relat ive oraspec ts of stati on opera tion for which addit ional information is avail able changes have occurred since the FES-CP review. The staff has evaluated one-u nit opera tion inste ad of two-unit opera tion as was done in the FES-CP.no Where there is no new informa-tion or changes that would affec t impacts, discu ssion is provided. In general no new signi fican t impacts were iden tified .

The effec t of a change in the routing of one's trans mission line and minor prope changes in land-use patte rns on the appl icant ce-water-u rty since the FES-CP was issue d have been evaluated (Sec. 5.2). Surfa se impacts haye been

). The staff has evaluated the reeva luate d for one-u nit opera tion (Sec. 5.3.1 ical efflu ents to the Lake changes in the amount and cons titue nts of chem Clinton and Salt Creek (Sec. 5.3.2 .1). The staff has reevaluated the poten-tial impacts of stati on thermal discharges on tswater quali ty (Sec. 5.3.2 .2).

The staff expects more severe steam-fog effec than predi cted in the FES-CP (Sec. 5.4.1 ). The staff has reevaluated its findiThe ngs of the FES-CP (Sec. 5.5.2 )

has evaluated the on the impacts on aqua tic biota (Sec. 5.5.2 ). 5.5.2staff ). The staff has evalu-impacts of the treatm ent of Asia tic clams {Sec. sites (Sec. 5.7). The staff has ated the impacts to histo ric and preh istor icstati on's opera tion, including a evaluated *the socioeconomic impacts of the of ence phali tic amoebae, if discu ssion of the poten tial public healt h impacts The prese nts estim ates they become estab lishe d in the lake (Sec. 5.8). from staff the opera tion of Clinton of offsi te and occupational radia tion exposures and 5.10).

Unit 1 and the assoc iated fuel cycle (Secs. 5.9 5.2 LANO USE Changes that have occurred since publi catio n of the FES-CP include a reduction of total stati on site area from 6160 ha (15,2 lt of )the 10 acres to 5703 ha (14,092 acres ).

decis ion to delay Fewer stati on struc tures were built as a resu cons truct ion of Unit 2.

The discu ssion s in the FES-CP (Secs. 5.1, 5.5, of and 5.6) concerning impacts on land use remain valid . Neither the opera tionlines the stati on, alter ation s in routi ng of one of the stati on's transmission (Sec. 4.2.7 ), nor operation of the transmission system is expected to alter The the evalu ation of impacts on considers that the land use as state d in the FES-CP (Sec. 5.1.2 ). periodstaff the stati on is a curre ntly proposed land use for the opera tion S-CP. of suita ble alter nativ e to uses proje cted in the.FE The development of the 27-ha (66-a cre) Silphium Prair ie (Sec. 4.2.2 ) in lieu proje ct origi nally of the 890-ha (2200-acre) Tall Grass Prair ie resto ratio n 5-1

5-2 proposed in the ER-CP (Sec. 4.3.1) has resulted in a greater portion of the project site being retained in agricultural use. *_Barring future land-use changes, about 590 ha (1450 acres) of the site, including 504 ha (1246 acres) of prime farmland, wi 11 be avai 1ab 1e for agricul tura 1 use throughout the operational life of the station. The applicant's upgrading of drainage con-ditions in areas adjacent to Salt Creek immediately upstream from Lake Clinton has contributed to maintaining local agricultural productivity by alleviating potential flooding of farmland (Sec. 4.3.1).

5.3 WATER 5.3.1 Use 5.3.1.1 Surface Water The primary water-use impacts from station operation will be reduced downstream flow in Salt Creek and drawdown of the cooling lake. The applicant has esti-mated the average forced evaporation from Lake Clinton based on a 70% load factor on Unit 1 to be about 9.37 x 10 6 m3 (7600 acre-ft) per year. Natural evaporation will be approximately double that, or about 17.9 x 10 6 m3 (14,500 acre-ft) per year. The combined evaporative losses for one-unit operation would be about 13% of Lake Clinton I s annua 1 average inflow of 204 x 10 6 m3 (165,000 acre-ft). According to the applicant's calculations, flows during the months of August through October will be the most signifi-cantly affected, with flows from Lake Clinton being less than one-half the natural flow in Salt Creek. During an average year, for one-unit operation, the September flow in Salt Creek downstream of Lake Clinton will be somewhat greater than the minimum reservoir release of 142 L/s (5 cfs) which was indi-cated by the applicant for two-unit operation, but significantly less than the preconstruction average September flow of 909 L/s (32 cfs).

There are no known surface water users on Salt Creek, the Sangamon River, or the Illinois River downstream of the station that could be adversely affected by the reduced flows from Lake Clinton. During years of normal precipitation there may be a minor impact on recreation in the lower reaches of Salt Creek.

However, during extreme drought years the net impact of station operation may be positive beca~se the 142 L/s (5 cfs) guaranteed minimum discharge from the lake will be greater then the expected natural flow.

A design drought with a 100-year recurrence interval was used in the appli-cant's analysis of minimum water level in the cooling lake. The minimum water level obtained for the once-in-100-year drought (with a duration up to 60 months) is elevation 682.3 ft MSL, almost 8 ft below the normal lake elevation of 690 ft. The lowest reservoir level for station operation is elevation 677 ft MSL.

Were the *reservoir to reach this elevation, the station would be shut down, using the. submerged reservoir (the ultimate heat sink) to supply cooling water.

5.3.1.2 Groundwater Groundwater will not be used during station operation except at the Visitor Center and in recreational areas.. Use at this facility is minimal and will have no impacts on offsite users.

5-3 5.3.2 Quality 5.3.2.1 Chemical Surface Water During plant operation, concentrations of dissolved substances in Lake Clinton and Salt Creek will be greater than those observed prior to plant construction and during lake filling. The major part of this increase will be due to evaporation of water from plant heat dissipation (Sec. 5.3.3), as well as the addition of plant operation wastes to the lake (Sec. 4.2.6.1). However, these effects will be less than predicted in the FES-CP (Sec.,S.5.2 .4) because only one unit will be operating. In addition, all plant wastewater will be treated to ensure that it will meet effluent limitations listed in the station's NPOES permit (Appendix B). A detailed description of the quality of the station effluent prior to discharge into Lake Clinton and the resulting effect on the water quality of the lake is given in Table 5-1.

The daily maximum limit for the total residual chlorine (TRC) concentrations during chlorination at the discharge from the flume as stipulated in the original NPDES permit is 0.2 mg/L. The effects of one-unit operation are discussed in Section 4.2.6.1. The free available chlorine residual is expected by the applicant to be reduced to about 0.1 mg/Lat the condenser outlet because of reaction with reducing- and chlorine-demanding substances. The*

staff concurs with this estimate. The staff expects that the TRC concentration will be 0.3 mg/Lat the condenser outlet and will be further reduced during the 3.9-hour transit period from the condenser outlet to the discharge into Lake Clinton. In addition, TRC will be monitored during chlorination to comply with the proposed conditions of the NPDES permit. Thus, the staff expects that the TRC limitation given in the NPDES permit will be met.

As described in Section 4.2.6.1, *condenser cleaning is expected to occur every five to seven years. The effluent from condenser cleaning must meet NPDES and Illinois Water Quality Standards following treatment and prior to discharge into Lake Clinton. The staff notes that use of phosphoric acid for condenser cleaning may infrequently result in high concentrations of total phosphorous in the lake if discharged without prior treatment. If the maximum concentra-tion of phosphoric acid is used during condenser cleaning, the volume of water in the discharge flume may not be sufficient to dilute the amount of total phosphorous to a level that would meet NPOES limitations (1.0 mg/L). Phos-phorous is essential to the growth of aquatic organisms and can be the nutrient that limits the productivit y of a body of water. In instances where phosphate is the growth-limiting nutrient, the discharge of wastewater containing phos-

'phorous to a receiving water may stimulate the growth, in nuisance quantities, of photosynthetic aquatic organisms (Refs. 1-3). Thus, in order to reduce phosphorous to acceptable levels following condenser cleaning, chemical treat-ment, such as coagulation with alum and/or lime, may be necessary (Refs. 4,5).

The sanitary waste treatment system, described in Section 4.2.6.3, will reduce levels of 800 5 and total suspended solids to meet limitations given in the

-NPDES permit. The staff considers the potential levels of bacterial contami-nation from the station's sanitary waste effluent to be minimal because of disinfection during the sanitary waste treatment process (ER-OL, Sec. 3.7).

As described in Section 4.3.2.1, coliform bacteria counts in excess of the

Table 5.1. Estimated Composition of Waste Stream Leaving the Wastewater Treatment Ponds and Applicable Limitations NPOES Effluent State Effluent State Water Effluents from Wastea li111i tat ions Lfmi tattons Quality Limit Parameter Water Treatment Ponds (ppm) (pf)II) (ppm)

Flow (gal/day) 92,423 Calcium (as Ca) 162 ppm Phosphorus (as P) 1.0 Magnesium (as Hg) 182 ppm Sodiu111 (as Na) 457 ppm H.O. Alkalinity (as CaC03 ) 308 ppm P. Alkalinity (as CaC0 3 ) "-0 ppm Chloride (as Cl) 300 ppm 500 Sulfate (as S0 4 ) 1,564 ppm 500 Nitrate (as N) 27 ppm 10 (Drinking Water Only) u, I

Silica (as Si0 2 ) 36 ppm .pi.

TSS 20 to sob ppm 15 Maximum 15 800-5 5 Average 30 JDS 2,800 ppm 3500; ~750 1,000 pH 7-8 6-9 5-10 6.5-9.0 except for natural causes Oil and Grease 15 ppm 15 Maximum 75 Maximum None Visible 30 Daily Average 15 Monthly Average Iron, Total (as Fe) 1.0 2.0 1. 0 Copper, Total (as Cu) 1.0 1.0 0.02 Zinc, Total (as Zn) 1.0 1.0 1. 0 aFigures reflect pretreatment flow rate at design capacity of 500 gpm, once a day backwashing of sand filters and carbon purifiers, and an average regeneration of one primary demineralizer train per day.

bApproximated values, since no data are available to permit calculation of these values. Settling pond effluent will be routed to a waste filter house for further reduction of TSS to ensure compliance with applicable limitations.

cWater quality limit in Jakes and streams at point of entry into lakes; effluent limitations on large discharge to lakes and tributaries thereto.

From ER-OL, Table 3.6-5.

5-5 Illinois standard were frequently observed in Lake Clinton and Salt Creek, presumably from domestic and agricultu ral wastes.

Groundwater As discussed in Section 4.2.6.1, the low permeability of the soil beneath the wastewater treatment ponds will inhibit the migration of pollutant s to the groundwater. The staff expects that the impact on groundwater quality due to leaching from the pond will be minimal. However, there are at least 137 pri-vate, shallow wells within 8 km (5 mi) of the site for domestic use and live-stock watering and 36 known active and inactive wells on, the station property.

To ensure that groundwater in the upper glacial tills does not become contami-nated, the applicant shall continue monitoring groundwater on the site.

Should mitigation become necessary, such as the installati on of a liner beneath the sedimentation ponds, it shall be institute d in a timely manner.

5.3.2.2 Thermal In 1980, the applicant submitted a proposal for an alternativ e thermal effluent limitation for one-unit operation for consideration by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (!PCB) based on the applicant 's updated thermal demonstration and on available biological data (Ref. 6). The request was granted by IPCB in its Order PCB 81-82 (May 28, 1981). The limitatio n specifies that the daily average temperature of water discharged to Lake Clinton sha 11 not exceed 37.2°C (99.0°F) during more than 12% of the hours in 12-month periods ending with any month and shall at no time exceed 42.4°C (108.3°F). Based on the results of the thermal analyses presented in Section 4.2.6.2, the staff believes that.the operation of Unit 1 at 100% load factor (plant factor) would yield discharge temperatures exceeding the maximum limitatio n of. 42.4°C (108.3°F) under 1955 conditions. The staff has subsequently determined, based on thermal modeling results, that under 1955 meteorological conditions *(1-i n-50-year drought), Unit 1 would have to be operated at reduced power (78%) for several days during the summer in order to meet the IPCB thermal standards.

It is specified in the water quality standards of Illinois (Ref. 7) that the maximum summer water temperatures released to Salt Creek s~ould not0 exceed 32.2°C (90°F) for more than 1% of the time and by no more than 1.7C (3F ) .

0 The staff's predicted temperature results (Sec. 4.2.6.2) show that under the worst-case scenario, the discharge temperatu res to Salt Creek would exceed the 32.2°C (90°F) limit by less than 1.7C (3F ) and only for 0.3% of the time.

0 0 5.3.3 Hydrologic Alteratio ns and Floodplain Effects 5.3.3.1 Hydrologic Alteratio ns The principal hydrologic alteration s related to the construction of Clinton Power Station include the creation of Lake Clinton and the concomitant rise in groundwater levels, the resulting change in the flood-handling capabilit y of the floodplain, the sealing of private wells on site property, and the channel-ization of Trenkle Slough. Discussions of the construction-impact control program {ER-OL, Sec. 4.5) and the flood-handling capabilit y of the floodplain were not included in the FES-CP and thus are presented in this section. Other hydrological impacts resulting from construction were evaluated in the FES-CP and are therefore not discussed herein.

5-6 Hydrological-related activities within the construction-impact control program included programs for erosion, rainfall runoff, channelization of Trenkle Slough, and groundwater. The applicant states that erosion control checklists were completed weekly during lake clearing and initial station construction work. Rainfall-runoff control consisted of *retention ponds, which served as stilling basins, and a belt of vegetation which filtered water flowing from the site clearing area to the creek bed. Channelization of Trenkle Slough and a portion of Salt Creek upstream of the lake, discussed in Section 5.3.3.2, was required to provide adequate drainage of the Trenkle Slough Drainage District. The work was performed under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 404 permit and an agreement between the applicant, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Illinois Department of Conservation. , Groundwater control included well filling to prevent possible contamination, and monitoring of groundwater levels at the dam and around the lake.

Impoundment of the cooling lake caused a change in the local base level for groundwater flow and therefore a change in the hydraulic gradient at the site.

No further significant changes of this type are expected due to plant opera-tion because the water level in the lake is only affected by natural causes and the need to maintain a minimum flow rate in Salt Creek.

5.3.3.2 Floodplain Effects Construction of the main dam for Lake Clinton, which significantly altered the floodplain aspects of the Clinton site, had already begun at the time Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, was signed in May 1977. It is therefore the staff's conclusion that considerations of alternatives to the modification of Salt Creek as caused by the main dam is neither required nor practicable.

The following paragraphs address the floodplain-related effects of the dam, which include a greatly increased 100-year floodplain on Salt Creek upstream of the dam and increased drainage time of agricultural lands adjacent to Trenkle Slough.

The*100-year (1% chance per year) flood-peak discharge on Salt Creek at the dam site before construction of the dam was estimated to be 747 m3 /s (26,400 cfs). The area above and immediately below the dam site along Salt Creek inundated by this flood is shown in Figure 5.1. The 100-year flood with the dam in place results in a spillway discharge of 329 m3 /s (11,610 cfs) and results in a water surface elevation in the lake of 697 ft MSL. The area inundated by the backwater effect of the 100-year flood at the dam along with the app 1i cant's property boundary is shown in Figure 5. 2. As shown, the 100-year flood boundary is within the applicant's property boundary. The 100-year flood flow downstream of the dam will be decreased below that of the flood occurring under natural conditions due to the flood-storage capacity within the lake.

Structures within the postconstruction 100-year floodplain include the intake and discharge structures, modified highway bridges, a marina, and seven boat ramps. The existence of these structures has an insignificant effect on the 100-year flood level within the lake and does not affect flood levels outside of the site property lines.

.. .J.*.

'I'.. *

" I . ..

N

~

- I.. *1.

t**

' " t. ** Tl.l'l*t_f I .. * ** ...... I

.. ..*.i'.- *, ...

I

,* .{*"'--r

. I

--- ...t. --i ....... -~-..------.

I I

I

. -~~/.

JI

/\.

I '

- . 1*

I I

~~:~f I

1*

I I

IL I

I*.,

I ... *,** r

. . : :. r,,.

I

f I *. , *

-~~-*-= I I

- L - *~

N I- .J!~ -°M;* I: ( ...... .

. I

., .. U1

~I I I I t ~

I

_L

-* *.. ~ -!I*. ~ !.a:*~ ' . ~

I I

. -Ir*-*- -

I

.. .** r* }__

. I .

i.

L _.

____ l .

.. .*-- ..... -L=---*-.

/t. ~J_~\;/tJ

j

. -. r

., 1000

~---;;;;;;a 0 1000

ICAU 1ft Fllf

- I~**

d: . .

"'"*l*l**P i.

u - 1'1,!"1.

- - - - "" r".;": .. :*------ . .:*-- L. ***

Figure 5.1. Preconstruction Flood-Prone Area. [From ER-OL, Supplement 1, Fig. 2.4-lOA.]

-A.000 me>>£ AREA WITHOUT DAM

-IOO YR R.000 LINE WITHDAM U1 I

O>

1000 a 1000 i!!"'liw.."""':'fJMT" - . *- ....* ,

SCALE ... rn' Figure 5.2. flood-Prone Area with Dam in Place. [From ER-OL, Supplement 1, Fig. 2.4-lOC.]

5-9 Portions of the intake and discharge structures are, by. design, located below the 100-year flood levels. However, the plant has been designed to withstand the flooding effects of a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) which reaches an eleva-tion of 708. 9 ft MSL. Safety-rela ted equipment necessary to shut down the plant and maintain the plant in a shutdown condition are flood-protected up to elevation 730 ft MSL.

An effect of the alteration in the flooding characteris tics of Sal~ Creek caused by the construction of the dam may be an increase in the recession time of Trenkle Slough during the 100-year flood event. An analysis by the applicant determined that the increase in recession time for the 100-year flood is about three days at the confluence of Trenkle Slough and Salt Creek and decreases to about seven hours 4.8 km (3 mi) upstream under natural conditions. The applicant has widened the Salt Creek channel from the mouth of Trenkle Slough to Iron Bridge, 0.8 km (0.5 mi) downstream to improve the drainage characteris tics in the Trenkle Slough Drainage District and avoid adverse impacts on agricultura l land drainage.

A recent study completed for the applicant has concluded that the channel improvements have significant ly lowered flood levels in Salt Creek and in Trenkle Slough over the last two years. However, information supplied in regard to this study thus far*by the applicant does not indicate any observed lowering of water levels during severe floods.

The staff concludes that the construction of the station will not have any significant adverse flood effects either upstream or downstream of the dam except for the possible reduction in the effectivene ss of agricultura l land drains in the Trenkle Slough Drainage District during major floods.

5.4 AIR QUALITY 5.4.1 Fog and Ice The state-of-th e-art in cooling-lake-plume modeling does not permit a very precise assessment of the fogging and icing impacts of the operation of the

.Clinton cooling lake (Refs. 8-10), but based on recent observations and research results (Refs. 8,11-17), the staff expects a more severe steam-fog effect and a somewhat greater hazard to local highway traffic near the lake than was predicted in the FES-CP (Sec. 5.3.5). Observations made at Dresden Nuclear Power Station near Morris, Illinois, and at other existing cooling lakes indicate that steam fog, under most weather conditions, is usually shallow, wispy, in turbulent motion, and does not penetrate inland more than 30 to 150 m (100 to 500 ft) before evaporating, thinning, or lifting to become stratus clouds. However, if the air is very cold [below -18°C (0°F) and the lake very warm [20 to 25°C (70 to 80°F)], the fog is very dense (Refs. 11-15).

This type of fog can move inland as much as 1. 6 to 3. 2 km (1 to 2 mi)

(Refs. 8,12,13,16); however, the restriction to visibility and icing effects in the fog zone decrease rapidly as the fog travels inland. Observations show that as they move inland, such fogs tend to evaporate, become thinner, _or lift to become stratus clouds.

In subfreezing temperatures, thick deposits of light, friable rime ice form on elevated objects within the steam-fog zone. Thick deposits are generally limited to areas within 100 m (300 ft) of the lake. Because of the low weight.

and the crumbly nature of these ice accumulations, it causes little damage.

5-10 The staff expects that during very cold winter periods, lake-produced fog will at times reduce visibility on roads and bridges over and near the warmest part of the cooling lake. These include the bridges carrying County Route 14 (FES.;;CP; Fig. 4.2), a local road .south of the lake (study area No. 2 in Fig. 4.5-1 of the ER-OL); Illinois Route 10 just south of the lake (FES-CP, Fig. 6.1); and perhaps 111 i noi-s Route 48 over the 1ake upstream of the dis-charge structure (FES-CP, Fig. 4.2). While steam fog does not cause icing on roads at ground level, rime ice falling from trees and poles along the edge of a road can reduce traction on the road surface.

Since the discharge canal is narrow and spray modules will not be utilized (see Sec. 4.2.4.2), the staff expects no offsite or highway impacts from this portion of the cooling system.

The staff recommends that the applicant initiate a fog-monitoring program for the highways and bridges in the area to determine the frequency and density of fogs that could produce highway-safety hazards and other problems. The staff suggests monitoring during one winter (November-March) after Unit 1 begins operation. This effort should be performed in cooperation with local highway safety officials.

The applicant has made a commitment to the Illinois Department of Transporta-tion to minimize hazards to public use of bridges over and highways near the cooling reservoir [ER-OL, Response to Questions 451.2 and 451.3; and Illinois Power Co.'s Comment 32 on the DES (see Appendix A)]. If monitoring indicates that fog and/or ice will be a problem, the staff recommends that mitigative measures be taken, including installation of warning lights, signs~ driver aids, and covered bridges.

5.4.2 Emissions and Dust As indicated in Section 4.2.6, nonradioactive gaseous emissions released during routine station operation will be combustion products from testing of standby diesel generators and from operation of vehicles. Based on the amounts of po 11 utants expected to be re 1eased during testing of the generators (Sec. 4.2.6), the staff concludes that no violations of applicable air quality regulations will result. Combustion-product emissions from vehicles are also small, and thus are not expected by the staff to have any appreciable impact on air quality.

Fugitive dust can be minimized by paving (or wetting) roads and parking lots and by minimizing vehicle traffic on unpaved roads.

5.5 ECOLOGY 5.5.1 Terrestrial S. 5.1.1 Station No adverse effects Qn the terrestrial environment are expected by the staff beyond those caused by construction, because no further destruction of habitat is expected, and terrestrial communities will adap~ to the prevailing conditions.

5-11 As indicated in Section 5.4.1, during subfreezing temperatures, rime ice may form on vegetation in the steam-fog zone near the cooling lake; howeve r, such ice is light and friable . For this reason, and those discussed in ever, the FES-CP (Sec. 5.3.5.1 ), the staff concludes that this ice would rarely, if cause appreciable damage to plants.

The staff agrees with the applica nt (ER-OL, Sec. 6.1.6.7 ) that the terrest rial monitoring program, which was designed to monito r the wildlif e and vegetation communities during the development phases of the site, has been adequa tely completed and should be terminated. No further substa ntial benefi t can be realize d by its continuation. Two monito ring program s related to the site have recentl y been initiat ed by outside agencies. The Illinoi s Natura l.History Survey conducts an in-season monthly aerial sightin gs of waterfo wl on Lake Clinton (ER-OL, Sec. 6.3). The Illinoi s Departm ent of Conser vation will maintain records of population trends, derived from field surveys and hunter check station counts, of upland game species , deer, waterfo wl, and furbear ers (Ref. 18).

The use of Lake Clinton as a heat sink during station operation winter. (Sec. 4.2.4.2 )

will essent ially preclude ice formation on the lake during theshoreb irds,This as condition will tend to delay fall migration of waterfowl and increas ing well as encourage some species to overwinter in the area, thereby competition for food resources. The 111 i noi s Department of bility Conservation

(!DOC) site management plan provides for augmenting the availa of plant foods for waterfowl by appropriate land-use practic es. The heated conditi on of lake waters may also enhance the potent ial for develop ment of waterfo wl disease pathogens. The IODC is preparing contingency plans related to potent ial waterfowl disease problems at Lake Clinton. Accord ingly, the staff has elected not to require monitoring for specifi c waterfo wl disease s. Howeve r, in the event of a serious waterfowl disease outbrea k or other signifi cant adverse environmental impact related to wildlif e, the applica nt willnt.be required to initiat e actions as specifi ed in Section 6.1 of this stateme 5.5.1.2 Transmission System The staff expects effects on the terres trial environment from the transm ission of energy along the transmission lines and the maintenance of the transm ission line right~*of-way (including periodi c clearin g of vegetation) tolling be minima l.

The applica nt has revised proposed use of herbicides for contro woody vegetation within transmission line corrido rs since issuance of the FES-CP (ER-OL, Sec. 5.5.2). Current commitments by the applica nt relativ e to use of herbicides are summarized as follows:

Herbicides used for contro lling woody vegetation shall be limited to those approved for such use by the U.S. Environ mental Protect ion Agency.

Applications of herbicides shall be limited to selecti ve basal spraying.

Use of herbicides shall be limited to one applica tion per year.

Herbicides shall not be applied during or after a heavy rain, lls. and efforts should be made to avoid usage prior to expecte d rainfa

5-12 Herbicides of any kind shall not be applied in areas where contami-nation of water supplies is likely.

The staff regards the foregoing as fundamental guidelines for prudent herbicide usage, but also notes that herbicide applications in or immediate to intensive-use recreational sites and other areas of concentrated public use should be avoided.

Transmission facilities and other tall structures of the station will be hazards to species capable of flight, although the number of impingements will likely be relatively low. Clearances between energized and grounded compo-nents of the transmission facilities are such as to essentially preclude electrocution of birds. The applicant appears to have taken the necessary precautions by grounding all transmission towers, as well as fences, metal structures, and other fixed metal objects in transmission rights-of-way (ER-OL, Sec. 3.9.3, Appendix 398). The staff has considered available information on transmission field effects (Refs. 19-22), including earlier staff analyses of the subject (Refs. 23,24) and concludes that operational hazards of high-voltage transmission lines (345 kV) are unlikely to have a measurable impact on terres-trial ecology.

5.5~2 Aquatic In the following analysis, potential impacts on the aquatic ecosystem are evaluated on the basis of full-power one-unit operation instead of a two-unit operation as was done in the FES-CP (Sec. 5.5.2).

5.5.2.1 Impingement and Entrainment

~

In the FES-CP {Secs. 5.5.2.2 and 5.5.2.3), the *staff concluded that minimal impact to the aquatic community of Clinton Lake would occur as a result of entrainment and impingement from two-unit operation. Since the volume of water withdrawn for one-unit operation will be proportionately less than for two-unit operation, it is the staff's conclusion that there will be no signifi-cant impact from impingement and entrainment losses during operation of Clinton 1. Additionally, impingement losses that will occur may be partially

-offset by stocking of forage and game fish if needed as part of the fishery management program on the lake. The shoreline location of the intake (ER-OL, Sec. 4.3.2) is also generally considered to be advantageous in minimizing impingement and entrainment in areas where there is relatively low fish abun-dance (Ref. 25). The number of fish that escape over the spillway may be appreciably greater than the number lost from the lake by impingment. For example, the Illinois Department of Conservation has estimated that more than 1000 striped bass x white bass hybrids escaped over the spillway in 1981.

(The !DOC and the applicant plan to discuss the possibility of installing a spillway screen to alleviate such losses of fish from the lake.)

5.5.2.2 Chemical Discharges As stated in Sections 4.2.6.1 and 4.3.4.2, sodium meta-bisulfite and hydrogen sulfite may be used on an intermittent basis to control the Asiatic clam population in the cribhouse (Ref. 26). Because the affected water will be treated to neutralize any remaining chemical residues to nontoxic sulfates prior to discharge, the staff believes that lake organisms in the discharge

5-13 area wi 11 not* be harmed by sodium meta -bi sulfite and hydrogen sulfide residues.

As noted in Section 5.3.2, discharge of chemical effluen ts to the Lake Clinton and to Salt Creek below the lake will be subjec t to conditi ons of NPDES permit (Appendix B). The staff believe s that adheren ce to the limits of the permit will protec t lake and creek organis ms. Elevate d thermal conditi ons at the dam may cause downstream movement of some creek fish in warmer monthsge flow and congre-gation of creek fish near the dam in cooler months. Lake dischar rates at the dam are required to be> 8 m3/min (5 cfs). The IDOC order to minimiz recomm ends an increase in the minimum flow release s to 32 m3/min (19 cfs) in e downstream fishery impacts, but this issue has not yet tieen clarifi ed between the applica nt and the !DOC. Required discharge flow rates willoperati maintain more acceptable*stream-flow conditions than existed prior to plant on (i.e.,

1 m /min, or 0.6 cfs, for 100-year, one-day 3 low flow) (ER-CP, Sec. 3.3.6).

5.5.2.3 Thermal Discharges In the FES-CP (Sec. 5.5.2.4 .3) concern was expressed regarding impacts on Lake Clinton biota (espec ially fish) as a result of thermal dischar ges from two-unit operation. The applica nt curren tly plans to operate one unit up 4.2.6.2 to a load factor consis tent with the thermal standar ds discuss ed in Section . In light of the changes in operating parameters, the staff has reviewe d thermal toleran ce levels require d for surviv al, growth, spawnin g, and embryo survival of selecte d species that inhabi t Lake Clinton. This information is summar ized in Table 5.2 for species that generally dominate midwestern reservo irs (gizzar d shad, bluegi ll, carp, and largemouth bass) and for species that are not well suited to reservo ir conditions (black crappie , white crappie , and black bull-head).

During the warmest months (July through September) the water4.2.6.2 temperature in most of Lake Clinton will be at or below 32.2°C (90°F) (Sec. ). Compari-son with the data in Table 5.2 indicat es that most of the lake will be well within the thermal tolerance for surviva l and at or below the thermal tolerance for growth for species adapted to reservo ir conditi ons.

For extended adverse (hot) meteorological conditi ons, populations of such species as the crappie and black bullhea ds could be elimina ted or greatly reduced during the summer months.

Howeve r, ambien t lake temper atures during severe meteorological conditions would limit availab le habita t within Ref. 6). much of the lake for species that are thermally sensiti ve anyway (Fig. 6-10,. these During other seasons benefic ial impacts from thermal warming may occur; lly sensi-include increased growth and earlier spawning. Although more the therma tive species may be adverse ly affecte d during hot weathe r, ecological balance of the lake will not be affecte d. Thermally toleran t game species and the thermally toleran t golden shiner (Ref. 29) will fill the niche of the adult and juvenil e crappie s, respec tively, and bottom feeders such as carp and channel catfish will functio nally replace black bullhea ds (Ref. 6).

5.5.2.4 Reactor Shutdown In the FES-CP (Sec. 5.5.2.5 ) the maximum lake cooling rate in the event of two-unit shutdown was estimated to be 0.3°C/h r (0.5°F /hr). The cooling -rate estimate for plant shutdown for a one-un it, full-po wer operati on is expecte d to be less than that for two-un it operati on.

5-14 Table 5.2. Summary of Criteria* Temperatures (°C) for Fish Species Likely To Be in Lake Clinton when Operation Beginst 1 STMTt 2 for MWATt 3 Survival for Fish of Adults Growth Bluegill 35.5 33 Largemouth bass 34.4 32.7 White crappie 31 28 Black crappie 31 27 Gizzard shad 35

Carp 34 32 Black bullhead 34 28 Channel catfish 35.8 32 t 1 Temperatures are U.S. EPA protocol as given in W.A. Brungs and B.R. Jones, "Temperature Criteria for Freshwater Fish: Protocol and Procedures," EPA-600/3-77-061, 1977.

t2 STMT = Short-term maximum temperature.

t3 MWAT = Maximum weekly average temperature.

The conclusions given in the FES-CP (Sec. 5.5.2.5) regarding minimal impact of reactor shutdown remain valid.

5.6 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES The staff expects that adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species resulting from operation of the Clinton Station and ancillary facilities will be minor. The vegetation within the transmission line rights-of-way will be controlled, but any further destruction of the potential habitat of endangered and threatened animals during statipn operation will likely be of minor conse-quence. Some state-1 i sted p1ants may be adversely affected or destroyed during periodic maintenance of utility rights-of-way. Vehicular traffic directly and indirectly related to station operation may cause the maiming or death of a few animals on the endangered and threatened species lists. Trans-mission facilities and other tall structures of the station will be minor hazards to endangered and threatened species capable of flight, but the number of collisions will likely be relatively low. Clearances between energized and grounded components of transmission facilities essentially preclude electrocu-tion of bald eagles. Other minor adverse effects are possible, and individual endangered or threatened plants and/or animals may be sacrificed; however, routine station operation and energy transmission, and the periodic maintenance of the Clinton Unit 1 facility are not expected to jeopardize populations of endangered and threatened plant and animal species.

5-15 5.7 HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC SITES The operat ion of the station is not expected to *affect any cultura l sites on or eligib le for the National Regist er of Histor ic Places (see Sec. DWV95 4.3.6).

While the staff believe s that the possib ility *_of any impact to ISM to opera- is remote, in the event that a future major ground disturbance related site, the tion and maintenance of the transm ission line is anticip ated at this applic ant is require d to seek consul tation of the State Histor ic Preserv ation Office before taking action .

5.8 SOCIOECONOMICS 5.8.1 .Community Socioeconomic impacts of the Clinton Power Statio n's operati on are discuss ed in Section 5.6 of the FES-CP. The socioeconomic effects are expecte d to be minimal with the exception of tax benefi ts to DeWitt Coµnty, Harp Townsh ip, Unit 15 School Distri ct and Junior College Distri ct 537 where the estima ted tax accounts received range between 20% and 95% of all the revenues estimated to be received by the jurisdi ctions (see Table 5.3).

It is estima ted that 300 workers will be require d for the operati onsite. of Unit 1.

One hundred and thirty- four operati ng workers are already at thethose where The remaining workers are likely to reside in locatio ns simila r to existin g plant employees live. Therefore, about 42% of the workers ign-Urb are expected to live in Decatur, 13% in Clinton , about 7% in Maroa, 6% in Champa in other ana, about 5% in Farmer City and Warrensburg, with the remain ing living communities within a 40-km (25-mi) radius of the Clinton Power Stationthe .

Because of the relativ ely small number of worker s r~quire d to operate station , the impact on the infrast ructur e of the communities in which they reside and on traffic is expected to be minimal.

The estimated annual payrol l for*Un it 1 in 1984 is projec ted to be $11.5 mil-lion (in 1985 dollar s). Local purchases of materi als and supplie s relatin g*to the operat ion of the ~tation is expected to total $100,00 0 annual ly (in 1980 dollar s). Local purchases are expected to be made mainly in Decatu r, with smalle r purchases being made in Bloomington-Normal, Champa ign-Urb ana and Clinton.

5.8.2 Public Health As discussed in Section 4.3, the.po tential exists for the establi shmention t of pathogenic, thermo phillic amoebae in Lake Clinton after power produc passages; begins. Such organisms gain entry into the human body via the nasal ms infecti on is often associ ated with. ~ater-c ontact recrea tion where the organis can be inhaled with contaminated water. Primary amoebic meningoencephalitis, lethal.

caused by such pathogens, is a fulminating disease and is almost always as a whole is Although it is stated that the risk rate for the U.S. popula tion estima ted at less than 1 in 2.5 million person s (Ref. 70), it is the opinion of the staff that the risk rate for persons engaged in water- contac t staff recrea tion in contaminated waters would be signif icantly higher. Howeve r, the is unaware of statis tics addressing these circum stances .

Table 5.3. Estimated Clinton Power Station Unit 1 Real Estate Taxest 1

(thousands of dollars)

Estimated Percentage 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 of Real Estate Taxes Payable Payable Payable Payable Payable Represented by Taxing Di strict in 1985 in 1986 in 1987 in 1988 in 1989 Clinton Unit 1 DeWitt Countyt 2 1600 1600 1600 1700 1700 50% to 55%

Harp Township 300 400 400 400 500 90% to 95%

Unit 15 School 4900 5200 5500 5800 6000 65% to 70%

District Junior College 500 500 500 500 500 20% to 25% U1 Di strict 537 ....m I

TOTALS 7300 7700 8000 8400 8700 t 1 Modified from ER-OL, p. 8.1-6.

t 2 DeWitt County distributes their funds to the following categories: general corporate fund, highway, health, mental health, Illinois municipal retirement fund, insurance, matching federal aid (highways), audit, bridges, extension educatio~. tax assessments, election, nursing home bonds, tax collection, civil defense, and tuberculosis.

5-17 Because of the uncer tainti es in predic ting both the liklih ood of occurrence of such therm ophill ic pathogens in Lake Clinton.-when power production occurs, and the infect ion rate for persons engaged in water -conta ct recrea tion in contami-nated water s, the staff has recommended that the- lake be monito red for the organisms (Sec. 4.3). If the organisms are found, the monito ring data may be used to plan mitiga tion strate gies to protec t the health and safety of the public .

5.9 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS 5.9.1 Regulatory Requirements Nuclear power reacto rs in the United States must comply with certai n regula -

tory requirements in order to opera te. The maximu m permi ssible levels of efflue radiat ion in unres tricte d areas and of radio activi ty in Protec tion Again nts to unres tric-st ted areas are recorded in 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for levels of radiat ion Radiation (Ref. 30). These regula tions specif y limits on n's efflue nt releas es and limits on conce ntratio ns of radion uclide s in the statio the reacto r must to the air and water (above natura l background), under which l public in opera te. These regula tions state that no member of theto genera statio n opera tion, unres tricte d areas shall receiv e a radiat ion dose, due of more than 0.5 rem in one calendar year, or if an indivimrems dual were continu-ously presen t in an area, 2 mrems in any .one hour or 100 limits in any seven consecutive days to the total body. These radiat ion-do se are establ ished to be consi stent with consid eratio ns of the health and safety of the public In additi on to the Radiation Protec tion Standards of*10 CFR Part 20, there are recorded in 10* CFR Part 50.36a (Ref. 31) licens e requir ement s that are to be imposed on licens ees in the form of Techn ical Speci ficatio ns on Efflue nts from of radioa ctive mater ials to unres tricte d Nuclear Power Reactors to keep releas es occurr ences, ~s

,areas during normal opera tions, includ ing expec ted opera tional dix I *of 10 CFR Part 50 pro-low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Appen et this ALARA vides numerical guidance on dose-design objec tives for LWRs to*me es to operate an requirement. Applicants for permits to constr uct and licens ing calcul ated dose-LWR shall provide reasonable assurance that the follow 3 mrems /yr to the design objectives* will be met for all unres tricte d areas:

ys of exposu re fr~m total body or 10 mrems/yr to any organ from all pathwa /yr beta radiat ion liquid efflue nts; 10 mrads/yr gamma radiat ion or 20 mrads air *dose from gaseous efflue nts near ground level- -and/onts; r 5 mrems/yr to the total body or 15 mrems/yr to the skin from gaseous efflue and 15 mrems/yr include to any organ from all pathways of exposure from airbor ne ~fflue nts that the radioi odine s, carbon-14, tritium , and the partic ulates .

Experience with the design, constr uction and opera tion.o f will nuclear power reacto rs indica tes that compliance with these design objec tives. keep average annual releas es of radioa ctive material in efflue nts at small percentages of the limits specif ied in 10 CFR Part 20, and in fact, willdixresult in doses gener ally below the dose-design objec tive values of Appen I. At the same

.time, the licens ee is permi tted the flexib ility of opera tion, compatible with consid eratio ns of health and safety , to assure that the public is provided a dependable source of power even under unusua l opera ting condi tions which may tempo rarily resul t in releas es higher than such small percen tages, but still well within the limits specif ied in 10 CFR Part *20.

5-18 In addition to the impact created by station radioactive effluents as discusseq above, within the NRC policy and procedures for env i ronmenta 1 protect ion described in 10 CFR Part 51 there are generic treatments of envi ronmenta 1 effects of all aspects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle. These environmental data have been summarized in Table 5.12 (Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51) and are discussed later in this report in Section 5.10. In the same manner the environmental impact of transportation of fuel and waste to and from an LWR is summarized in Table 5.5 (Table S-4 of 10 CFR Part 51) of ~ection 5.9.3.

Recently. an additional operational requirement for Uranium-Fuel-Cycle Facili-ties including nuclear power plants has been established by the EPA in 40 CFR Part 190 (Ref. 32). This regulation limits annual dose~ (excluding radon and daughters) for members of the public to 25 mrems total body, 75 mrems thyroid, and 25 mrems other organs from all fuel-cycle facility contributions that may impact a specific individual in the public. .

5.9.2 Operational Overview During normal operations of Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, small quantities of radioactivity (fission and activation products) will be released to the envi-ronment. As required by NEPA, the staff has determined the dose estimated to members of the public outside of the plant boundaries** due to the radiation from these radioisotope releases and relative to natural background radiation dose levels.

These station-generated environmental dose levels are estimated to be very small due to station design and the development of a program which will be implemented at the station to contain and control all radioactive emissions and effluents .. As mentioned above, highly efficient radioactive-waste. manage-ment systems are incorporated into the plant design and are specified in detail in the Technical Specifications for the station. The effectiveness of these systems will be measured by process and effluent radiological monitoring systems that permanently record the amounts of radioactive constitutents remaining in the various airborne and waterborne process and effluent streams.

The amounts of radioactivity released through vents and discharge points to be further dispersed and diluted to points outside the plant boundaries are to be recorded and published semiannually in the Radioactive Effluent Release Reports of each facility.

The. small amounts of airborne effluents that are released w1ll diffuse in the atmosphere in a fashion determined by the meteorological conditions existing at the time of release and are generally much dispersed and diluted by the time they reach unrestricted areas that are open to the public. Similarly, the small amounts of waterborne effluents released will be diluted with plant waste water and then further diluted as they mix with the Clinton Lake beyond the station boundaries.

Radioisotopes in the .station's effluents that enter unrestricted areas will produce doses through their radiations to members of the general public similar to the doses from background radiations (i.e., cosmic, terrestrial and *internal radiations), which also include radiation from nuclear weap6ns fallout. These radiation doses can be calculated for the many potential radiological exposure pathways specific to the environment a~ound the station, such as direct radia-tion doses from the gaseous plu~e _or liquid effluent stream outside of the

5-19 station boundaries, or interna l radiati on dose commitments from meat radioac tive contaminants that might have been deposit ed on vegeta tion, or in and fish products eaten by people, or that might be presen t in drinkin g water outside the station , or incorporated into milk from cows at nearby farms.

These. doses, calcula ted for the "maximally exposed" individual (i.e., the hypothetical individual potent i~lly subjec t to maximum exposu re), form the basis of the NRC staff's evalua tion of impacts . Actual ly, these estima tes are for a fictitio us person because assump tions are made that tend to overest imate the dose that would accrue to members of the public outside the plantthe boundaries.

For example, if this "maximally exposed" individual were to receive e to total the body dose calcula ted at the plant boundary due to external exposur radiati on gaseous plume, he/she is assumed to be physic ally exposed to gamma at that boundary for 70% of the year, an unlikely occurrence.

Site-sp ecific values for the various parameters involved in each dose pathway are used in the calcula tions. These include calcula ted or observe d values for the amounts of radioisotopes released in the gaseous and liquid effluen ts, meteorological information (e.g., wind speed and directi on) specifi c to the site topography and effluen t release points, and hydrolo gical inform ation per-taining to dilutio n of the liquid effluen ts as they are dischar ged.

An annual land census, to be required by the Radiological Technical Specif i-cations of the operating license , will require that as use of the land surround-ing* the site boundary changes, revised calcula tions be made to ensure that this dose estimate for gaseous effluen ts always represe nts the highes t dose for any individual member of the public for each applica ble foodcha in pathway .

The estimate considers, for example, where people live, where vegetable gardens are located, and where cows are pastured.

For Clinton Power Station , in addition to the direct effluen t monitoring, measurements will be made on a number of types of samples from the surrounding area to determine the possib le presence of radioac tive contam drinkinwhich, inants for example, might be deposited on vegetation, or be presen t in g water outside the plant, or incorporated into cow's milk from nearby farms.

5.9.3 Radiological Impacts from Roatine Operations 5.9.3.1 Radiation Exposure Pathways: Dose Commitments There are many environmental pathways through which persons may be exposed to radiati on origina ting in a nuclear power reactor . All of the potent ially meaningful exposure pathways are shown schema tically in Figure 5.3. When an individual is exposed through one of these pathwa ys, his dose is determi ned in part by the amount of time he is in the vicinit y of the source, or the amount of time the radioa ctivity is retaine d in his body. The actual effect of the radiati on or radioa ctivity is determi ned by calcula ting the dose commitm ent.

This dose commitment represents the total dose that would be receive d over a SO-yr period, fo 11 owing the intake of radi oact i vi ty for 1 year under the the conditions existin g-15 years after the station begins operation most (i.e.,

mid-point of station operati on). Howeve r, with few except ions, of the interna l dose commitment for each nuclide is given during the first few years after exposure due to turnover of the nuclide by physiological process es and radioac tive decay.

5-20 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

~ LIQUID EFFLUENT (Dilutad by Mixing in Liquid StNlffllJ Diroct *

/. odiotionR

~ L TRANSPORT Figure 5.3. Potentially Meaningful Exposure Pathways to Individuals.

5-21 There are a number of possib le exposure pathways to man thatare can be studie d to determine whether the routin e releas es at the Clinton site likely to have any signif icant impact on members of the general public living inandfact working meet outsid e of the site boundaries, and whether the releas es willbilitie s would regula tory requirements. A detail e~ listin g of these possi inhala tion of includ e extern al radiat ion exposure from the gaseous efflue nts, from a cow or iodine s and partic ulate contaminants in the air, drinki ng milk the site on which eating meat from an animal that feeds on open pastur e near eating vegeta bles from a garden iodine s or partic ulates may* have depos ited, and drinki ng water near the' site that may be contaminated by simila r depos its, or eating fish caught near the point of discharge of liquid efflue nts.

Other less signif icant pathways includ e: extern al irradi ation from radio-nuclid es depos ited on the ground surfac e, eating animals and food crops raised shore-near the site using irriga tion water that may contai n liquid that maynts, efflue be contami-line, boating and swimming activ ities near Jakes or streams itself .

nated by efflue nts, and direc t radiat ion from within the plant of 80 km Calcu lation s of the effect s for most pathways are limite d to a radius ence has shown (50 miles) . This limita tion is based on severa l facts. Experictive efflue nts that all signif icant dose commitments (>0.1 mrem/yr) for radioaBeyond 80 km the are accounted for within a radius of 80 km from the statio n.

doses to indivi duals are smalle r than 0.1 mrem/yr, which is uncer far below natura l-background doses, and the doses are subje ct to substa ntial tainty because of limita tions of predic tive mathematical model s.

The NRC staff has made a detail ed study of all of the above signif icant pathways and has evalua ted the radiat ion-do se commitments both to the statio n workers ing from routin e operat ion of and the general public for these pathways result the statio n. A discus sion of these evalua tions follow s.

5.9.3. 1.1 Occupational Radiation Exposure for BWRs re to Most of the dose to nuclea r plant workers *resul ts from extern al exposu than from rather radiat ion from radioa ctive mater ials outsid e of the body ials. Experience intern al exposure from inhale d or ingest ed radioa ctive mater r to reacto r shows that the dose to nuclea r plant workers varies from reacto projec ted and from year to year. For environmental-impact purposes,tlyitlicensbe can ed 1000-MWe by using the experience to date with modern BWRs. Recen requir ement s and BWRs are operated in accordance with the post-1975 regula tory ational exposu re at guidance that place increa sed emphasis on maintaining occup outlin pri-ed nuclea r power plants ALARA. These requirements and guidance are 33),

marily in 10 CFR Part 20 (Ref. 30), Standard Review Plan Chapter 12 (Ref.

and Regulatory Guide 8.8 (Ref. 34).

The applic ant 1 s proposed implementation of these requirements and guide lines is reviewed by the NRC staff during the licens ing proce ss, and the result s of that review are report ed in the staff s Safety 1 Evalu ation Repor ts. The licens e is grante d only after the review indica tes that an ALARA progra m can be imple-mented. In additi on, regula r reviews of opera ting plants are perfor med to determine whether the ALARA requirements are being met.

s-22 Average collective occupational dose information for 154.BWR reactor years of operation is available for those plants operating between 1974 and 1980. (The year 1974 was chosen as a starting date because the.dose data for years prior to 1974 are primarily from reactors with average *rated capacities below 500 MWe.)

These data indicate that the average reactor ann~al dose at BWRs has been about 740 person-rems, with some plants experiencing an average plant lifetime annual dose to date of 1650 person-rems (Refs. 35,36), and with one plant as high as 1853 person-rems. These dose averages are .based on widely varying yearly doses at BWRs. For example, for the period mentioned above, annual collective doses for BWRs have ranged from 44 to 3626 person-rems per reactor However, the average annual dose per nuclear plant worker of about 0.8 rem (Ref. 35) has not varied significantly during this period. The worker dose limit, established by 10 CFR Part 20, is 3 rems/quarter (if the average dose over the worker lifetime is being controlled to 5 rems/yr) or 1.25 rems/

quarter if it is not.

The wide range of annual collective doses experienced at U.S. BWRs results from a number of factors such as the amount of required maintenance, and the amount of reactor operations and in-plant surveillance. Because these factors can vary widely and unpredictably, it is impossible to determine in advance a specific year-to-year annua 1 occupat iona 1 radiation dose for a particular plant over its operating lifetime. The need for high doses can occur, even at plants with radiation protection programs designed to ensure that occupational radiation doses will be kept ALARA.

In recognition of ~he factors mentioned above, staff occupational dose esti-mates for environmental impact purposes for Clinton Power Station are based on the assumption that the station will experience the annual average occupa-tional dose for BWRs to date. Thus, the staff has projected that the occupa-tional doses for Unit 1 will be 740 person-rems but could average as much as 2 to 3 times this value over the life of the station.

The average annual dose of about 0.8 rem per nuclear plant*worker at operating BWRs and PWRs has been well within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20. However, for impact evaluation, the NRC staff has estimated the risk to nuclear power plant workers and compared it in Table 5.4 to risks that are published for other occupations. Based on these comparisons, the staff concludes that the risk to nuclear plant workers from plant operation is comparable to the risks asso-ciated with other occupations.

In estimating the number of health effects resulting from both offsite (see Sec. 5.9.3.2) and occupational radiation exposures due to normal operation of Clinton, the NRC staff used.somatic (cancer) and genetic risk estimators based on widely accepted scientific information. Specifically, the staff's esti-mates are based on information compiled by the National Academy of Science's Advisory Convnittee on the Biological Effects of Ionizi*ng Radiation (BEIR)

(Ref. 37). The estimates of ~he risks to workers and the general public are based on conservative assumptions (i.e., the estimates are probably higher than the actual number). The following risk estimators were used to estimate health effects: 135 potential deaths from cancer per million person-rems and 258 potential cases -of all forms of genetic disorders per million person-rems.

The cancer mortality risk estimates are based on the "absolute risk" model described in BEIR I (Ref *. 37). Higher estimates can be developed by use of the "relative risk" model along with the assumption that risk prevails for the

5-23 Table 5.4. Incidence of Job-Related Mort alitie s Mortality Incidence5 Rates Occupational Group (premature deaths per 10 person-years)

Underground metal minersa "'1300 Uranium minersa 420 Smelter workersa ,190 Miningb 61 Agriculture, fores try, and *fish eries b 35 Contract constructionb 33 Transportation and public utili ties 24 Nuclear-plant workerc 23

Manuf actur i ngb 7 6

Wholesale and retai l tradeb 3

Finance, insurance, and real estat eb Servicesb 3 Total priva te sectorb 10 aThe Pres iden t's Report on Occupational Safety and Health, "Report on Occupa-tiona l Safet y and Health by the U.S. Department of Health, Education,*and Welf are, E. L. Richardson, Secre tary, May 1972.

11 bu.s. Bureau of Labor Stat istic s, "Occupational Injur ies and Illne ss in the United State s by Industry, 1975," Bulle tin 1981, 1978.

cThe nucle ar-pl ant workers' risk is equal to the sum of the radia tion- relat ed risk and the nonr adiat ion-r elate d risk. The occup ational risk associated with the industry-wide averaie radia tion dose of 0.8 rem is about 11 poten tial premature deaths per 10 person-yea rs due to cance r, based on the risk esti-mators described in the following text. The avera ge nonr adiat ion-r elate d risk for seven U.S. elect rical utili ties over the period 1970-1979 is about 12 actual premature deaths per 10 person-years as Risks 5 shown in Figure 5 of the paper by R. Wilson and E. S. Koehl, "Occupational of Ontario Hydro's Atomic Radiation Workers in Perspective," prese nted at Nuclear Radiation Risks, A Utility-Medical Dialog, sponsored by the 22-23 Inter natio nal Insti tute of Safety and Health in Washington, D.C., Septembercancer death , 1980. (Note that s is poten tial the estimate of 11 radia tion- relat ed premature rathe r than actu al.)

5-24 duration of life. Use of the "relative risk" model would produce risk values up to about four times greater than those used in this report. The staff regards the use of the "relative risk" model values as a reasonable upper limit of the range of uncertainty. The lower limit of the range would be zero because health effects have not been detected at doses in this dose-rate range. The number of potential nonfatal cancers would be approximately 1.5 to

.2 times the number of potential fatal cancers (Ref. 38).

Values for genetic risk estimators range from 60 to 1500 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders per million person-rems (Ref. 37). The values of 258 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders is equal to the sum of the geometric means of the risk of specific genetic defects and the risk of defects with complex etiology.

The preceding values for risk estimators are consistent with the recommenda~

tions of a number of recognized radiation protection organizations, such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP), the National Academy of Sciences BEIR III Report, and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (Refs. 38-41). The risk of potential fatal cancers in the exposed work force population at Clinton Power Station and the risk of potential genetic disorders in all future generations of this workforce population, is estimated as follows. Multiplying the annual plant worker population dose (i.e., about 740 person-rems) by the risk estimators, the staff estimates that about 0.1 cancer death may occur in the total exposed population and about 0.2 genetic disorder may occur in all future generations of the same exposed population. The value of 0.1 cancer death means that the probability of one cancer death over the lifetime of the entire work force due to one year of operations at Clinton Power Station is about 1 chance in 10.

The value of 0.2 genetic disorder means that the probability of 1 genetic disorder in all future generations due to one year of operations at Clinton Power Station is about 1 chance in 5.

5.9.3.1.2 Public Radiation Exposure.

Transportation of Radioactive Materials The transportation of "cold" (unirradiated) nuclear fuel to the reactor, of spent irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel reprocessing plant, and of solid radioactive wastes from the reactor to waste burial grounds is considered in 10 CFR Part 51.20 (Ref. 31). The contribution of the environmental effects of such transportation to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor is set forth in Summary Table S-4 from 10 CFR Part 51.20, repro-duced herein as Table 5.5. The cumulative dose to the exposed population as summarized in Table S-4 is very small when compared to the annual dose of about 61,000 person-rems to this same population or 26,000,000 person-rems to the U.S. population from background radiation.

Direct Radiation for BWRs Radiation fields are produced around nuclear plants as a result of radio-activity within the reactor and its associated components, as well as a result

5-25 Table 5.5. (Sumnary Table S-4) Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactorl Hell (Pl' irradiated tuec Cllk in tranllt) ............ ........................- ***- ... 250.000 Btu/hr.

100 tons per cask par rlll cat.

W*I (govern ed by Fecserai o, State rH1ne110nt) ........................... 73,000 lbs. par cruck:

Traff,c denll!Y:

.................... L... than 1 per day.

Tl'UCll .............. ... ....:..... ................................................

RIii ................. .................................................... ............. .................... Leu than 3 per tnentn.

Cumulabve 00M 10 exooMd popu1a1,or1 2

CS* reactor yew) 200 0.01 to 300 millnffl................. , marwem.

Transc,onaCIOft workers ..............................................

General publle: 1,100 0.003 to 1.3 mill. .m................ 3 man.rem

~ f f l ............................................................... ..

A10ftg Route ........................................................... 800,000 0 0001 IO 0.0I ffllllirem ...........

-~----------------------------

ACCIOINTI TMNa,o,rr IN

_...,... Small*

RICl'°'°9'Cal effects .........................................................- .......... .. 1 fatal in,ur, in ,oo reactor years: 1 nonfata l .,,,ur,

'" 10 r*

~ ) CIUIN ............. ............. ............. .............

Common ( actor yu,1. 1'75 propen y daffll99 per reactor yur umentaf Survey of Transpon.ar.on of Rao.oacwe Matenats 1

Da11 suc,por'bng ""9 table are~ en the Comnleulon'1 "En...*oand 5UOP I, NUAEG-751038 Apnl 1975 Botn dOCuments to Incl from N&,clea, Powe, Plants." WASH-1231. Oecem bet 1912.

PublC Document Room. 1717 H St. NW.* WUMlg ton, o.c.. It I and are 8 ¥ ~ for IM4)eeb 0n lftd c:opytng at the Commluaon'1 e . Sc,ln ~. Va. 22181. WASH- 1238 11 IYa.lab fe from NTIS may be OOtatned from NatlON I Ted\nle al lnformatlOft ~

COit Of S5 *S (mecrofic:M. S2.25) and NUREG

75/031 11 avaalable at a COit of S3.25 (microfiche, 12.25).

the radlabOn doles trom aM sources of raoauon other man Ntural aThe Ft<Mral Radlatlen Counol !'\al recommeucad lt\at yea, fOt anchldu lll u a mutt of oc:cupabONI expo-be llmtted to 5.000 rniu.em per Dack;,o und Ind maGICal hP09U fN should to indMdu alS oue to for indMclual1 in the general pc)l)Ul.atlOn. The dOM sure *nd l1'CMd be hffllfed to 500 mnnm per ye* ye*.

averap natural baetlg,ound ,.a.anon II lbOUt 130 rnlAlrem per 1 Man-rem is an ess,,ftll Oft for IN summatiOn of wftOle body dOsn to indivlduall in a group. Thus. If NCft membe r of a a dose of 0.001 rem (1 ffllllirem ), or If 2 people were 10 receNe a CION of 0.5 pockllat ton g,cuc, of 1.000 peoote were to recetve rem (500 fflll&irem) tad\. ttw to1II men-,em dose in tact'\ caN WOUid be 1 ma,wem .

le of

,mental nlk of radlolog lcal effects stemme ng from tr~at aon ICCldents rs currently incaoab ft tne ecr,,woi

Altt'loug DetnQ numenc aUy QUlmrfled. the ntk rema,ns small rlg&ldl eU at .nether It II being IOPhed to a tangle reactor or I muttna ctor

5-26 of radioactiv e effluent releases. Although the components are shielded, dose rates observed around BWR plants from these plant components have varied from undetectable levels to values on the order of 100 mrems/yr at onsite locations where members of the general public were allowed. For newer BWR plants with a standardized design, dose rates have been estimated using special calculatio nal modeling techniques. The calculate d cumulative dose to the exposed population from such a facility would be much less than 1 person-rem/yr per unit, insig-nificant when compared with the natural background dose.

Low-level radioacti vity storage container s outside the station are estimated to make a dose contribut ion at the site boundary of less than 0.1% of that due to the direct radiation described above.

Radioactive Effluent Releases: Air and Water As pointed out in an earlier section, all effluents from the station will be subject to extensive decontamination, but small controlle d quantitie s of radio-active effluents will be released to the atmosphere and to the hydrosphere during normal operation s. Estimates of site-spec ific radioisoto pe release values have been developed on the basis of the descriptio ns of operation al and radwaste systems in the applican t's ER-Oland FSAR and by using the calcula-tional model and parameters developed by the NRC staff (Ref. 42). These have been supplemented by extensive use of the applican t's site and environmental data in the ER-OL and in subsequent answers to NRC staff questions , and should be studied to obtain an understanding of airborne and waterborne releases from the station.

These radioactiv e effluents are then diluted by the air and water into which they are released before they reach areas accessibl e to the general public.

Radioactive effluents can be divided into several groups. Among the airborne effluents the radioisoto pes of the noble gases--kr ypton, xenon, and argon--do not deposit on the ground nor are they absorbed and accumulated within living organisms; therefore , the noble gas effluents act primarily as a source of direct external radiation emanating from the effluent plume. Dose calcula-tions are performed for the site boundary where the highest external- radiation doses to a member of the general public as a result of gaseous effluents have been estimated to occur; these include the total body and skin doses as well as the annual beta and gamma air doses from the plume at that boundary location.

Another group of airborne radioactiv e effluents --the radioiodi nes, carbon-14, and tritium-- are also gaseous but tend to be deposited on the ground and/or absorbed into the body during inhalatio n. For this class of effluents , esti-mates of direct external- radiation doses from deposits on the ground, and of internal radiation doses to total body, thyroid, bone, and other organs from inhalatio n and from vegetable , milk, and meat consumption are made. Concentra-tions of iodine in the thyroid and of carbon-14 in bone are of particula r sig-nificance here.

A third group of atrborne effluents , consistin g of particula tes that remain after filtration of airborne effluents in the plant prior to release, includes fission products such as cesium and barium and corrosion activitio n products such as cobalt and chromium. The calculatio nal model determines the direct

5-27 external radia tion dose and the inter nal radia tion doses for these contami-nants through the same pathways as describedculat above for the radio iodin es, carbon-14, and tritiu m. Doses from the parti for comp es are combined with those of the radio iodin es, carbon-14, and tritiu m 50. arison to one of the design objec tives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part could include fissi on products The waterborne radio activ e efflu ent cons titue ntsation such as nuclides of strontium and iodine; activ products, such as nuclides of sodium and manganese; and tritiu m as tritia ted n, water. Calculations estimate the inter nal doses (if any) from fish consuvege mptio from water inges tion (as drinking wate r), and from eatin g of meat or tables raise d near the site on from recre ation al irrig ation water, as well as any direc t external radia tion use of the water near the poin t of discharge.

The relea se values for each group of effluas ents, along with site- spec ific meteorological and hydrological data, serve tioninput to computerized radia tion-dose models that estimate the maximum radia fordose that would be received outside the facil ity via a number of pathways individual members of the publ ic, and for the general public as a whole. Guide These models and the radia tion dose calcu latio ns are discussed in Regulatory 1.109 (Ref. 43) and in Appendix D of this statement.

Examples of site- spec ific dose assessment calcu latio ns and discussions of para-meters involved are given in Appendix C. Doseslocat from all airborne efflu ents except the noble gases are calcu lated for the the ion (e.g. , site boundary, garden, residence, milk cow, meat animal) where ays has highest radia tion dose to a member of the public from all applicable pathw been estab lishe d. Only ents that are known to exist at a those pathways assoc iated with airborne effluthe total maximum exposure to an singl e locat ion, are combined to calcu late with liqui d efflu ents are com-exposed indiv idual . Pathway doses associatedbut they are assumed to be assoc i-bined without regard to any singl e locat ion, through other than gaseo us-ef fluen t ated with maximum exposure of an individual pathways.

5.9.3 .2 Radiological Impact on Humans Although the doses calcu1ated in Appendix Care based on radioactive-waste logic al impact assoc iated with treatment system capa bility , the actual radiopart, the operation of the stati on will depend, inted. Based on the manner in which the radio activ e waste treatment system is opera on its evaluation of the poten tial performance of the vent ilatio n and radwaste treatment systems, the NRC staff has concluded that the systems as now proposed are capable of tives of Appendix I contr ollin g efflu ent relea ses to meet the dose-design objec to 10 CFR Part 50 (Ref. 31).

The stati on's operation will be governed by opera ting licen se Technical Speci-ficat ions which will be based on the dose-desig n objec tives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part SO (Ref. 31). Since these design-objectiv e values were chosen to ing that plant operations are permit flexi bilit y of operation while still ensur t opera tion may resu lt in doses ALARA, the actual radio logic al impact of -planthis situa tion exist s, the indiv i-close to the dose-design objec tives . Even if ct to maximum exposure will still dual doses for the member of the public subjeround doses (~100 mrems/yr) or the be very small when compared to natural backg

5-28 dose limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20 (500 mrems/yr - total body). As a result, the staff concluded that there will be no measurable radiological impact on any member of the public from routine operation of the station.

Operating standards of 40 CFR Part 190, the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations, (Ref. 32) specify that the annual dose equivalent must not exceed 25 mrems to the whole body, 75 mrems to the thyroid, and 25 mrems to any other organ of any member of the public as the result of exposures to planned discharges of radioactive materials (radon and its daughters excepted) to the general environ-ment from all uranium-fuel-cycle operations and radiation from these opera-tions that can be expected to affect a given individual. The NRC staff concluded that under normal operations the Clinton Power Station is capable of operating within these standards.

The radiological doses and dose commitments resulting from a nuclear*power plant are well known and document~d. Accurate measurements of radiation and radioactive contaminants can be made with very high sensitivity so that much smaller amounts of radioisotopes can be recorded than can be associated with any possible observable ill effects. Furthermore, the effects of radiation on living systems have for decades been subject to intensive investigation and consideration by individual scientists as well as by select committees, occasionally constituted to objectively and independently assess radiation dose effects. Although, as in the case of chemical contaminants, there is*

debate about the exact extent of the effects of very low levels of radiation that result from nuclear power plant effluents, upper bound limits of delete-rious effects are well established and amenable to standard methods of risk analysis. Thus the risks to the maximally exposed member. of the public outside of the site boundaries, or to the total population outside of the boundaries can also be readily calculated and recorded. These risk estimates for Clinton Power Station are presented below.

The risk to the maximum.exposed individual is estimated by multiplying the risk estimators presented in Section 5.9.3.1.l by the annual dose design objectives for total body radiation in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. This calculation results in a risk of potential premature death from cancer to that individual from exposure to radioactive effluents (gaseous or liquid) from one year of reactor operations of less than one chance in one million.* The risk of potential premature death from cancer to the average individual within 80 km {SO mi) of the reactor from exposure to radioactive effluents from the reactor is much less than the risk to the maximally exposed individual. These risks are very small in comparison to natural cancer incidence from causes unrelated to the operation of Clinton Power Station.

Multiplying the annual U.S. general public population dose from exposure to radioactive effluents and t*ransportation of fuel and waste from the operation*

of Clinton Power. Station (i.e., 30 person-rems) by the preceding risk estimators,

The risk of potenti-al premature death from cancer to the maximum individual from exposure to radioiodines and particulates would be in the same range as the risk from exposure to the other types .of effluents.

5-29 the staff estimates that about 0.004 cancer death may occur in the exposed popu-latio n and about 0.008 genetic disor der may occur in all futur e generations of the exposed population. The signi fican ce ofincid these risk estimates can be determined by comp~ring them to the natur . Multal ence of cancer death and genetic abnormalities in the U.S. population on perso iplying the estimated U.S.

population for the year 2000 (i.e. , ~260 milli and the ns) by the curre nt inci-dence of actual cancer fatal ities {i.e. , ~20%)milli on cance curre nt incidence of r deaths and about

actu al genetic diseases (i.e. , ~6%), about 52 (Refs. 37,44). The risks to the 16 million genetic abnormalities are expected ents and trans porta tion of general public from exposure to radio activ eofeffluClinton Power Stati on are very fuel and wastes from the annua*1 operation less) of'th e estimated normal small fract ions (about 1 part in a billi on or in the year 2000 incidence of cancer fatal ities and genetic abnormalities population.

On the basis of the preceding comparison (i.e.tion , comparing the risk from expo-sure to radio activ e efflu ents and trans porta of fuel and waste from the annual operation of Clinton Power Stati on with the risk from the estimated incidence of cancer fatal ities and gene tic abno rmali ties in the year 2000 the risk to the publi c health and safet y population), the staff concludes that trans porta tion of fuel and from exposure to radio activ e efflu ents and the Stati on will be very small.

wastes from normal operation of Clinton Power 5.9.3 .3 Radiological Impacts on Biota Other Than Humans Depending on the pathway and radia tion sourc e, terre stria l and aquatic biota will receive doses that are approximately the been same or somewhat higher than humans receive. Although guidelines have not thanestab lishe d for acceptable limit s for radia tion exposure to species otherare suffi human, it is generally agreed that the limit s estab lishe d for humans cien tly prote ctive for other species.

Although the existence of extremely radio sensi tive biota is possible and resu lt from increased radio sens itivit y in organisms may or bioci des), environmental inter -

no biota have yet actions with other stres ses (for example, heatterms of increased morbidity or been discovered that show a sens itivi ty (in mort ality ) to radia tion exposures as low as those expected in the area sur-rounding the stati on. Furthermore, at all nucle ar plant s for which radia tion

exposure to biota other than humans has been analyzed (Ref. 45), there have been* no cases of exposure that can be considered signi fican t in terms of harm to the spec ies, or that approach the limit s (Ref.for exposure to member_s of the public that are permitted by 10 CFR Part 20nce to 30). Inasmuch as the 1972 BEi R Report (Ref. 37) concluded that evide tive date indicated no other livin g organisms are very much more radio sensi than humans, no measurable a resu lt of the radiological impact on populations of biota is expected as routine operation of this stati on.

5.9.3 .4 Radiological Monitoring Radiological environmental monitoring programs are estab lishe d to provide data in the site environs.

on measurable level s of radia tion and radio activ e mate rials

5-30 Such monitoring programs are conducted to verify the effectivene ss of in-plant systems used to control the release of radioactive materials and to ensure that unanticipated buildups of radioactivi ty will not occur in the environment.

Secondarily, the monitoring programs could identify the highly unlikely exis-tence of unmonitored releases of radioactivi ty. An annual surveillanc e (Land Census) program will be established to identify changes in the use of unre-stricted areas to provide a basis for modifications of the monitoring programs.

These programs are discussed generically in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.1, Rev. 1, "Programs for Monitoring Radioactivi ty in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants" (Ref. 46), and *the Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, Rev. l, November 1979, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program" (Ref. 47).

5.9.3.4.1 Preoperational The preoperational phase of the monitoring program should provide for the measurement of background levels of radioactivi ty and radiation and their var-iations along the anticipated important pathways in the areas surrounding the station, the training of personnel and the evaluation of procedures, equipment and techniques. The applicant proposed a radiologica l environmental-monitoring program to meet these objectives in the ER-CP, and it was discussed in the FES-CP. This early program has been updated and expanded; it is presented in Section 6.1.5 of the applicant's ER-OL and is summarized here in Table 5.6.

The applicant states that the preoperational program has been implemented, at least two years prior to initial criticality of Unit 1, to document background levels of direct radiation and concentrations of radionuclides that exist in the environment. The preoperational program will continue up to the in.itial cr~ticality of Unit 1 at which time the operational radiologica l monitoring program will commence.

The staff has reviewed the preoperational environmental monitoring plan of the applicant and finds that it is acceptable.

5.9.3.4.2 Operational The operational , offsite radiological -monitoring program is conducted to measure radiation levels and radioac~ivi ty in plant environs. It assists and provides backup support to the effluent-mo nitoring program as recommended in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.21, "Measuring, Evaluating and Reporting Radioactivi ty in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants" (Ref. 48).

The applicant states that the operational program will in essence be a continu-ation of the preoperational program described above with some periodic adjust-ment of sampling frequencies in expected critical exposure pathways. The actual pathways sampled will depend, in part, on the results of the land-use census. The proposed ope rat i ona 1 program wi 11 be reviewed prior to pl ant operation. Modification will be based upon anomalies and/or exposure pathway variations observed during the preoperational program.

5-31 toring Table 5.6.- Preoperational Radiological Environmental Moni Program Summary*

Sample Criti cal Frequency Pathways/Groups Sample Method Parameters Measured TLD samples at 32 Gross gamma analy sis 92 days Air Sampling locat ions: two rings of TLD's, one in each secto r at the site boun-dary and at distances of approximately 4 to 5 miles I-131 7 days Air parti culat e 7 days samples at 8 locations Gross-beta Gamma isoto pic 92 days Grab sample Gamma isoto pic 182 days Soils shore line sediment at 2 locat ions I-131 14 days Wellwater Two locat ions 31 days Gross-beta gamma isoto pic 31 days Tritium 31 days I-131 14 days Drinking One Location 31 days Water Gross-beta gamma isoto pic 31 days Tritium 31 days Gamma isoto pic 31 days Surface Three locat ions 31 days Water Tritium Grab samples at Gamma isoto pic 182 days Bottom Sediments 2 locat ions Milk None (no milk cows within 5 km).

Electroshocker/Net, 1 .Gamma isoto pic 182 days Fish locat ion Grab (near est garden) I-131 At time of Vegetables harvest Gross-beta Gamma isoto pic

Adapted from the ER-OL (Table 6.1-8 ).

Note: 1 mile = 1.61 kilometers.

5-32 The final operational-monitoring program proposed by the applicant will be reviewed in detail by the NRC staff, and the specifics of the required monitoring program will be incorporated into the Operating License Radiologic-al Technical Specifica tions.

5.9.4 Environmental Impact of Postulated Accidents 5.9.4.1 Plant Accidents The staff has considered the potential radiological impacts on the environment of possible accidents at the Clinton Power Station Unit 1 in accordance with a Statement of Interim Policy published by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 13, 1980 (Ref. 49). The following discussion reflects these considera-tions and conclusions.

The first section deals with general character istics of nuclear power plant accidents including a brief summary of safety measures to minimize the prob-ability of their occurrence and to mitigate their consequences if they should occur. Also described are the important propertie s of radioactiv e materials and the pathways by which they could be transport ed to become environmental hazards. Potential adverse health effects and impacts on society associated with actions to avoid such health effects are also identifie d.

Next, actual experience with nuclear power plant accidents and their observed health effects and other societal impacts are then described. This is followed by a summary review of .safety features of the Clinton Power Station Unit *1 facilitie s and of the site that act to mitigate the consequences of accidents.

The results of calculatio ns of the potential consequences of accidents that have been postulated in the design basis are then given. Also described are the results of calculatio ns for the Clinton site using probabili stic methods to estimate the possible impacts and the risks associate d with severe accident sequences of exceedingly low probabili ty of occurrence.

5.9.4.1.1 General Characte ristics of Accidents The term "accident ," as used in this section, refers to any unintentional event not addressed in Section 5.9.3 that results in a release of radioacti ve materi a 1s *into the environment. The predominant focus, therefore , is on events that can lead to releases substanti ally in excess of permissible limits for normal operation. Such limits are specified in the Commission's regula-tions in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

There are several features which combine to reduce the risk associated with accidents at nuclear power plants. Safety features in the design, construct ion, and operation comprising the first line of defense are to a very large extent devoted to the prevention of the release of these radioactive materials from their normal places of confinement within the plant. There are also a number of .additional lines of defense that are designed to mitigate the consequences of failures in the ~irst line. Descriptions of these features for the Clinton

5-33 Unit 1 station may be found in the applicantis Final Safety Analysis Report (Ref. 50), and in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (Ref. 51). The most important mitigative features are described in Section 5.9.4.1.3.1 below.

These safety features are designed taking into consideration the specific locations of radioactive materials within the station, their amounts, their nuclear,* physical, and chemical properties, and their relative tendency to be transported* into and for creating biological hazards in the environment.

5.9.4.1.1.1 Fission Product Characteristics By far the largest inventory of radioactive material in a nuclear power plant is produced as a by-product of the fission process and is located in the uranium oxide fuel pellets in the reactor core in the form of fission products.

During periodic refueling shutdowns, the assemblies containing these fuel pellets are transferred to a spent fuel storage pool so that the second largest inventory of radioactive material is located in this storage area. Much smaller inventories of radioactive materials are also normally present in the

water that circulates in the reactor coolant system and in the systems used to process gaseous and liquid radioactive wastes in the plant.

These radioactive materials exist in a variety of physical and chemical forms.

Their potential for dispersion into the environment is dependent not only on mechanical forces that might physically transport them, but also upon their inherent properties, particularly their volatility. The majority of these materi a1s exist as nonvo 1at i 1e so 1ids over a wide range of temperatures.

Some, however, are relatively volatile solids and a few are gaseous in nature.

These characteristics have a significant bearing upon the assessment of the*

environmental radiological impact of accidents.

The gaseou~ materials include radioactive forms of the chemically inert noble gases krypton and xenon. These have the highest potential for release into the atmosphere. If a reactor accident were to occur involving degradation of the fuel cladding, the release of substantial quantities of these radioactive gases from the fuel is a virtual certainty. Such accidents are very low fre-quency but credible events (Sec. 5.9.4.1.2). It is for this reason that the safety analysis of each nuclear power plant analyzes a hypothetical design.

basis accident that postulates the release of the entire contained inventory of radioactive noble gases from the fuel into the containment system~ If further released to the environment as a possible result of failure of safety features, the hazard to individuals from these noble gases would arise predom-inantly through the external gamma radiation from the airborne plume. The reactor containment system is designed to minimize this type of release.

Radioactive forms of iodine are formed in substantial quantities in the fuel by the fission process and in some chemical forms may be quite volatile. For these reasons, they have traditionally been regarded as having a relatively high potential for release from the fuel. If released to the environment, the principal radiological hazard associated with the radioiodines is ingestion into the human body and subsequent concentration in the thyroid gland. Because of this, its potential for release to the atmosphere is reduced by the use of special systems designed to retain the iodine.

5-34 The chemical forms in which the fission product radioiodines are found are generally solid materials at room temperature, however, so that they have a strong tendency to condense (or "plate out") upon cooler surfaces. In addi-tion, most of the iodine compounds are quite soluble in, or chemically reactive with, water. Although these properties do not inhibit the release of radio-iodines from degraded fuel, they do act to mitigate the release from contain-ment systems that have large internal surface areas and that contain large quantities of water as a result of an accident. The same properties affect the behavior of radioiodines that may "escape" into the atmosphere. Thus, if rainfall occurs during a release, or if there is moisture on exposed surfaces, e.g., dew, the radioiodines will show a strong tendency to be absorbed by the moisture. '

Other radioactive materials formed during the operation of a nuclear power plant have lower volatilities and theref.ore, by comparison with the noble gases and iodine, a much smaller tendency to escape from degraded fuel unless the temperature of the fuel becomes very high. By the same token, such materials, if they escape by volatilization from the fuel, tend to condense quite rapidly to solid form again when transported to a lower temperature region and/or dissolve in water when present. The former mechanism can have the result of producing some solid particles *of sufficiently small size to be carried some distance by a moving stream of gas or air. If such particulate materials are dispersed into the atmosphere as a result of failure of the containment barrier, they will tend to be carried downwind and deposit on surface features by gravitational settling or by precipitation (fallout),

where they will become "contamination" hazards in the environment.

All of these radioactive materials exhibit the property of radioactive decay with characteristic half-lives ranging from fractions of a second to many days or years (see Table 5.9). Many of them decay through a sequence or chain of decay processes and all eventually become stable (nonradioactive) materials.

The radiation emitted during these decay processes is the reason that they are hazardous materials.

5.9.4.1.1.2 Exposure Pathways The radiation exposure (hazard) to individuals is determined by their proximity to the raGioactive material, the duration of exposure, and factors that act to shield the i ndi vi dua 1 from the radiation. Pathways for the transport of radiation and radioactive materials that lead to radiation exposure hazards to humans are generally the same for acci denta 1 as for II normal II re 1eases. These are depicted in Section 5.9.3, Figure 5.3. There are two additional possible pathways that could be significant for accident releases that are not shown in Figure 5.3. One of these is* the fallout onto open bodies of water of radio-activity initially carried in the air. The second would be unique to an acci-dent that results in temperatures inside the reactor core sufficiently high to cause melting and subsequent penet~ation of the basemat underlying the reactor by the molten core debris. This creates the potential for the release of radioactive material into the hydrosphere through contact with ground water.

These pathways may lead. to external exposure to radiation, and to internal exposures if radioactivity is inhaled, or ingested from contaminated food or water.

5-35 It is characte ristic of these pathways that during the transport of radio-active material by wind or by water, the material tends to spread and disperse, like a plume of smoke from a smokestack, becoming less concentrated in larger volumes of air or water. The result of these natural processes is to lessen the intensity of exposure to individua ls downwind or downstream of the point of release, but they also tend to increase the number who may be exposed. For a release into the atmosphere, the degree to which dispersio n reduces the concentra tion in the plume at any downwind point is governed by the turbulence character istics of the atmosphere which vary considerably with time and from place to place. This fact, taken in conjunction with the variabili ty of wind direction and the presence or absence of precipita tion, means that consequences of accidenta l releases to the atmosphere would be very much dependent upon the weather conditions existing at the time.

5.9.4.1.1 .3 Health Effects The cause and effect re 1at i onships between radiation exposure and adverse health effects are quite complex (Ref. 52) but they have been more exhaus-tively studied than any other environmental contaminant ...

Whole-body radiation exposure resulting in a dose greater than about 10 rem for a few persons and about 25 rem for nearly all people over a short period of time (hours) is necessary before any physiological effects to an individual.

are clinicall y detectabl e. Doses about 10 to 20 times larger than the latter value, also received over a relativel y short period of time (hours to a few days), can be expected to cause some fatal injuries. At the severe, but extremely low probabili ty end of the accident spectrum, exposures of these magnitudes are theoretic ally possible for persons in the close proximity of such accidents if measures are not or cannot be taken to provide protectio n, e.g., by shelterin g or evacuation.

Lower levels of exposures may also constitut e a health risk, but the ability to define a direct cause and effect relations hip between any given health effect and a known exposure to radiation is difficult given the backdrop of the many other poss i b1e reasons why a particula r effect is observed in a specific individua l. For this reason, it is necessary to assess such effects on a statistic al basis. Such effects include randomly occurring cancer in the exposed population and genetic changes in future generations after exposure of a prospecti ve parent. Occurrences of cancer in the exposed population may begin to develop only after a lapse of 2 to 15 years (latent period) from the time of exposure and then continue over a period of about 30 years (plateau period). However, in the case of exposure of fetuses (in utero), occurrences of cancer may begin to deve 1op at birth ( no 1atent period) and end at age 10 (i.e., the plateau period is 10 years). The health consequences model currently being used is based on the 1972 BEIR Report of the National Academy of Sciences

{Ref. 37). The occurrence of cancer itself is not necessari ly indicativ e of fatality.

Most authoriti es are in agreement that a reasonable and probably conservative estimate of the randomly occurring number of health effects of low levels of

radiation exposure to a large number of people is within the range of about 10 to 500 potential cancer deaths per million person-rem (although zero is not

5-36 excluded by the data). The range comes from the latest NAS BEIR III Report (1980) (Ref. 38) which also indicates a probable value of about 150. This value is virtually identical to the value of about 140 used in the current NRC health effects models. In addition, approximately 220 randomly occurring genetic changes per million person-rem would be projected by BEIR III over succeeding gene rat ions. That al so compares we 11 with the va 1ue of about 260 per million person-rem currently used by the NRC staff.

5.9.4.1.1.4 Health Effects Avoidance Radiation hazards in the environment tend to disappear by the natural process of radioactive decay. Where the decay process is a sl6w one, however, and where the material becomes relatively fixed in its location as an environ-mentally contaminant (e.g., in soil), the hazard can continue to exist for a relatively long period of time--months, years, or even decades. Thus, a possible consequential environmental societal impact of severe accidents is the avoidance of the health hazard rather than the health hazard itself, by restrictions on the use of the contaminated property or contaminated foodstuffs, milk, and drinking water. The potential economic impacts that this can cause are discussed below.

5.9.4.1.2 Accident Experience and Observed Impacts The evidence of accident frequency and impacts in the past is a useful indi-cator of future probabilities and impacts. As of mid-1981, there were 71 com-mercial nuclear power reactor units licensed for operation in the United States at 50 sites with power generating capacities ranging from 50 to 1130 megawatts electric (MWe) .. (Clinton Power Station Unit 1 is designed for 950 MWe.) The combined experience with these units represents approximately 500 reactor years of operation over an elapsed time of about 20 years. Acci-dents have occurred at several of these facilities (Ref. 53). Some of these have resulted in releases of radioactive material to the environment, ranging from very small fractions of a curie to a few million curies. None is known to have caused any radiation injury or fatality to any member of the public, nor any significant individual or collective public radiation exposure, nor any significant contamination of the environment. This experience base is not large enough to permit a reliable quantitative statistical inference. It does, however, suggest that significant environmental impacts due to accidents are very unlikely to occur over time periods of a few decades.

Melting or severe degradation of reactor fuel has occurred in only one of these units, during the accident at Three Mile Island - Unit 2 (TMI-2) on March 28, 1979. In addition to the release of a few million curies of xenon-133, it has been estimated that approximately 15 curies of radioiodine was also released to the. environment at TMI-2. This amount represents an extremely minute fraction of the total radioiodine inventory present in the reactor at the time of the accident. No other radioactive fission products were released in measurable quantity.

It has been estimated that the maximum cumulative offsite radiation dose to an individual was less than 100 millirem (Refs. 54,55). The total population exposure has been estimated to be in the range from about 1000 to 3000 person-rem. This exposure could produce between none and one additional fatal cancer over the lifetime of the exposed population. The same population receives each year from natural background radiation about 240,000 person-rem and approximately

5-37 a half-million cancers are expected to develop in this group over its lifetime (Refs. 54,55), primarily from causes ot~er than radiation. Trace quantities (barely above the limit of detectabili ty) of radioiodine were found in a few samples of milk produced in the area. No other food or water supplies were impacted.

Accidents at nuclear power plants have also caused occupational injuries and a few fatalities but none attributed to radiation exposure. Individual worker exposures have ranged up to about 4 rems as a direct consequence of -accidents, but the collective worker exposure levels (person-rem) due to accidents are a small fraction of the exposures experienced during normal routine operations that average about 500 person-rem per reactor year.

Accidents have* also occurred at other nuclear reactor facilities in the United States and in other countries (Ref. 53). Due to inherent differences in design, constructio n, operation, and purpose of most of these other facilities, their accident record has only indirect relevance to current nuclear power plants.

Melting of reactor fuel occurred in at least seven of these accidents, includ-ing the one in 1966 at the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 1. This was a sodium-cooled fast breeder demonstration reactor designed to generate 61 MWe.

The damages were repaired and the reactor reached full power in four years following the accident. It operated successfully and completed its mission in 1973. This accident did not release any radioactivi ty to the environment.

A reactor accident in 1957 at Windscale, England, released a significant quantity of radioiodine, approximately 20,000 curies, to the environment. This reactor, which was not operated to generate electricity , used air rather than water to cool the uranium fuel. During a special operation to heat the large amount of graphite in this reactor, the fuel overheated ang radioiodine and noble gases were released directly to the 2atmosphere from a 123-m (405-ft) stack. Milk produced in a 520-km2 (200-mi ) area around the facility was impounded for up to 44 days. This kind of accident cannot occur in a water-cooled reactor like Clinton, however.

5.9.4.1.3 Mitigation of Accident Consequences Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has conducted a safety evaluation of the application to operate Clinton Unit 1.

Although this evaluation contains more detailed information on plant design, the principal design features are presented in the following section.

5.9.4.1.3.1 Design Features Clinton Unit l contains features designed to prevent accidental release of radioactive fission products from the fuel and to lessen the consequences should such a release occur. Many of the design and operating specificatio ns of these features are derived from the analysis of postulated events known as design basis accidents. These accident preventive and mitigative features are collectively referred to as engineered safety features (ESF). The possibilitie s or probabiliti es of failure of these systems are incorporated into the assess-ments discussed in Section 5.9.4.1.4.2 .

5-38 The containment system, one such ESF, is a passive mitigating system designed to minimize accidental radioactivity re1eases to the environment. The contain-ment system is composed of two parts. The primary containment encloses the reactor vessel, the reactor coolant recirculation loops, and other reactor coolant system components. The secondary containment gas control boundary, which includes the fuel building and parts of the auxiliary building, encloses the primary containment, the spent fuel pool, and other auxiliary equipment.

An emergency core cooling system (ECCS) is designed to provide cooling water to the reactor core during an accident to prevent or minimize fuel damage. A pressure suppression system is installed to prevent containment failure due to overpressure following an accident.

The Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) is designed to establish and maintain a negative pressure in the secondary containment following the signal for its isolation in the event of release of radioactivity to this building in an accident. Negative pressure, with respect to the outside atmosphere, would prevent out-leakage of radioactivity from this building to the environment except along the release path controlled by the SGTS. Radioactive iodine and particulate fission. products would be substantially removed from the flow stream by safety-grade activated charcoal and high-efficiency particulate air filters.

The main steam isolation valve leakage control system is designed to control the release of fission products through the main steam isolation valves. This system directs th~ leakage through these valves to the area served by the SGTS. The spent fuel storage pool is located in the secondary containment where potential radioactive leakage .from the stored fuel can be directed through the SGTS.

The mechanical systems mentioned above are supplied with emergency power from onsite diesel generators in the event that normal offsite station power is interrupted.

Much more extensive discussions of the safety features and characteristics of Clinton Unit 1 may be found in the applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report (Ref. 50). The staff evaluation of these features will be addressed in the Safety Evaluation Report (Ref. 51). In addition, the implementation of the lessons learned from the TMI-2 accident, in the form of improvements in design and procedures, and operator training, will significantly reduce the likeli-hood of a degraded core accident which could result in 1arge re 1eases of fission products to the containment. Specifically, the applicant will be required to meet those TMI-related requirements specified in NUREG-0737. As noted in Section 5.9.4.1.4.7, no credit has been taken for these actions and improvements in discussing the radiological risk of accidents.

5.9.4.1.3.2 Site Features The NRC's reactor site criteria, 10 CFR Part 100, requires that the site for every power reactor have certain characteristics that tend to reduce the risk and potential impact of accidents. The discussion that follows briefly describes the Clinton site characteristics and how they meet these requirements.

. 5-39 First, the site has an exclusion area, as required by 10 CFR Part 100. The total site area is about 5739 ha (14,182 acres), of which about 36 ha (90 acres) are not station property. The exclusion area, located within the site boundary, is a circular area*with a 975-m (3199-ft) radius centered on the normal gaseous effluent release point (i.e., the station standby gas treatment vent). There are no residents within the exclusion area. The applicant owns all surface and mineral rights in the exclusion area, and has the authority, required by Part 100, to determine all activities in this area. No public highways, rail-roads or waterways traverse the exclusion area except a right-of-way for the township road which traverses the exclusion area. This road provides access to privately owned property which lies outside the exclusion area. The appli-cant tQgether with the local law enforcement agency wi11 control access along this road in the event of an emergency. There are no other activities unrelated to plant operation within the exclusion area.

Second, beyond and surrounding the exclusion area is a low population zone (LPZ), also required by 10 CFR Part 100. The LPZ for Clinton is a circular area with a 4-km (2.5-mi) radius, measured from the station standby gas treat-ment vent. Within this zone, the applicant must ensure that there is a reason-able probability that.approp riate protective measures could be taken on behalf of the residents in the event of serious accident. The applicant has estimated, based on a house count, that 237 persons are projected to be living within 4.8 km (3 mi) of the site during mid plant operation (year 2000). The average transient population, consisting of individuals using the nearby recreationa l facilities associated with the cooling lake within the LPZ, is 729, while the peak usage (occurring about 20 days per year) is estimated at 8,000 persons (10,000 persons within 8 km (5 mi) of the station). In case of a radiological emergency, the applicant has made arrangements to carry out protective actions, including evacuation of personnel in the vicinity of the nuclear static~. See also the following section on Emergency Preparedness.

Third, 10 CFR Part 100 also requires that the distance from the reactor to the nearest bo~ndary of a densely populated area containing more than about 25,000 residents be at least one and one-third times the distance from the reactor to the outer boundary of the LPZ. Since accidents of greater potential hazards than those commonly postulated as representing an upper limit are conceivable, although highly improbable, it was *considered desirable to add the population center distance requirement in Part 100 to provide for protection against excessive exposure doses to people in large centers. The cities of Decatur, Illinois with an estimated 1980 population of 93,513 (90,397 in 1970) located 36 *km (22.4 mi) SSW and Bloomington, Illinois, with an estimated 1980 popula-tion of 44,330 (39,992 in 1970) located 36.5 km (22.7 mi) NNW are the nearest population centers.

The population center distance is at least one and one-third times the LPZ outer radius. Current population density within 16 km (10 mi) of the site is 2 estimated to be 42 people/mi 2 (1970 census) and projected to reach 60 people/mi by the year 2020.

The safety evaluation of the Clinton site has also included a review of poten-tial external hazards, i.e., activities offsite that might adversely affect the.operatio n of the station and cause an accident. The review encompassed nearby*indu strial and military facilities that might create explosive, missile, toxic gas, or similar hazards. The risk to the Clinton facility from such

5-40 hazards has been found to be negligibly small. The staff has not completed its review of hazardous conditions from nearby transportation routes.

The applicant has been requested to provide additional information in this area. A more detailed discussion of the compliance with the Commission's siting criteria and the consideration of external hazards will be reported in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report.

5.9.4.1.3.3 Emergency Preparedness Emergency preparedness plans including protective action measures for the Clinton facility and environs are in an advanced, but not yet fully *completed, stage. In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR Section 50.47, effective November 3, 1980, no operating license will be issued to the applicant unless*

a finding is made by the NRC that the state of onsite.and offsite emergency*

preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Among the standards that must be met by these plans are provisions for two Emergency Planning Zones (EPZ). A plume exposure pathway EPZ of about 16 km (10 mi) in radius and an ingestion exposure pathway EPZ of about 80 km (50 mi) in radius are required. Other standards include appropriate ranges of protective actions for each of these zones, provisions for dissemination to the public of basic emergency planning information, provisions for rapid notification of the public during a serious reactor emergency, and methods, systems, and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences in the EPZs of a radiological emergency condition.

NRC findings will be based upon a review of the Federal Emergency Managemen~

Agency (FEMA) findings and determinations as to whether State and local govern-ment emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented, and on the NRC assessment as to whether the applicant's onsite plans are adequate and capable of being implemented. NRC staff findings are reported in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (Ref. 51). A supplement to this report will provide the staff's overall conclusions on the state of emergency preparedness for Clinton Power Station and related emergency planning zones. Although the presence of adequate and tested emergency plans cannot prevent the occurrence of an accident, it is the judgment of the staff that their implementation can and will substantially mitigate the consequences to the public if an accident should occur.

5. 9. 4.1. 4 Acciden(.R; sk and Impact Assessment 5.9.4.1.4.1 Design Basis Accidents*

As a means of assuring that certain features of the Clinton Unit 1 statton meets acceptable design and performance criteria, both the applicant and the staff have analyzed the potential consequences of a number of postulated acci-dents. Some of these could lead to significant releases of radioactive mate-rials to the environment, and calculations have been performed to estimate the potential radiologi~al consequences to persons offsite. For each postulated initiating event, the potential radiological consequences cover a considerable range of values depending upon the particular course taken by the accident and.

the conditions, including wind ~irection and weather, prevalent during the accident.

5-41 In the safety analysis and evaluation of the Clinton Unit 1 station, three categories of accidents have been considered by the applican t and the staff.

These categori es are based upon their probabi lity of occurrence and include (a) incidents of moderate frequency, i.e. , events that can reasonably be expected to occur during any year of operation, (b) infrequent acciden ts, i.e., events that might occur once during the lifetime of the plant, and (c) limiting faults, i.e., accidents not expected to occur but that have the potent i a1 for s i gni fi cant re 1eases of radio activity . The radio 1ogica 1 consequences of incidents in the first category, a1so ca 11 ed anticipainiti- ted operational occurrences, are discussed in Section 5.9.3. Some of the ating events postulated in the second and third categories for Clinton Unit in 1 are shown in Table 5.7. These events are designat ed des~gn basis acciden ts that specific design and operating features as described above in Sec-tion 5.9.4.1. 3.1 are provided to limit their potentia l radiological consequences.

Approximate radiatio n doses that might be received by a person at the nearest site boundary [975 m (3199 ft) from the plant] are also shown in the table, along with a charact erizatio n of the time duration of the releases . Theand results shown in the table reflect the expectation that engineered safety ed operating features designed to mitigate the consequences of the postulat accidents would function as intended. An important implication of this expec-tation is that the radioactive releases considered are limited to noble gases and radioiodines and that any other radioactive materia ls, e.g., in particu late istic form, are not expected to be released. The results are also quasi-p robabil taken in nature in the sense that the meteorological dispersion conditio ns are to be neither the best nor the worst for the site, but rather at an average value determined by actual site measurements. In order to contras t the results of these calculat ions with those using more pessimi stic, or conservative, assumptions described below, the doses shown in Table 5.7 are sometimes referred to as "realist ic" doses.

The staff has also carried out calculat ions to estimate the potentia lTable upper bounds for individual exposures from the same initiati ng acciden ts in 5.7 for the purpose of imp 1ement i ng the provisio ns of 10 CFR Part 100, 11 Reactor Site Criteria ." For these calculat ions, much more pessimi stic (conservative or worst case) assumptions are made a~ to the course taken by the accident and the prevaili ng conditions. These assumptions include much larger amounts of radioactive material released by the initiati ng events, additional single failures in equipment, operation of ESF's in a degraded mode,* and very poor meteorolog1cal dispersion conditions. The results of these calculat ions show that, for these events, the limiting whole-body exposures are not expected to exceed 10- 4 rem to any individual at the site boundary. They also showupthat to radioiodine releases have the potentia l for offsite exposures ranging al about 300 rem to the thyroid. For such an exposure to occur, an individu would have to be located at a point on the site boundary where the radioiod ine concentration in the plume has its highest value and inhale at a breathin g rate charact eristic of a person jogging, for a period of two hours. The l health risk to an individual receiving such a thyroid exposure is the potentia appearance of benign or malignant thyroid nodules in about 1 out of 10 cases, and the development of a fatal cancer in about.4 out of 1000 cases.

The containment system, however, is assumed to prevent leakage in excess of that which can be demonstrated by testing, as provided in 10 CFR Part 100.ll(a ).

5-42 Table 5.7. Approximate Doses During a Two-Hour Exposure at the Exclusion Area Boundary* from Selected Design Basis Accidents Infrequent Accidents Duration Whole Body (Category 2) of Release** Dose {reml Off-gas system failure <2 hours .005 Release of waste gas storage <2 hours .04 tank contents Small-break LOCA hrs-days <0.00005 Fuel handling accident <2 hours .01 Limiting Faults (Category 3)

Main steam line break < 2 hr 0.009 Control rod drop hrs-days 0.017 Large-break LOCA hrs-days 0.32

975 m (3199 ft).

- < means "less than".

None of the calculations of the impacts of design basis accidents described in this section take into consideration possible reductions in individual or pop-ulation exposures as a result of taking any protective actions.

5.9.4.1.4.2 Probabilistic Assessment of Severe Accidents In this and the following three sections, there is a discussion of the probabil-ities and consequences of accidents of greater severity than the design basis accidents identified in the previous section. As a class, they are considered less likely to occur, but their consequences could be more severe, both for the plant itself and for the environment. These severe accidents, heretofore frequently called Class 9 accidents, can be distinguished from design basis accidents in two primary respects: they involve substantial physical deteriora-tion of the fuel *in the reactor core, including overheating to the point of melting, and they involve deterioration of the capability of the containment system to perform its intended function of limiting the release of radioactive materials to the environment.

The assessment methodology employed is that described in the Reactor Safety Study (RSS) which was published in 1975 (Ref. 56).* However, the sets of acci-

Because this report has been the subject of considerable controversy, a discus-sion of the uncertainties surrounding it is provided in Section 5.9.4.1.4.7.

5-43 dent sequences that were found in the RSS to be the dominant contributors to the risk in the prototype BWR (Peach Bottom Unit 2) have recentl y been updated (Ref. 57) ("rebaselined 11 ) . The rebaselining has been done largely to incor-porate peer group comments (Ref. 58), and better data and analyti cal techniques resulti ng from research and development after the publica tionindivid of the RSS.

Entailed in the rebaselining effort was the evalua tion of the ual domi-nant accident sequences-as they are understood to evolve. The earlier technique of grouping a number of accident sequences into the encompassing Release Categories as was done in the RSS has been largely eliminated.

Clinton Unit 1 is a General Electri c designed BWR having simila r the design and operating charac teristic s to the RSS prototype BWR. T~eref ore, present assessment for Clinton has used as its startin g point the rebasel ined accident sequences and sequence groups referre d to above, and more fully describ ed in Appendix E. Charac teristic s of the sequences (and sequenc e groups) used (all of which involve partial to complete melting of the reactor core) are shown in Table S.S. Sequences initiat ed by natural phenom ena such as tornado es, floods, or seismic events and those that could be initiat ed by deliber gical ate acts of sabotage are not included in these event sequenc es. The radiolo consequen-ces of such events would not be differe nt in kind from those which have been treated . Moreover, there are design require ments in iO CFR Part 50, Append ix A, relatin g to the effects of natural phenom ena, and safegua rds require ments in 10 CFR Part 73, assuring that these potent ial initiat ors are .in The large measure taken into account in the design and operati on of the station data base for assessing the probab ilities of events more severe than the design bases for natural phenomena or sabotage is small. Hence, inclusionisofbeyond accident sequences initiat ed by natural phenomena and sabotage events n, the staff the state-o f-the-a rt of probab ilistic risk assessment. In additio by natural judges that the additional risk from severe accidents initiat ed events or sabotage is within the uncertainty of risk presented for the sequences considered here.

Calculated probab ility per reactor year associated with each acciden t sequence (or sequence group) used is shown in the second column in Table 5.8. As in the RSS there are substa ntial uncert ainties in these probab ilities. This is due, in part, to difficu lties associa ted with the quanti ficatio n of human error and to inadequacies in the data base on failure rates of(Ref. individual plant components that were used to calcula te the probab ilities 58) (see also Sec. 5.9.4.1 .4.7 below). The probab ility of acciden t sequenc es from the Peach Bottom plant were used to give a perspe ctive of the societa l risk at Clinton Unit 1 because, althoug h the probab ilities of particu lar acciden t sequences may be substa ntially differe nt or even improve d for Clinton , the overall effect of all sequences taken together is likely to be within the uncert ainties (see Sec. 5.9.4.1 .4.7 for discussion of uncert ainties in risk estima tes).

The magnitudes (curies ) of radioa ctivity release s for each acciden t sequence or sequence group are obtained by multiplying the release fractio ns shown in Table 5.8 by the amounts that would be present in *the core at the time of the hypothetical accident. These are shown in Table 5.9 for the Clinton 1 station at the core thermal power level of 3039 megawatts, the power level used in the Safety Evaluation.

Table 5.8. Summary of Atmospheric Releases in Hypothetical Accident Sequences in a BWR (Rebaselined)

Accident Sequence or. Fraction of Core Inventory release(a)

Seque~6, Probability La(d) per reactor-year Xe-Kr Cs-Rb Te-Sb Ba-Sr Ru(c)

Group I TCy' 2.0 X 10- 6 1.0 0.45 0.67 0.64 0.073 0.052 0.0083 TWy' 3. 0 X 10- 6 1.0 0.098 0.27 0.41 0.025 0.028 0.005 TQUVy' AEy' 3. 0 X 10- 7 1. 0 0.095 0.3 0.36 0.034 0.027 0.005 S1EY' S2EY' TCy 8.0 X 10- 6 1.0 0.07 0.14 0.12 0.015 0.01 0.002 TWy 1.0 X 10- 5 1.0 0.003 0.11 0.083 0.011 0.007 0.001 TQUVy AEy 1.0 X 10- 6 1.0 0.02 0.055 0.11 0.006 0.007 0.0013 S1EY S2EY (a)Background on the isotope groups and release mechanisms is presented in Appendix VII of WASH 1400.

(b)See Appendix E for description of the accident sequences and sequence groups.

(c)

Includes Ru, Rh, Co, Mo, Tc.

(d)

Includes Y, La, Zr, Nb, Ce, Pr, Nd, Np, Pu, Am, Cm.

NOTE: Please refer to Section 5.9.4.1.4.7 for a discussion of uncertainties in risk estimates.

5-45 Table 5.9. Activity ~f Radionuclides in Clinton Reactor Core at 3039 MWt Radioactive Inventory Graue/Radionuclide in Millions of Curies Half-Life {da~sl A. NOBLE GASES Krypton-85 0.53 3,950 Krypton-85m 23 0.183 Krypton-87 45 0.0528 Krypton-88 65 0.117 Xenon-133 160 5.28 Xenon-135 32 0.384 B. IODINES Iodine-131 81 8.05 Iodine-132 110 0.0958 Iodine-133 160 0.875 Iodine-134 180 0.0366 Iodine-135 140 0.280 C. ALKALI METALS Rubidium-86 0.025 18.7 Cesium-134 7.1 750 Cesium-136 2.9 13.0 Cesi.um-137 4.5 11,000 D. TELLURIUM-ANTIMONY Tellurium-127 5.6 0.391 Tellurium-127m 1.0 109 Tellurium-129 29 0.048 Te11urium-129m 5.0 34.0 Tell uri um-131m *12 1.25 Te 11 uri um-132 110 3.25 Antimony-127 5.8 3.88 Antimony-129 31 0.179 E. ALKALINE EARTHS Stron.tium-89 89 52.1 Strontium-90 3*. 5 11,030 Strontium-91 100 0.403 Barium-140 150 12.8 F. COBALT AND NOBLE METALS Cobalt-SB 0.74 71.0 Cobalt-60 0.28 1,920 Molybdenum-99 150 2.8 Technetium-99m 130 0.25 Ruthenium-103 100 39.5 Ruthenium-105 68 0.185 Rutheriium-106 24 366 Rhodium-105 47 1.50

5-46 Table 5.9. (Continued)

Radioactive Inventory Group/Radionuclide in Millions of Curies Half-Life (days)

G. RARE EARTHSt REFRACTORY OXIDES AND RANSURANICS Yttr,um-90 3.7 2.67 Yttrium-91 110 59.0 Zirconium-95 140 65.2 Zirconium-97 140 0.71 Niobium-95 140 35.0 Lanthanum-140 150 1.67 Cerium-141 140 32.3 Cerium-143 120 1.38 Cerium-144 81 284 Praseodymium-143 120 13.7 Neodymium-147 57 11.1 Neptunium-239 1600 2.35 Plutonium-238 0.054 32,500 .

Plutonium-239 0.020 8.9 X 10 6 Plutonium-240 0.020 2.4 X 10 6 Plutonium-241 3.2 5,350 Americium-241 0.0016 1. 5 X 10 5 Curium-242 0.48 163 Curium-244 0.022 6,630 NOTE: The above grouping of radionuclides corresponds to that in Table 5.8.

5-47 The potent ial radiological consequences of these release s have been calcula ted by the consequence model used in the RSS (Ref. 59) and adapted to apply to a specifi c site. The essent ial elemen ts are shown in schema tic form in Fig-ure 5.4. Environmental parameters specifi c to the Clinton site have been used and include the following:

(1) Meteorological data for the site .representing a full year of consecutive hourly measurements and seasonal variati ons.

(2) Projected population for the year 2000 extending throughout regions of 80* and 560-krn (SO- and 350-mi) radius from the site.

(3) The habitable land fractio n within the 560-km (350-mi) radius, and (4) Land-use statist ics, on a state-wide basis, including farm land values, farm product values including dairy production, and growing season infor-mation, for the State of Illinoi s and each surrounding state within the 560~km (350-mi) region.

To obtain a probab ility distrib ution of consequences, the calculaetions are performed assumin g the occurrence of each acciden t release sequenc at each of 91 differe nt start" ti mes throughout II a one-ye ar period. Each ca lcul at ion utilize s the site-sp ecific hourly meteorological data and seasonal model information for the time period following each "start" time. The consequ ence also contains provisions for incorporating the consequ ence reducti on benefi ts of evacuation, relocat ion, and other protec tive actions ~ Early evacua tion and relocat ion of people would considerably reduce the exposure from the radio-active cloud and the contaminated ground in the wake of the cloud passage .

The evacuation model used (see Append ix F) has been revised from that used in the RSS for better site-sp ecific applica tion. The quanti tative charac ter-istics of the evacuation model used for the Clinton site are estima tes made by the staff and are partly based upon preliminary evacuation time estima tes prepared by the applica nt. There normally would be special or personnel maya facilit ies near plant, such as schools or hospit als, where special equipment be required to effect ~vacuation. Several such facilit ies have beeningidenti- several fied near the Clinton site, such as the John Warner Hospital (includ Clinton nursing homes nearby), the Lake Clinton Recreation Center, and the School Distric t. Further, there may be people who either do not receive notific ation to evacuate or who choose not to evacua te. Theref ore, actual evacuation effecti veness could be greate r or less than that charac terized but would not be expected to be very much less.

The other protec tive actions include: (a) either complete denial ofafter use (interd iction) , or permitting use only at a suffici ently later time appropriate decontamination of food stuffs such as crops and milk, (b) decontami-nation of severely contaminated environ ment (land and proper ty) when it is considered to be economically .feasib le to lower the levels of contam ination to protec tive action guide (PAG) levels, and (c) denial of use (interd iction) of severely contaminated land and property for varying periods of time weathe until the contamination levels reduce to such values by radioactive decay and ring so that land and property can be economically decontaminated as in {b) above.

These actions would reduce the radiological exposure to the people from imme-diate and/or subsequent use of or living in the contaminated environment.

5-48 At.'lospt11r;c Dfsc,ersion D0si111t.ry H11ltt1 Effects Cloud D1pl1tfon Popul*tion Ground Contuin1tfon Ev*cuation Figure 5.4. Schematic Outline of Atmospheric Pathway Consequence Model.

5-49 Early evacuation within and early reloca tion*o f people from outside (see Appendix F) the plume exposure pathway EPZ and other protec tive actions as mentioned above are considered as essen tial sequels to seriou s nuc~ea r reacto r accidents involving signif icant releas e of radioa ctivity toes the atmosp here.

Therefore, the result s shown for the Clinton reacto r includ the benef its of these protec tive action s.

There are also uncer taintie s in each facet of the estimaaccide tes of consequences, and the error bounds may be as large as they are for the nt proba bilitie s (see Fig. 5.4).

The result s of the calcul ations using this consequence model might are radiol ogical doses to indivi duals and to populations, health effect s that result from these exposures, costs of implementing protec tive action s, and costs associated with property damage by radioa ctive c~ntam ination .

5.9.4. 1.4.3 Dose and Health Impacts of Atmospheric Releases The result s of the calcul ations of dose and health impact s performed for the Clinton facili ty and site are presented in the form of proba bility distri bu-tions in Figures 5.5 through 5.8 and are included in theceImpact Summary Table 5.10. All of the six accident sequences and sequen each groups shown in Table 5.8 contri bute to the result s, the consequences from being weighted by its associated proba bility.

Figure 5.5 shows the proba bility distri bution for the number of persons who might receive whole-body doses equal to or greate r than early 200 rem and 25 rem, and thyroid doses equal to or greate r than 300 rem from exposure,* all on a- per-re actor- year basis. The 200-rem whole- body dose figure corresponds approximately to a threshold value for which hospi taliza tion would be indica ted for the treatment of radiat ion injury . The 25-rem whole- body (which has been identi fied earlie r as the lower limit for a clinic ally observ able physio logical thyroi d figure s corres pond to the effect in nearly all people) and 300-rem Part 100.

Commission's guideline values for reacto r siting in 10 CFR The figure shows in the left-ha nd portion that there is less than two chances in 100,000 (i.e., 2 x 10- 5 ) per reacto r-year that one orspecif more persons may receive doses equal to or greate r than any of the doses ied. The fact that each of the three curves approaches a horizontal line shows that if one person were to receive such doses the chances are about the same that several tens to hundreds would be so exposed. The chances of larger numbers of persons being exposed at these levels are seen to be consid erably smaller. For example, the chances are less than 1 in 100,000,000 (10- ) that severa 8 l thousand or more people might receive whole body doses of 200 rem or greate r. A majority of the exposures reflec ted in this figure would be expectlly ed to occur to persons within a 48.4-km (30-mi) radius of the plant. Virtua all would occur within a 161.3-km (100-mi) radius.

Early exposure to an individual includes external doses fromally the radioa ctive cloud and the contaminated ground, and the dose from intern deposited e.

radionuclides from inhala tion of contaminated air during the cloud passag Other pathways of exposure are excluded.

~'btp' en -t -=,--.-.&-_._.................

1d trf to' 10 Ju 1m~

. . .J J-1 1 1 1 f

J.l I I I U.J -~-,...... .L-L-1-J L.LU--- L~~.!..'LU.J.L_-.. L-._L._.!..

z0

Ll~GBND

'...1...!...!.*I .!_!.I.

en o = WI-IOJ,J~ BODY IJOSI~ ~ 25 REM .

~ ~=THY ROID DOSE ~ JOO Rl~M

i..l ..

n. 'o ::1------ A = WHOLE BODY DOSE ~ 200 REM *1 0

-f A

~

f-t u.

~'o t-e~ i--- ---t ---- ---f ---- --+ ---- ---1 ---- ---1 ---- --1;*t ~

'b

. ,0

-:-e U1 I

U1 0

~

- 0....

Figure 5.5. Probab ility Distrib utions of-Indi vidual Dose Impacts.

NOTE: Please see Section 5.9.4.1 .4.7 for discuss ion of uncerta in-ties in risk estima tes.

~

--E -S

~~ -L --- -- --- --+ --- --+ --- --+ --- --- .-- ---

a

~

0:. b o-t ~- --- --1 --- --- ---

zo t t-- --- +- --- --t --- --- ,-- --a :-

en 0:

~ ~

....b-L --- --- 1-- --- --- --- P~ --- -~ ~- --- -r- --- ~~ .~. =

~ft

~

~'o ~-- --- --1 --- --- --1 --- --- +-- --~ -;- --_ __ :i~ --.- --- --- ~=

Q) ... ~

Ul Ul I

~ ~

~~

t~o

~...

.... b-1L-----1------1-- - - - - l - - - - - - l - - - - - - 1 , . _ - - - - - ~ =-

~ rr~

~

~~ ~- --- -- Ob

~

--- --- J-- --- -~ --- --- -t- --- --, --~ --- --~ ~-

~

F r

'0-1-- ---..- ..--.- ,l""T' T"rl- -...-,. .-,r-r ,rrTT l--,--

-y-,rr ,rrr.+ --,--" T°lr- rrTTT f--,-, -rrn," Jy--, --,-r- r,, m r,o

,- -t 10 7 I 0'

~1U 10 1

tcf llf X=T0 1'AL PlmS ON HBM who le body Figure 5.6. Prob abili ty Distr ibuti ons of Population Exposures.

NOTE: Please see Section 5.9.4 .1.4. 7 for discu ssion of unce rtain ties in risk estim ates.

, uf td 1d uf 10; 0;'-----------1 ----_..___._, _.L.4~--..__ ,__.._,_.J-J~ U---Ji...-~-L ..J-.L.L..LL- 1-o

-t LEGEND -ri o = EVAC. TO 10 MI LES .

"I V,

w

~, T.

J

~

-o ~~------- ----..---- --------1 ---------- ----t----- ------- o -t c:::c

~

lL

~

0:::

c:c wb LL -t-+------ ---...----- ._..._---- --11----- -------..- --------1-b -

C>

I U1 I

~ U1 N

~

UJ' 0.

~ ~-f----- -----t-- -------- 1------- --t----- -----1-' s

~

,:::Q C>

0:::

0..

b-~--------- -~~-------r- r-r-r-rf---- ,--.-,r-,-,--r rrl----r-~-- -r-r.,-,n-r- 1b

.-.lcf td Hf to*_.

X= EARLY FATALITIES Figure 5.7. Probability Distribution of Early Fatalities.

NOTE: Please see Section 5.9.4.1.4.7 for discussion of uncertainties in risk estimates.

~! d td td Llml~ND .

n a= EN1'1RE EXPOSED POPULA'l'ION~EXCL.T IIYROID .

J3 o =EN'l 'lllE EXPOSBD POP Ul~A 'l'lON -THY HOI D ONLY

~

5'<6_. --- --- --- A =WI THI N 50 MILl*:S-MXCl~ UDIN

--- --* + = Wl'f11IN 50 MIL ES-- 'fllY ROI D ONLY G TIIY UOID

~

J&.

-- -- -- ~- -- -- -- -- -- -.- ~- -- -- -- -- -~

u.-t _ *- ~- -- --

ffib

~ -

u i,:: :::: :::- --- --- --- -l z-t -:1 --~ ~~

~b ~- --- --~ -~ ~- --- --- -- --- --- --- ~

~

Mt

~o ~- --- --~ --- -~ ~~ --- --- --. _- -+ --- --- --- --~ U1 I

0-t U1 w

ia

~~ -~ --- --- --- --- ~- ~- -~ ~- --- -~ --~ ~- --- ---

cP I

'1t

-- ~~~-----1--~--tww--t----

t-t Pl

,n oT n: 0_.- 1-~ ---: -r-- -... --r- ..-- -.-i rld l--- ---- ---- ---~ t--- ---- ---- ---- .--1 l

td P.. tu H Ji'Olt 30 YEA HS X=L ATE NT CANCER FATA LITI ES PER YEA Figure 5.8. Prob abili ty Dist ribu tion of Canc er Fata litie s.

NOTE: Please see Section 5.9.4 .1.4. 7 for discu ssion of unce rtain ties in risk estim ates.

Table 5.10. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Probabiliti es Population Cost of Offsite Persons Persons Exposure Latent* Mitigating Probabi 1i ty Exposed Exposed Millions of Cancers Actions of Impact per over over Early person-rem 50 mi/ Mi 11 ions of Reactor-Year 200 rem 25 rem Fatalities 50 mi/Total Total Dollars 10- 4. 0 0 0 0/0 0/0 0 10- 5 0 1,200 0 1. 3/11 125/510 180 5 X 10- 6 0 3,200 0 2.5/17 186/972 340 10- 6 31 30,000 0 5/40 453/2,430 920 10- 7 340 90,000 21 12/115 l,380/7,560 2,800 U1 10- 8 2,100 140 ---/200 2,220/11,IOO 9,100 I U1

~

Related Figure 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.9

Includes cancers of all organs. Thirty times the values shown in the Figure 5.8 are shown in this column reflecting the 30-year period over which cancers might occur. Genetic effects might be approximately twice the number of latent cancers.

NOTE: Please refer to Section 5.9.4.1.4.7 for a discussion of uncertaintie s in risk estimates.

5-55 Figure 5.6 shows the proba bility distri bution for the total popula tion exposure in person-rem, i.e., the proba bility per year that the totaltion population exposure will equal or exceed the values given. Most of the popula theexposu re up to 1 million person-rem would occur within 80 km (50 mi), but more severe accident sequences or sequence groups such as the first three in Table 5.8 would result in exposure to persons beyond the 80-km (50-mi) range as shown.

For perspe ctive, population doses shown in Figure 5.6 may be compared with the annual average dose to the population within 80 km of theto the nantici Clinto site due to natural background radiat ion of 94,500 person-rem~ and pated annual population dose to the general public from normal statio n operat ion of about 1 person-rem (excluding plant workers)--see Sectio n 5.9.3.

Figure 5.7 shows the proba bility distri bution s for early fatali ties, repres ent-ing radiat ion injuri es .that would produce fatali ties within about one year after exposure. All of the early fatali ties would be expect ed to occur within a 24.2-km (15-mi) radius and the major ity within a 3.2-km (2-mi) radius. The result s of the calcul ations shown in this figure and in Table 5.10 reflec t the effect of evacuation within the 16.1-km (10-m i) plume exposu re pathwa y EPZ only.

For the very low proba bility accidents having the poten tial distan for causing radia-tion exposures above the threshold for early fatali tyautho at ces beyond 16.1 km (10 mi), it would be realis tic to expect that rities would evacuate persons at all distan ces at which such exposures might occur. Early fatali ty consequences would theref ore reasonably be expected to be the very much less than the numbers shown. [Figure F.1 of Appendix F illust rates poten tial benef its of evacuation within 24.2 km (15 mi).]

Figure 5.8 represents the statis tical relatio nship betwee n population e~posure and the induction of fatal cancers that might appear over a period of many years following exposure. The impacts on the total popula tion and the population within 80 km (50 mi) are shown separa tely. Furthe r, the fatal, latent cancers have been subdivided into those attrib utable to exposu res of the thyroid and all other organs.

5.9.4. 1.4.4 Economic and Societal Impacts As noted in Section 5.4.1. 1, various measures for avoidanceination of adverse health effect s including those due to residu al radioa ctive contam in the envi-ronment are possib le consequential impacts of severe accide nts. Calculations of the proba bilitie s and magnitudes of such impacts for the Clinto n facili ty and environs have also been made. Unlike the radiat ion exposu re and adverse health effect impacts discussed above, impacts associ ated with adverse health effect s avoidance are more readil y transformed into economic impacts.

The result s are shown as the proba bility distri bution for costs of offsit e mitiga ting action s in Figure 5.9 and are included inted the Impact Summary Table 5.10. The factor s contri buting to these estima costs include the following: *

Evacuation costs Value of crops contaminated and condemned

5-56 Value of milk contaminated and condemned Costs of decontamination of property where practical Indirect costs due to loss of use of property and incomes derived there-from.

The last named costs *would derive from the necessity for interdiction to pre-vent the use of property until it is either free of contamination or can be economically decontami~ated.

Figure 5.9 shows that at the extreme end of the accident spectrum these costs could exceed several billion dollars but that the probability that this would occur is exceedingly small, less than one chance in ten million*per reactor-year.

Additional economic impacts that can be monetized include costs of decontam-ination of the facility itself and the costs of replacement power. Probabil-ity distributions for these impacts have not been calculated, but they are included in the discussion of risk considerations in Section 5.9.4.1.4.6 below.

5.9.4.1.4.5 Releases to Groundwater A pathway for public radiation exposure and environmental contamination that would be unique for severe nuclear reactor accidents was identified in Sec-tion 5.. 9.4.1.1.2 above. Consideration has been given to the potential environ-mental impacts of this pathway for the Clinton Power Station. The principal contributors to the risk are the core-melt accidents. The penetration of the basemat of the containment building can release molten core debris to the strata beneath the plant. The soluble radionuclides in the debris can be leached and transported with groundwater to downgradient domestic wells used for drinking water or to surface water bodies used for drinking water, aquatic food and recreation. Releases of radioactivity to the groundwater underlying the site could also occur via depressurization of the containment atmosphere or escape of radioactive ECCS and suppression pool water through the failed containment.

An analysis of the potential consequences of a liquid pathway release of radioactivity for generic sites was presented in the "Liquid Pathway Generic Study" (LPGS) (Ref. 60). The LPGS compares the risk of accidents involving the liquid pathway (drinking water, irrigation, aquatic food, swimming and shoreline usage) for four conventional, generic l~nd-based nuclear plants and a floating nuclear plant, for which the nuclear ~eactor would be mounted on a barge and moored in a water body. Parameters for each generic land-based site were chosen to represent averages for a wide range of real sites and were thus "typical" but they represented no real sites in particular. The study concluded that the i ndi vi dua 1 and popu*1 at ion doses for the 1i quid pathway through ground-water contamination range from small fractions to very small fractions of those that can arise from the atmospheric pathways.

The discussion in th.is section is a summary of an analysis performed to determine whether or not the liquid pathway consequences of a postulated accident at the Clinton site initiated by a release to groundwater beneath a reactor would be unique when compared to the generic Small River land-based site considered in

Hf tr/ 1d0 I ri; Uf tr/ U{ .....,........

I ** ., I! 9

-..---._._...-.L&&at---*-*. .*....*. . . . . ____......-

1_ _,__ I

. . It -_ _...__..........LLl ..

1 1~ 11 * . - - - - - -.........- . . _ .*.__I-*......

IM

"o

"' ~

fat fl) 0 u ~

-- *O _.

~To

~

"4 Q)

\:, U1 fl,_ . -0 I

'o . U1 f-4

l tQ

< **a

~To ....

~ ....

ii.

Figure 5.9. Prob abili ty Dist ribu tion of Miti gatio n Measures Cost.

NOTE: Please see Section 5.9.4 .1.4. 7 for discu ssion of unce rtain -

ties in risk estim ates.

5-58 the LPGS. The comparison is made on the basis of population doses from drinking contaminated water and eating contaminated fish. The parameters which were evaluated include the amounts and rate of release of radioactiv e materials to the ground, groundwater travel time, sorption on geological media, surface water transport , drinking water usage, and aquatic food consumption.

All of the reactors considered in the LPGS were Westinghouse pressurized water reactors (PWR) with ice condenser containments. There are likely to be signi-ficantly different mechanisms and probabili ties of releases of radioacti vity for the Clinton boiling water reactor (BWR). The staff is not aware of any studies which indicate the probabili ties or magnitudes of liquid releases for boiling water reactors. It is unlikely, however, that the liquid release for a BWR would be any larger than that conservatively estimated for similarly sized PWRs in the LPGS. The source term used for Clinton in this comparison therefore is assumed to be equal to that used in the LPGS.

Doses to individua ls and populations were calculate d in the LPGS without consid-eration of interdict ion methods such as isolating the contaminated groundwater or denying use of .the water. In the event of significa nt surface water contami-nation, alternativ e sources of water for drinking, irrigatio n and industria l uses would be expected to be found, if necessary. Commercial and sports fishing, as well as many other water-rel ated activitie s might be restricted .

The consequences would, therefore , be largely economic or social, rather than radiologi cal. In any event, the individual and population doses for the liquid pathway range from fractions to very small fractions of those that can arise from the airborne pathways.

The Clinton site is located on Lake Clinton, which is formed by the damming of the Salt Creek and North Fork drainages. Groundwater at the site exists in Pleistocene glacial tills and underlying bedrock units, and in discontinuous sand lenses.

Contaminants released in a postulate d core melt accident would be initially deposited to the soil beneath the site and transport ed in the direction of Lake Clinton by groundwater flow. There are no groundwater users along this pathway. A conservative analysis of possible flow paths through sand lenses was used to calculate a minimum groundwater travel time of 172 days from the reactor to the lake. For groundwater travel times of this magnitude, the most important contribut ors to population dose would be Cs-137 and Sr-90. These radionuclides would be adsorbed to an extent by the geologic media through which they were flowing. This would have the effect of delaying their arrival to the lake. Published values (Ref. 61) of geohydrologic and geochemical propertie s for materials similar to those underlying the site were used to calculate conservative or real~stic values of the retardatio n coefficie nt, Rd, which is the ratio of the groundwater velocity to the velocity of the sorbed substance. The conservative and realistic values of Rd for strontium were estimated to be 17 and 68, respectiv ely. For cesium, the conservative and realistic values of Rd were estimated to be 211 and 960, respectiv ely. These estimated values of"Rd were used to estimate the fraction of available core inventory which could be released through the groundwater pathway. In the "conservative" case, 82% of the Sr-90 and 10% of the Cs-137 would be released

5-59 to Lake Clinton. In the "rea listi c"* case , 47% of the Sr-90 and 0.003% of the Cs-137 would be relea sed to Lake Clinton.for Thes e figu res compare to the 87%

Sr-90 relea se and the 31.% Cs-137 relea se the LPGS site .

Rad ioac tivit y ente ring Lake Clinton would monmix in the lake and be trans port ed downstream, affe ctin g Salt Creek, the Sanga wate River, the Illin ois River, and the Miss issip pi River. The near est drinking drin king r users would be on the Mis-water users would be siss ippi River. Approximately 2.1 mill ionin the Liquid Pathway Generic Study exposed as compared to about 0.61 mill ion flow rate s, and radio nucl ide relea ses sma ll-ri ~er case. Values of popu latio ns, ing water population dose for the were used to calc ulat e a rela tive drink Clinton site compared to the LPGS sma ll-riof ver site . The drinking water pop-that calc ulate d11 in the LPGS for ulati11on dose for 11the Clinton site is 64% and 31% for the real istic 11 reta r-the cons erva tive reta rdat ion coef ficie nts datio n coef ficie nts.

Qua ntiti es of all recr eatio nal and spor ts fish catc h were estimated to be 7 x 10 6 kg/yr (1.5 x 10 lb/y r) from affe cted 7 waters between the Clinton site and the Miss issip pi River 6 delt a. This compares to the approximately 1.2 x 106 kg/yr (2.6 x 10 lb/y r) catch used in the LPGS. Most of the exposure in the Clinton case would come from the estim ated 35,000 to 90,000 kg/yr (77,175 to 198,450 lb/y r) catc h in Lake Clin ton, immediately adja cent to the site . Dilu tion in the lake is small3 because ftthe annual average flow rate 3 The grea test portion* of through the lake is only about 5.6 m /s (200would/s). be in the Miss issip pi3 River, the fish catch in the Clinton case , though,r of 14,16 0 m3 /s (500,000 ft /s).

where average flow rate s are on the orde Two cases of population dose caused by the the inge stion of contaminated fish were r values of retar datio n eval uate d. The "con serv ative " case used fish lowecatc h in Lake Clinton at coef ficie nts and the upper estim ate for for this case was determined 90,900 kg/yr (198,450 lb/y r). The population dose LPGS fish inge stion case.

to be a fact or of about 23 times higher than the ton and Salt Creek. If thes e About 95% of the exposure was due to Lake .Clin ation , the fish inge stion cont ribu -

bodies of water were excluded from cons iderfact or of 1.1 times the LPGS case.

tion to population would have been only a The second case of popu latio n dose caused by fish inge stion was evaluated using "rea listi c" values of the retar datio n coef ficie nts and the best estim ate (77,175 lb/y r). The population of fish. catc h in Clin ton Lake of 35,000 kg/yr deter dose cont ribu tion from inge stion of fish was reduced mined to be a fact or of 1.3 to about 18% of the LPGS times the LPGS case . This fact or would be erie s were not included.

case if Lake Clin ton and the Salt Creek fish When population doses from the Clinton site drink ing water and fish inge stion pathways are combined, they range from aboutand a facto r of 250% to 40% of the Creek fish erie s are not LPGS popu latio n doses. If the Clinton Lake aredSalt to the LPGS site are about inclu ded, the rela tive population doses comp ates are cons erva tive because

. 70% to 31%. The staf f belie ves that thes eayestim through a sand lens from the site the presence of a viab le groundwater pathw tive estim ates of tran spor t along to the lake is not a cert aint y, and cons erva this hypo theti cal pathway have been used.

The Clinton liqu id pathway cont ribu tion toofpopu lation dose, ther efor e, has been demonstrated to be of the same* orde r magnitude as that pred icted for

S-60 the LPGS small-river site. Thus, the Clinton site is not unique in its liquid pathway contributio n to risk.

Finally, there are measures which could be taken to minimize the impact of the liquid pathway. The staff estimated that the minimum groundwater travel time from the Clinton site to Lake Clinton would be about 172 days, and that the ho 1dup of much of the radioactivi ty wou 1d be even greater. This would a11.ow ample time for engineering measures such as slurry walls and well-point dewater-ing to isolate the radioactive contamination near the source.

5.9.4.1.4.6 Risk Considerations The foregoing discussions have dealt with both the frequency (or likelihood of occurrence) of accidents and their impacts (or consequences). Since the ranges of both factors are quite broad, it is useful to combine them to obtain average measures of environmental risk. Such averages can be particularl y instructive as an aid to the comparison of radiologica l risks associated with accident releases and with normal operational releases.

A common way in which this combination of factors is used to estimate risk is to multiply .the probabiliti es by the consequences. The resultant risk is then expressed as a number of consequences expected per unit of time. Such a quantificat ion of risk does not at all mean that there is universal agreement that people's attitudes about risk, or what constitutes an acceptable ri~k, can or should be governed solely by such a measure. At best, it can be a con-tributing factor to a risk judgment, but not neces~arily a decisive factor.

In Table 5.11 are shown average values of risk associated with population dose, acute fatalities, latent fatalities, and costs for early evacuation and other protective actions. These average values are obtained by summing the probabiliti es multiplied by the consequences over the entire range of the dis-tributions. Since the probabiliti es are on a per-reactor..year basis, the averages shown are also on a per-reactor -year basis.

Table 5.11. Average Values of Environmental Risks due to Accidents per Reactor-Year Population exposure person-rem within 50 miles 44 person-rem total 320 Early Fatalities 0.000009 Latent cancer fatalities all organs excluding thyroid 0.017 thyroid only 0.0021 Cost of protective actions and decontamination $6,700 NOTE: *Please see Section 5.9.4.1.4.7 for discussions of uncertainties in risk estimates.

5-61 The popu latio n exposure risk due to* acci dention s may be compared with that for normal oper ation s. These are shown in Sect 5.9.3 for Clinton Unit 1. The radi olog ical dose to the popu latio n from in normal oper ation may resu lt in about 1 person-rem per year , which may resu lt about 0.0001 late nt cancer in the exposed popu latio n.

There are no acut e fata lity nor economic risk s asso ciate d with prot ectiv e actio ns and decontamination for normal relea ses; ther efor e, thes e risks are unique for acci dent s. For pers pect ive and unde rstanding of the meaning of the acut e fata lity risk of about 0.000009 per year , however, we note that to a good approximation the popu latio n at risk is year that with in about 24.2 km (15 mi) of the stati on, about 45,000 persons in the 2000. Accidental fata litie s per year for a popu latio n of this size , based upon over all averages for the acci dent s, 4 from fall s, United Stat es, are approximately 10 for motor fireacle vehi rms (Ref. 62). The early 1 from drowning, 1 from burn s, and 0.5 from thus an extremely small frac tion fata lity risk of 0.000009 per reac tor-y ear is of the tota l risk embo died in the above comb ined acci dent modes.

Figure 5.10 shows the calc ulate d risk expressed as whole-body dose to an indiv idua l from earl y exposure as a func tion valu of the dista nce from the stati on with in the plume exposure pathway EPZ. The grou es are on a per- reac tor-y ear basi s and all acci dent sequences and sequence ps in Table 5.8 cont ribu ted ities .

to the dose, weighted by thei r asso ciate d prob abil Evacuation and othe r prot ectiv e actio ns redu5.11 ce the risk s to an indiv idua l of acut e and late nt cancer fata litie s. Figureindiv idua shows curves of cons tant risk l with in the 16-km (10-mi) per reac tor-y ear of acut e fata lity to an tions of dista nce due to pote ntial radiu s plume exposure pathway EPZ as func acci dent s in the reac tor. Figure 5.12 show s curves of cons tant risk per reac tor-y ear to an indiv idua l livin g with in4.1.the plume exposure pathway EPZ of "Sit e Feat ures ", discu sses death from late nt cancer. Subsection 5.9. low 3.2, popu latio n zone to the featu res the rela tion ship of the exclusion area and planning zone with resp ect to of Figure 5.11. A disc ussio n of the emergencyectio n 5.9. 4.1. 4.6. Dire ction al othe r featu res of Figure 5.11 is found in subsn in the average frac tion of the vari atio n of thes e curves refl ect the varierenatio year the wind woul d be blow ing into diff t dire ction s from the stati on.

For comparison the following risk s of fata lity per year to an indiv idua4l 2.2 x 10- ,

livin g in the U.S. may be noted (Ref.5 62); automobile acci5 dent and firea rms x 10-falls 7.7 x 10- 5 , drowning 3.1 x i0- , burning 2.9 ,

1. 2 X 10- 5

The rela tive consequences and risk s due to cont amination fo Lake Michigan as a resu lt of atmospheric fallo ut from seve redeter acci dent s in the Clinton Unit 1 reac tor would be simi lar in kind to those mined for contamination of Lake Erie and the othe r Great Lakes via the seve re acci dent atmospheric fallo ut rout e for a Perry (PNPP) (Ref. 71) reac tor whic h was in turn based on calc ula-tion s performed for the Fermi Unit 2 plan t (Ref . 72). Clin ton Unit 1 is, however, more than 210 km (130 mi) from Lake Mich igan, whereas Perry is on the Lake Erie shore. Thus, atmospheric conc entra tions of airbo rne radio nucl ides over Lake Michigan due to a severe acci dent Erie at Clin ton would be subs tant ially less than simi lar conc entra tions over Lake due to a seve re acci dent at PNPP.

INDIVIDUAL RISK OP DOSH AS .A FUNCTION 01' DISTANCE 10-3~--------------~---------*---~---------.------~--------------~~--------.------~--------~~~-------------*-~--------*----

-*.-----.*.--------~---_-_._-_-_._.

~--------J* --------~--------J * ------**r*-------J*--------~------ *--------

...,.*-------:-....-----~-*--*---:--~ -- -----*--:----~--t--------:~-------

~, ---....... .

.----*---1----------..--....--*-1*-.........--~--

1 I

. T----*---~-..........r***---~

'--------~---~--

I

*- ------~ .....---*-**i---------....------

I r****---~---------~----*---L--------

~--------.l..------~---------i----*---~--------1........

I l

-i-* t~-------,~~:~t*****I***r~~:-r--------,~

I : I : l

i*** *r~----

..._.,. .,________ ~1**-~,-~----J,.---~----*-**1*-------1------~-1-------~----*-

I I

I I

- - - - ..-t* **~*****- -*-~*-*** ***4****- ---~~--* ********* ~--J***** ***A..,.* ****---1* *******

w ---*-**- -------*

- - - ----i ----- *--------

- ----~--- ~-........ ---~----

---**+:** -****---~

---~1*-- ---~---- **--l~-- ~~-~-- ------~- -~--- U1

(/)

*---~* *-*----- ----- '*-----*- ***---- ------~- -------~ ----*---1 --------. :-----*-* I a ________ t ........ ~------- -t***-*--- ~-------

0\

- - - ----~*----****1*------.- I N

____ 1***----*J*--**

Cl

. : i-****---~ -J-**--** *

>t ----****~ **----J-- ******~* *.,........ _r***** ___......._ ********~' 4.........--.r******

I :

- L ............

C) : : * : I

&1 ----~*~--- i---~~i*-~*-* *

1--~~~---***

1***

l--------~------ *-*---*

*****--------~--------~--------~--------~ .......---a.-----*--

! I

I :~---**---~i~

I

_. f * * ,* I*

10 -;,-.. ---.*- --..-- -...*---4 ~--- t'i--- ..---...* ---.. ____,_____

0 I a ~ 4 DISTA NCB IN JI/LBS I I 1 I , ,0 Figure 5.10. Individual Risk of Dose as a Function of Distance.

5-63 *

0 LEGEND

~NT 0 2

~

O]

SIT& AtlCA 81'ATC ~AtlK IICTltO "'~ITAN **CA

MILES 0 I 2 3 r.t'o .. ffiif Figure 5.11. Isop leths of Risk of Early Fata lity per Reactor Year to an Individual.

5-64 10 miles

0

&.EGEND

~ANT ,..

SIT& A .. CA 0 Z 3 4

~ eTATS ~**K El M&TaO.O&.ITAN AaCA Figure 5.12. Isopleths of Risk of Latent Cancer Fatality per Reactor Year to an Individual.

5-65 The consequences and risks to society and an individu al of delayed cancer fataliti es from unrestr icted (without any decontamination or interdic tion of exposure pathways) use of Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes contaminated by fallout from atmospheric releases from the Clinton Unit 1 reactor would be of similar orders of magnitude as thpse resultin g from the exposure pathways from

air and ground contamination following these release s, shown in Tab 1es 5.10 and 5.11 and Figure 5.12. These 1atter consequences and risks were calcula ted only after exposure pathways interdic tion or decontamination was-assumed. If similar interdic tion of or decontamination in exposure pathways arising *from Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes were assumed, then the consequences and risks from fallout on the Great Lakes would be small compared to those from air and ground contamination, and would not alter conclusions with respect to acciden t risks compared to risks of normal operatio n, or with respect to Clinton acciden t risks compared to other acciden t risks to which the general populat ion is exposed.

The economic risk associa ted with protect ive actions and decontamination could be compared with property damage costs associa ted with alterna tive energy generat ion technol ogies. The use of fossil fuels, coal or oil, for example, would emit substan tial quantit ies of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, and, among other things, lead to env1ronmental and ecologic al damage through the phenomenon of acid rain (Ref. 63). This effect has not, however, been sufficie ntly quantif ied to draw a useful comparison at this*

time.

There are other economic impacts and risk that can be monetized that are not included in the cost calcula tions discussed in Section 5.9.4.1 .4.4. These are acciden t impacts on the facility itself *that result in added costs to the public, i.e., ratepay ers, taxpayers and/or shareho lders. These costs would be for decontamination and repair or replacement of the facility , and replacem ent power. Experience with such costs is current ly being accumulated as a result of the Three Mile Island acciden t. If an acciden t occurs during the first full year of Clinton Unit 1 operatio n (1984), the economic penalty associa ted with the initial year of the unit's operatio n is estimated at between

$950 million and $1600 million (Ref. 64) for decontamintion and restora tion, inc 1udi ng rep 1acement of the damaged nuclear fue 1. For purposes of this analysi s, staff will choose the conserv ative (high) estimate of $1600 mi,lion and assume the total cost occurs during the first year of the acciden t, whereas in rea 1.i ty the costs would be spread over several years thereaf ter. A1though insuranc e would cover $300 million of the $1600 million , the insurance is not credited against the $1600 million because the $300 million times the risk ,

probabi lity should theoret ically balance the insurance premium. In addition staff estimate s addition al fuel costs of $85 million for replacement power during each year the station is being restored . This estimate assumes that the energy that would have been forthcoming from Clinton Unit 1 (assuming 60%

capacity factor) will be replaced primari ly by coal-fir ed generati on in the Illinois -Missou ri area. Assuming inopera tion of the nuclear unit for eight years, the total addition al replacement power costs would be approximately

$680 million .

If the probabi lity of sustaini ng a total loss of the origina l facility is taken as the sum of the occurrences of a core melt acciden t (the sum of the probab ilities for the categor ies in Table 5.8) then the probabi lity of a disablin g acciden t happening during* each year of the unit's service life is 2.43 x 10-s. Multiplying the previou sly estimate d costs of $2280 million for

5-66 an accident to Clinton during the initial year of it~ operation by the above 2.43 x 10- 5 probability results in an economic risk of approximately $55,000 applicable to Clinton during its first year of operation. This is* also approxi-mately the economic risk during the second and each subsequent year of its operation. Although nuclear units depreciate in *value and may operate at reduced capacity factors such that the economic consequences due to an accident become less as* the units become older, this is considered to be offset by*

higher costs of decontamination and restoration of the units in the later years due to inflation.

5. 9. 4.1. 4. 7

Uncertainties The foregoing probabilistic and risk assessment discussion has been based upon the methodology presented in the Reactor Safety Study (RSS) which was published in 1975.

In July 1977, the NRC organized an Independent Risk Assessment Review Group to (1) clarify the achievements and 1imitations of the Reactor Safety Study Group, (2) assess the peer comments thereon and the responses to the comments,.

(3) study the current state of such risk assessment methodology, and (4) recommend to the Commission how and whether such methodology can be used in the regulatory*

and licensing process. The results of this study were issued September 1978 (Ref. 58). This report, called the Lewis Report, contains several _findings and recommendations concerning the RSS. Some of the more significant findings are summarized below.

(1) A number of sources of both conservatism and nonconservatism in the prob-ability -and consequence calculations in RSS were found, which were very difficult to balance. The Review Group was unable to determine wheth~r the overall probability of a core melt given in the RSS was high or low, but they did conclude that the error bands were understated.

(2)_ The methodology, which was an important advance over earlier methodologies that had been applied to reactor risk, -was sound. *

(3) It is very d1fficult to follow the detailed thread of calculations through the RSS. In particular, the Executive Summary is a poor description of the contents of the report, should not be used as such, and has lent itselr to misuse in the discussion of reactor risk.

On January 19, 1979, .the Commission issued a statement of policy concerning the RSS and the Review Group Report. The Commission accepted the findings of the Review Group.

The accident at Three Mile Island occurred in March 197l at a time when the accumulated experience -record was about 400 reactor years~ It is of interest to note that this was within. the range of frequencies estimated by the RSS for an accident of this severity (Ref. 65). It should also be noted that the Three Mile Island accident has resulted in a very comprehensive evaluation of reactor accidents ljke that one, by a significant number of investigative groups both within NRC and outside of it. Actions to improve the safety of nuclear power plants have come out of these investigations, including those from the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, and NRC

5-67 staff investiga tions and task forces. A comp re hens i ve NRC Act ion P1an II Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident, " NUREG-0660, Vol. I, May 1980, collects the various recommendations of these groups and describes them under the subject areas of: Operation al Safety; Siting and Design; Emergency Pre-paredness and Radiation Effects; Practices and Procedures; and NRC Policy, Organiza tion and Management. The action plan presents a sequence of actions, some already taken, that will result in a gradually increasin g improvement in safety as individua l actions are completed. The Clinton station is receiving and will receive the benefit of these actions on the schedule indicated in NUREG-0660. The improvement in safety from these actions has not been quanti-fied, however, and the radiologi cal risk of accidents discussed in this chapter does not reflect these improvements.

5.9.4.1.5 Conclusions The foregoing sections consider the potential environmental impacts from acci-dents at the Clinton facility. These have covered a broad spectrum of possible accidenta l releases of radioacti ve materials into the environment by atmospheric and groundwater pathways. Included in the considera tions are postulate d design basis accidents and more severe accident sequences that 1 ead to a severely damaged reactor core or core melt.

The environmental impacts that have been considere d include potential *radia-tion exposures to individua ls and to the populatio n as a whole, the risk ~f near- and long-term adverse health effects that such exposures could entail, and the potential economic and societal consequences of accidenta l contamina-ti o*n of the environment. These impacts could be severe, but the 1i ke 1i hood of their occurrenc e is judged to be small. This conclusio n is based on (a) the fact that considera ble experienc e has been gained with the operation of similar facilitie s without significa nt degradati on of the environment; (b) that, in order to obtain a license to operate the Clinton facility, it must comply with the applicabl e Commission regulatio ns and requireme nts; and (c) a probabil istic assessment of the risk based upon the met~odology developed in the Reactor Safety Study. The overall assessment of environmental risk of accidents shows that it is roughly comparable to the risk for normal operation al releases although accidents have a potential for* early fatalitie s and economic costs that cannot arise from normal operation s. The risks of early fatality from potential accidents at the site are small in comparison with the risks of acute fptality from other human activitie s in a comparably sized populatio n.

We have concluded that there are no special or unique features about the Clinton site and environs that would warrant special mitigatio n features for the Clinton Unit 1 station.

5.10 THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE The Uranium-Fuel-Cycle Rule *10 CFR Part 51.20 (44 FR 45362) reflects the latest informati on relative to the reprocess ing of spent fuel and to radioacti ve-waste management as discussed in NUREG-0116, Environmental Survey of the 11

Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle" (Ref. 66),

and NUREG-0216 (Ref. 67) which presents staff responses to comments. on NUREG-0116. The rule also considers other environmental factors of the uranium fuel cycle, including aspects of mining and milling, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabricati on, and management of low- and high-leve l wastes. These are described

5-68 in the AEC report WASH-1248, "Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle" (Ref. 68). The NRC staff was also directed -to develop an explanatory nar-rative that would convey in understandable terms*the significance of releases in the table. The narrative was also to address -such important fuel-cycle impacts as environmental dose commitments and health effects, socioeconomic impacts, and cumulative impacts, where these are appropriate for generic treatment. This explanatory narrative was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154-15175). Appendix G contains a number of sections that address those impacts of the LWR-supporting fuel cycle that reasonably appear to have significance for individual reactor licensing sufficient to warrant attention for NEPA purposes.

Table S-3 of the final rule is reproduced in its entirety herein as Table 5.12.

Specific categories of natural-resource use included in the table relate to 1and use, water consumption and thermal effluents, radioactive re 1eases, burial of transuranic and high- and low-level wastes, and radiation doses* from transportation and occupational exposures. The contributions in the table for reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle); that is, the cycle that results in the greater impact is used.

Appendix G to this statement contains a description of the environmental impact assessment of the uranium fuel cycle as related to the operation of the Clinton Power Station. The environmental impacts are based on the values given in Table S-3 and on an analysis of the radiological impact from radon-222 and technetium-99 releases. The NRC staff has determined that the environ-mental impact of the station on the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases (including radon and technetium) due to the uranium fuel cycle is very small when compared with the impact of natural-background radia-tion. In addition, the nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been found to be acceptable.

5.11 DECOMMISSIONING The purpose of decommissioning is to safely remove nuclear facilities from service and to remove or isolate the associated radioactivity from the environ-ment so that the *part of the facility site that is not permanently committed can be released for other uses. Alternative methods of accomplishing this purpose and the environmental impacts of each method are discussed in NUREG-0586*, "Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities" (Ref. 69) ..

Since- 1960, 68 nuclear reactors, including five licensed reactors that had been used for the generation of electricity, have been or are in the process of being decommissioned. Although no large commercial reactor has undergone decommissioning to date, the broad base of experience gained from decommis-sioning smaller facilities is generally relevant to the decommissioning of any type of nuclear facility.

Radiation doses to the public, as a result of decommissioning activities at the end of a commercial power reactor's useful life, should be small and will come primarily from the transportation of waste to appropriate repositories.

Radiation doses to decommissioning workers should be well within the occupa-tional exposure limits imposed by regulatory requirements.

5-69 Table 5.12 (Table S.3). Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data 1 (Nonnakzed to model LWR annual fuel r9QUnfflMlt CWASH-12'8] or ref*ence rac:tor yNI' [NUREG-0111))

MUll'TUft effect per annual fuel Total NQUirement o, reference reactor

'fMI of model 1,000 MWe LWA NATUIW. RESOUACES USI Land (acres,:

1 100 Ten,poranly ~ e d ................. - ....................- .................

Undisturbed *ea......................---*----*-....*---. 79 Olltuf'Ced .........................................................._ .............. 22 Equ,walant to I 110 MWe COIi-ind ~

plant.

Permanently conwnitled ..................................._ _ .....- ......-.... 13 Overburden moved (ffllllionl ot MT)............................................. 2.1 EQUivalent to 95 MW* COIi-ind

- - - - - power plant.

w,,., (ffllllioM ~ gallons):

Ottcftltged to 1W .................................- ... - ..... *..................-..... 190 *2 percent of nlOdet 1,000 MWe LWR Wltl'I CCIOllng tower.

O i ~ to wate, bodies ....... -................................................ 11,090 Oiscf\arQed to ground .......................................-........................... 127 Total ............................................................................................. 11,377 <* percent of model t,000 MWe LWA Wltl'I ~ttvaugf\ c:oow,g.

Foaaf fuel:

Electneal ene,gy ( ~ of MW.f'lour) .................................. 323 <5 percent of modll 1,000 MWe LWR OU1IM.

EQUrVllent Coal (thoulandl of MT) .............................................. 111 EQUHalent to the COftlUfflP1IOn of a *5 MW*

c:oaJ.lired power plant.

Natural gas (fflllltonl of set) ........................................................... 135 <o.* parcent of model , .ooo MW* energy output.

e,nuENTS-0,41MICM. (Mn Gases (inctudlng entrainment):

SO, ................................................................................................. .

NO,* ................................................................................................. '*'°°

, *190 EQUIYAlent to emissaons trom *s MW* coal*

Hydrocart>OnS ................................................................. ...........

,. fired plant lot I year.

co ................................................................................................... 2U

,.,s.

P1rtJCu11tes .....................................................................................

OtMf gaMS:

F ........................................................... ................................. .S7 Pnncipalfy trom UF, produc11on, etw1cPwNnt.

and rec,rocesung. ConcentrlbOn -""'

range of stat* standlrdl-below ..,.. lhal has effects 0,, human hMlt!'I .

HC1 ................................................................................................ .01*

L,Quidl:

so*.................................................................................................. SU From et wictment. fuel tabneatlan. and reprc>

cnllf'9 st~. ~ ienta trial conat11Ute NO.* ...................................- ....................-,,-*-**........................ 25.8 12.9 a potenbll tor ad'lerM MNIOllfflental ,ttect Fluonde ........................................ **********-**-*............................. .

ea** ........................................................................................ s.* are present in dilute concentrabOnS and r*

c, ................................................................................................. 1.5 cave addltlOnal dllutlOn by rec9Ml'IQ bOCMI Na' ....................................................................._, ......................... 12. 1 of .... to l9vefS bek,w ~ stand-NH, ...............................................................- ............................. 10.0 arda. The conttltuenta INI require dllutlOn Fe .. ....................... * ................................................................. .* and IN flow of dduban water are NH,~cfL N0.-20 cts.

Fluonde-70 cts.

TaaltnQS SOlubOnS (tnousandl of MT) ................................................. 2.0 From ffllllS ~ sqvflc:anl effluents to et'WiOt ,ment.

$ollds.. ............ ...... .... .. .................................................................. ,, .000 Pnnccally trom fflllls-ftO sagnrfanl ettwnta to efWll'OI .,,,..,l

5-70 Table 5.12 (Table S.3). Continued (Norma1tzed to fflOdef LWR annual tuet reQU1tement (WASH-12,eJ o, refetence r11c10t yoa, (NUREG-0116])

Mumum eHect per annual fuel Envt1onmenta1 conMSerauon1 Total requarement o, rete,ence reactOt year of modef 1,000 MW* LWR E,,LUINTS-RAD~OGICAL (CUIIIIS)

Gases (inctudlng entraanmem):

Rn-222................... .................................................................................................... Presently under recon5'derab0n by the Co,n-n'IISIOtl.

Ra-229 ............................................................................................ .02 Th-230 ............................................................................................. .02 uranaurn............................................................................................ .03' Tnt,um (lhaulandl).............. ......................................................... 18. 1 c-,,... ............................................................................................. 2, Kr-85 ( ~ t ............ - ................................................_ .. _... 400 Ru-108 ..................................................................._....................... .,, Prw,capalty from tuet r ~ pCanta.

1-129 ..' ...................................................................-...................... , .3 1-131 ................................................................................................ .83 Tc-99 ....................................................................................................................... Presently under consdetabOn by lN eon,.

mess,on .

F!ll,On produc:tS and tranturan.cs ................................................ .203 LJQutdS*

Uran,u,n and daughters ............................................., ................... 2.1 Pnnc1C)ally from fflllhng-tneluded tattengs hQuor and returned to ground-no ef-fluents, therefore, no eHect on environ-ment.

Ra-ffl .......................................................................................... -~ From UF, producbon.

Th-230 ....................................................................................... .. .0015 Th-23' ............................................................................................ .01 From fuet f&bneabOn ptants-concentrlbOn 10 percent ot 10 CFR 20 tor 10111 process-ing ~ annual fuel r ~ t s tor mooet LWR.

FISl!Oft and ac:t,vabOn ptoducts ................................................... . 5.9 X 10**

Soltds (buned on s.tet:

OtMf man ""9" level (Sl\allow) .................................................. 11,300 9. t 00 Ci comes hom low level reactor wastes and 1.soo Ca ccmn from rue10t decon-tamtnat10n and decom~buned at land bunal faohbes. eoo Ca comes trom fflllls-tnetuded in 1adtngS ratumed to ground. Awcximately 60 C comes from corwersaon and spent fuel stora99 No SIQ*

nrticant effluent 10 ttw enwonmenl TRU and HLW (deeO) .................................................................... 1.1 x10' Buned at Fedefal R9C)OSltOty.

Efftuents-tMffl\al (betllonS of Bmill1 INfmai unrts) .......................... <5 percent of model 1.000 MWe LWR Transportation (person.tam).

Eirc,osure o* llllOl'k*1 and ge,wal put,IIC ................................... 2.5 OccupabQtlat ~ , ~ , .......................................... 22.8 From reprocnsang and wute management

1n some cues*wf\ere no entry Al)Oeats it II Clear from the bacxgrcund oocuments 11'\at tho mane,*** addressed and tr\at.

er effect. tt.e TaDle snould De read u If a specific: zero entry had been made. However. there a,e otner areas tnat are not aoc:trnsea at II in tne Table Table S-3 dOes not incJude healU\ effects from me effluents dHCnbed in tN Taote. or nbfflates of , ...aset of Rlden-222 from ttw uri1nium fuef cycle 0/ estlfflltes of Tecl"lnettum-99 released trom wast* management or reproceu,ng actMbeS. These iuun may M ttw SUbfWCt at i.tigabOn in me indMduaf ICens.ing p,oceedlngS Cata sUOC)OltlnQ ff"I table are grven in ttw "Enwonmental $UNey of tne Uranaum Fuel Cycte.'" WASH-12'8. Apnl 197*. tne "Enwonmental Sun,ey of tM Reprocessing Ind Wute Management Po,tio,, of ~ LWA Fuel cycse:* NUREG-011& (Supp. 1 to WASH-12,e,: 1M '"PubllC Comments and Talk F'orce Respon,es Regarding tne Enwonmental Survey of t"8 R~oceu,ng Ind Wute Ma"8CJ9ffleftt Pot11on1 at ttw LWR Fuet Cye,.," NUREG-0216 (Supp 2 to WASH-12*8); ano '" ttw reca,d of tr\e hnal rutematung pe,11.neng to Uranium Fuel Cy,c.. Impacts from Soent Fuel Rec,,ocus,ng and Radloactrte Waste Management.

Occ. ., RM-S0-3 The contn0u11ons from reprocess,ng. waste management and tran~ahon of wastes are ~ e a tor

..met of ttw rwo fue4 c:yc:Jes (uranaum :,,vy and no recyc1e1. TN contnbutJOn from transpo,tahOn exc:Ndos transc,onat,cn of COid h-4 to a reac1a, and of irracMted fuel and radloactrve wastes from a reactor wt\lcft are ~ a d in Table S-' off 51.20(g)

The contnOutions from tN ottw steps of ttw fuel cycle are grven in COiumns A-E of Table S-3A of WASH-12'8.

1 The contnbuttons to 1emoo,anty cc:tN'Mted land from r~ocessang are not prorated over 30 years. ll"Ce the complete temc,orary imc,act Kcrues reg&rdlfts of wf'\eU\ef tfte plant~" one reactor for one year or 57 r*actors tor 30 years

'Estimated eH1uents btHCI upon combustion at eQ\r,lllent coal tor power generatJon

, 2 percent from natural gas use and process.

5-71 The NRC is currently conducting a generic rulemaking which will develop a more explicit overall policy for decommissioning commercial nuclear facilitie s.

Specific licensing requirements are.being considered that include the develop-ment of decommissioning plans and financial arrangements for decommissioning nuclear facilitie s.

An estimate of the economic cost of decommissioning Clinton 1 is provided in Table 6.1.

5.12 EMERGENCY PLANNING Emergency preparedness plans, including protectiv e action measures for the Clinton facility and environs, are in an advanced, but not yet fully completed stage. The staff believes the only noteworthy potential source of impacts to the public from emergency planning would be associated with the testing of the early notificati on system. The test requirements and noise levels will be consisten t with those used for existing alert systems; therefore , the staff concludes that the noise impacts from the system wi 11 be infrequent and insignific ant.

References for Section 5

1. "D.W. Schlinder, "Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorous and the Eutrophication of Freshwater Lakes," Journal of Phycology 7(4):321-329, 1971.

2. H. Stefan, T. Skaglund, and R. Megard, "Wind Control of Algae Growth in Eutrophic Lakes," Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division; American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 102 (EE6), pp. 1201-1213; 1976.

3. 11 R.A. Vollenweider and F.J .. Dillon, "The *Application of the Phosphorous Loading Concept to Eutrophication Research," NCR Assoc. Comm. on Sci.

Criteria for Environmental Quality, Canada Center for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, Canada, 1974.

4. "R. L. Culp, G.M. Wesner, and G. L. Culp, "Handbook of Advanced Wastewater Treatment," Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1978.

5. "W.J. Weber, "Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control," Wiley Interscien ce, 1972.

6. "Thermal Demonstration Pursuant to Illinois Pollution 11 Control Board Rules and Regulations, Chapter 3, Section 203 i (10), prepared by Energy Impact Associates, Pittsburg h, for Illinois Power Company, July 1980.

7. State of Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations, Chapter 3: Water Pollution , 1980.

E.L. Currier et al., "Cooling Pond Steam Fog, J. Air Pollut. Control 11 8.

Assoc. 24:860-864, 1974.

5-72

9. 8.8. Hicks, "The Prediction of Fog Over Cooling Ponds, 11 J. Air Pollut.

Control Assoc. 27:140-142, 1977.

10. B.B. Hicks, "The Generation of Steam Fog Over Cooling Ponds," In:

"Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Heat/Moisture Releases,"

K.E. Torrance and R.G. Watts (eds.), pp. 14-15, Am. Soc. Mech. Eng.,

New York, NY, May 1978.

11. J.R. Murray and D.W. Trettel, "Report on Meteorological Aspects of Operating the Cooling Lake and Sprays at Dresden Nuclear Plants, 11 Report 1001-5 to Commonwealth Edison Co., Chicago, IL, August 1, 1973.

12 .. J.L. Vogel and F.A. Huff, "Steam Fog Occurrences over Cooling Lakes,"

In: "Preprints of the Sixth Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification, 11 Boston, MA, 10-13 October 1977, pp. 69-72, Am. Meteorol.

Soc. , .1977.

13. F.A. Huff, and J.L. Vogel, "Meteorological Effects from Large Cooling Lakes, 11 In: "Proceedings of the Second Waste Heat Management and Utili-zation Conference," Miami Beach, FL, December 4-6, 1978.

14. R.G. Everett and G.A. Zerbe, "Winter Field Program at the Dresden Cooling Ponds, 11 Radial. and Environ. Res. Div. Annual Report, ANL 76-88, Pt. IV, Atmospheric Physics, Jan-Dec 1976, pp. 108-113, 1977.

15. J.D; Shannon and R.G. Everett, "Effects of the Severe Winter Upon a Cooling Pond Fog Study," Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 59:60-61, 1978.

16. J.E. Carson, "Atmospheric Impacts of Evaporative Cooling Systems,"

Argonne National Laboratory Report ANL/ES-53, 1976.

17. J.E. Carson, "Meteorological Effects of Evaporative Cooling Systems,"

In: "Atmospheric Planetary Boundary Layer Physics.* Developments in Atmospheric Science, ll, 11 A. Longhetto (ed.), *PP* 287-326, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1980.

18. John Cole, "Clinton Lake State Recreation Area, W-76-D. Wildlife Resources Manag~ment Plan, 11 Illinois Department of Conservation, March 1981.

19. A.O. Phillips and W. T. *Kaune, "Effects of Electric Fields on Small Labora-tory Animals," Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, presented at Envi-ronmental Control Symposium, Washington DC, November 27-30, 1978.

20. "Evaluation of Health and Environmental Efforts of Extra High Voltage (EHV) Transmission," ITT Research Institute, Chicago, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 1979.

21. "Potential Environmental Effects of 765-kV Transmission Lines," views presented before the New York State Public Service Commission, Cases 265-29 and 265-59, 1976-1978, U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Environmental Control Technology, November 1979.

5-73

22. 11 Final Environmental Impact Statement - 500 kV Internation al Transmission Line NSP-TR-1," Northern States Power Co., U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIS-0032, 1979. .

23. "Draft Environment al Statement Related to Operation of Callaway Plant Unit l, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No. 50-483, 11 NUREG-0813, September 1981.

24. "Draft Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. 50-416, 50-417, NUREG-0777, May 1981.

25. * "Development Document for Best Technology Available for the Location, Design, Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake. Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact." U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, EPA 440/1-76/015-a, April 1976.

26. J.A. Smithson, "Control and Treatment of Asiatic Clams in Power Plant Intakes," Presented at 43rd Annual Meeting of the American Power Conference, April 27-29, 1981.

27. [Deleted]

28. [Deleted]

29. W.C. Alpaugh, "High Lethal Temperatures of Golden Shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucas), Copeia 1972(1):185, 1972.

30. "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 20, January 1981.

31. "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, January 1981.

32. "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."

Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 190, January 1981.

33. "Radiation Protection, " In: 11 Sta_ndard Review Plan, 11 Chapter 12, NURE~-0800, U.S. ~uclear Regulatory Commission, July 1981.

34. "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be as Low as Is Reasonably Achievable,"

Regulatory Guide 8.8, Revision 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1978.

35. B. G. Brooks, "Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors, 1979," NUREG-0713, Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1981.

36. Memo from C. S.. Hinson to W. E. Kreger, U.S. *Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Preliminary LWR Exposure Data for 1980, 11 May 28, 1981.

5-74

37. "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radia-tion" (BEIR I), Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, November 1972.

38. "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" (BEIR III), Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, July 1980.

39. "Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protec-tion," International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publica-tion 26, January 1977.

40. "Review of the Current State of Radiation Protection Philosophy," National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP Report No. 43, January 1975.

41. 11 Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, 11 United Nat ions Sci ent i fi c Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1977:

42. F. P. Cardile and R. R. Bellamy (eds*.), "Calculation of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Boiling Water Reactors,"

NUREG-0016, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 1979.

43. "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, 11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear.Regulatory Commission, October 1977.

44. "Cancer Facts and Figures 1979, 11 American Cancer Society, 1978.

45. B. G. Blaylock and J. P. Witherspoon, "Radiation Doses and Effects Estimated for Aquatic Bi~ta Exposed to Radioactive Releases from LWR Fuel-Cycle Facilities," Nuclear Safety 17:351, 1976.

46. "Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants," Regulatory Guide 4.1,*Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 1975.

47. "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program," Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1979.

48. "Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Powe_r Plants," Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1974.

49. Statement of Interim Policy, "Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 11 45 FR 40101-40104, June 13, 1980.

5-75

50. "Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Clinton Power Station Units 1 and 2, Docket Numbers 50-461 and 50-462," Illinois Power Company, August 29, 1980, as amended.

51. "Safety Evaluation Report (SER) related to the operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-461, 11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0853, February 1982.

52. "Energy in Transition 1985 - 2010, "Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (CONAES), National Research Council,

, 1979, Chapter 9, pp. 517-534; also C.E. Land, Science 209, 1197, Sep-tember 12, 1980.

53. H.W. Bertini et al., "Descriptions of Selected Accidents that Have Occurred at Nuclear Reactor Facilities," Nuclear Safety Information Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/NSIC-176, April 1980; also, "Evaluation of Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accidents,"

L.B. Marsh, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0651, March 1980.

54. "Three Mile Island - A Report to the Commissioners and the Public," Vol. I, Mitchell Rogovin, Director, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Inquiry Group, Summary Section 9, January 1980.

55. "Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island," Commission Findings B, Health Effects, October 1979.

56. "Reactor Safety Study," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014), October 1975.

"Task Force Report on Interim Operation of Indian Point, U.S. Nuclear 11 57.

Regulatory Commission, NUREG~0715, August 1980.

58. H.W. Lewis et al., "Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-0400, September 1978.

59. "Overview of the Reactor Safety Study Consequences Model," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0340, October 1977. '

60. "Liquid Pathway Generic Study," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0440, February 1978.

61. D. Isherwood, "Preliminary Report on Retardation Factors and Radionuclides Migration," Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, UCID-A3.44, August 5, 1977.

62. CONAES Report, (Ref. 52) p. 577.

63. CONAES Report, (Ref. 52) pp. 559-560.

64. Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States, EMD-81-106, August 26, 1981.

5-76

65. CONAES Report, (Ref. 52) p. 553.

66. "Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0116

{Supplement 1 to WASH-1248), October 1976.

67. "Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey. of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248), March 1977.

68. "Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, 11 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, WASH-1248, April 1974.

69. "Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facili-ties," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0586, January 1981.

70. Letter from W.L. Kempiners, Illinois Department of Public Health, to J.H. Williams, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 17, 1982.

71. "Draft Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0884, March 1982. *

72. "Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No. 2, 11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0769, Addendum, No. l, March 1982.

6. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 6.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The staff has reass essed the physi cal, socia l, and econo mic impacts that can be attrib uted to operation of Clinton 1. Such impac ts, benef icial or adverse, are summarized in Table 6.1 of this environmental the statement. Inasmuch as the statio n is curre ntly under const ructio n, many of cant expected adverse impacts of the const ructio n phase are evident. The appli is committed *to an ongoing program of resto ratio n and redress of the statio n site, which wi11 be completed after the termination of the const ructio n perio d.

. However:

The staff foresees no impacts of a magnitude requi ring mitig ation

a. Before engaging in addit ional const ructio n or opera tional activ ities that may resul t in a signi fican t adverse enviro nmen tal impac~ that was not evaluated or that is signi fican tly great*er than that evaluated in this statement, the appli cant shall provide writt en notif icatio n of such activ ities to the Director of the Office of Nucle ar React or Regulation offic e befor e proce eding and shall recei ve writt en approval from that with such activ ities .

b. The appli cant shall carry out the environmenas tal monitoring programs as discussed in Section 5 of this statement and modified and approved by the staff and implemented in the environmental prote ction plan that will be incorporated in the operating licen se for Clinton 1

c. If adverse environmental effec ts or evidence oflife irrev ersib le environ-mental damage are detected during the operating of the statio n, the.

m and a appli cant shall provide the staff with an analy sis of the proble proposed course of actio n to allev iate it.

6.2* !~REVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES There has been no change in the staff 's assessmenof t of this impact since the earli er review exc~pt that continuing escal ation costs has increased the the statio n.

dolla r values of the mate rials used for const ructin g and fuelin g

6. 3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN *LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- TERM PRODU CTIVIT Y There have-been no signf icant changes in the staff 's preco nstru ction evalua-tion of the re 1at i onsh_i p between envi ronmenta 1 effec ts of short-term uses term produ ctivit y (FES-CP, (cons tructi on and opera tion of the statio n) and long-of resou rces for a nuclear Sec. 10.2) . The conclusion that the dedication with the balan cing of generating statio n at the Clinton site is consi stent nment is still valid .

short - and long-term objec tives for use of the enviro 6-1

6-2 Table 6.1. Benefit-Cost Sunrnary for Clinton 1 Magnitude Staff Assessment Benefit or Cost (Reference) or Referenc~t 1 of Benefit or Costt 2 BENEFITS Direct Electrical energy {Sec. 6.4.1) 5 billion kWh/yr Large Additional IP capacity (Sec. 6.4.1) 933 t,Me Large Reduced generating costs (Sec. 6.4.1) Over $90 million/yr Large Indirect Local property taxes (Sec. 5.8)' $7.3 millfon/yrt3 Large Employment (Sec. 5.8) 300 employees Moderate Payroll (Sec. 5.8) 11.5 million/yrt* Moderate Local purchases by utility (Sec. 5.8) $100.000/yrfS Small COSTS Economic Fuel {Sec. 6.4.2) 12.5 mill/kWh (1985) Small Operation and maintenance (Sec. 6.4.2) 1.6 mill/kWh (1985) Small Deconvnissfoning $58 million (1984) Small Environmental and Socioeconomic Resources committed:

Land (Sec. 4.2.2) 2649 ha Large Water (Sec. 5.3.l) 9.15 X 10 7 ar3 Large Uranium - U308 (NUREG-0480) About 5000 t Small Other materials and supplies (FES-CP, Sec.10.3) Small

~quatic Resources:

Consumption Surface Water 17.9 X 10 6 m3/yr Large Groundwater None None Contamination Surface Water (Sec. 5.3.2) Small Groundwater (Sec. 5.3.2) Small Ecological Impingement and Entrainment (Sec. 5.5.2) Small Thermal effects (Sec. 5.5.2) Small Chemical discharges (Sec. 5.5.2) Small Terrestrial Resources Fog and ice (Sec. 5.5.1) Small

6-3 Table 6.1. (Continued)

Magnitude Staff Assessment Benefit or Cost (Reference) or Referencet 1 of Benefit or Costt2 COSTS (Continued)

Environmental and Socioeconomic (Continued)

Adverse socioeconomic effects due to:

Loss of historic or prehisto ric resources (Sec. 5.7) Small Visual intrusion (Sec. 4.2.l) Small Increased traffic (Sec. 5.8) Small Increased demands on public facilitie s and services (Sec. 5.8) Small Increased demands on private facilitie s and services (Sec. 5.8) Small Adverse nonradiological health effects due to:

Air-qual ity changes (Sec. 5.4) Small Water-qu ality changes (Sec. 5.3.2) Small Adverse radiologi cal health effects due to:

Reactor operation on:

General population (Sec. 5.9.3) Small Workers onsite (Sec. 5.9.3) Small Balance of fuel cycle (Sec~ 5.10) Small Accident risks (Sec. 5.9.4) Small t1 - Where a particula r unit of measure for a benefit/c ost*categ ory has not been specified in the EIS, or where an estimate of the magnitude of*the benefit/c ost under considera tion has not been made, the reader is directed to the appropria te EIS section or other source for further information.

t2 Subjectiv e measure of costs and benefits are assigned by reviewers, where quantificnature, ation is not possible: "Small - impacts that, in the reviewers

judgment s, are of such minor based on currently available informati on, that they do not warrant detailed investiga tions or con~ider ations of mitigativ e actions; "Moderate" - impacts that, in the reviewers ' judgments, are likely to be clearly evident (mitigati on alternati ves are usually considere d for moderate impats); 11 Large 11 - impacts that, in the reviewers' judgments, represent either more a severe penalty or a major benefit. Acceptance requires that large negative impacts should be than offset by other overridin g project consider ations.

t3 - Estimated value for 1985.

t4 - Estimated value for 1985 and stated in 1985 dollars.

t5 - Estimated value for 1985 and stated in 1980 dollars.

6-4 6.4 BENEFIT-COST

SUMMARY

The benefits and costs of operating Clinton 1 are summarized in Table 6.1, which provides the staff's assessments of degrees of benefit or cost, as well as magnitudes of impact where they are quantifiable. References that contain further information are indicated.

6.4.1 Benefits The primary benefit to be derived from operation of the 933-MWe Clinton 1 is the annual production of about 5 billion kWh of baseload electrical energy over the lifetime of the plant. Based upon a review of production costs of

units already in service, as provided by the applicant, the staff considers that there will be average annual a savings from 1985 onward of more than

$90 million in production costs per year.

Secondary benefits arising from operation of Clinton 1 include wages paid to 300 operating personnel (projected to be 11.5 million per year in 1985) and taxes paid to local political subdivisions (Sec. 5.8). The applicant projects local tax payments of $7.3 million in 1985 (Sec. 5.8). The applicant estimates that local purchases by the station will be about $100,000 in 1985 (Sec. 5.8).

6.4.2 Costs 6.4.2.1 Economic The economic costs associated with station operation include fuel costs and operation and maintenance costs, which for 1984, the first full year Clinton 1 is expected to operate commercially, are 11.5 mill/kWh and 1.5 mill/kWh in 1984 dollars, respectively.

6.4.2.2 Environmental and Socioeconomic Changes in station design, operating procedures, and environmental data that were taken into consideration in this operating-license review have not led to significant increases in the environmental or socioeconomic costs over the corresponding costs that were.estimated during the construction-permit review.

Most of the costs are significantly less than those estimated in the FES-CP because. the latter were for two operating units, while those summarized here are *for one unit. The costs considered include those attributable to the uranium fuel cycle and to plant accidents. All costs are small or negligible.

6.4.3 Conclusions As a result of the analysis and review of potential environmental, technical, economic, and social impacts, the staff has prepared an updated forecast of the effects of operation of Clinton 1. No new information has been obtained that alters the overall balancing of the benefits versus the environmental costs of plant operation. Consequently, the staff has determined that. the station will most likely operate with only minimal environmental impact. The staff finds that the primary benefits of minimizing system production costs and increasing baseload generating capacity by 933 MWe greatly outweigh the environmental, social, and economic costs.

7. LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS The following personnel of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.tion Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, particip ated in the prepara of this final environmental statement:

Contributor Title Section/Topic J. H. Wi 11 i ams Project Manager, Licensing Project Standardization and Manager Special Projects Branch John C. Lehr Senior Environmental Environmental Engineer, Environmental Review Coordinator Engineering Branch William L. Axelson Emergency Preparedness Accident Section Licensing Branch Steven P. Baker Nuclear Engineer (co-op),

Accident Section Accident Evaluation Branch Charles W. Billups Aquatic Scienti st, Accidents-Liquid Environmental Engineering Pathway Analysis Branch Fisherie s Jacques S~ Boegli Senior.Nuclear Engineer, Radioactive Waste Effluen t Treatment Systems Treatment Branch Louis M. Bykoski Regional Environmental Socioeconomics, Economist, Siting Analysis Historic and Pre-Branch historic Sites, External Appear-ance, Plant Lay-out, Land Use Richard B. Codell Senior Hydraulic Engineer, Accident Section, Hydrologic and Geotechnical Liquid Pathway Engineering Branch Analysis R. L.

Gotchy Senior Radiobiologist, Radiological Radiological Assessment Impacts Branch James J. Hawxhurst Meteorologist, Accident Accident Section, Evaluation Branch Meteorology

Cooperative student program.

7-1

7-2 Contributor Title Section/Topic R. Wayne Houston Chief, Accident Evaluation Accident Section Branch Jay Y. Lee Senior Nuclear Engineer, Radioactive Waste Effluent Treatment Systems Treatment Branch Joseph Levine Meteorologist, Accident Climatology, Evaluation Branch Radiological Impacts David P. Loveless Engineer (co-op}, Accident Section Accident Evaluation Branch J. Mathis Emergency Preparedness Emergency Plans Licensing Branch J. A. Mitchell Nuclear Engineer, Accident Accident Section Evaluation Branch Walter J. Pasciak Radiological Physicist, Radiological Radiological Assessment Impacts Background Branch Exposures Jacques B.J. Read Nuclear Engineer, Accident Section Accident Evaluation Branch Anton~- Sinisgalli Site Analyst, Siting Accident Section Analysis Branch A. L. Toal ston Acting Chief, Utility Accident Section, Finance Branch Economic Analysis Rex G. Wescott Hydrologist, Hydrologic Hydrology, Ground-and Geotechnical water Use, Flood Engineering Branch Plains Mi 11 ard L. Wohl Nuclear Engineer, Acc:i dent Sect ion Accident Evaluation Branch The following personnel of Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, partici-pated in the preparation of this final environmental statement:

Contributor Title Section/Topic Richard M. Ecker Research Engineer Hydrology Ron Shalla Research.Engineer Groundwater Richard L. Skaggs Group Leader Hydrology

7-3 Impact Studies of The following personnel of the Division of Environmental the Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, partic ipated in prepar ation of this final environmental statem ent:.

Contri butor Title Section/Topic James H. Opelka Mathematician Projec t Leader Lee S. Busch Chemical Engineer Need for Power, Benefit-Cost Analysis, Alterna-tives James E. Carson Meteorologist Air Qualit y, Cool-ing Lake Effect s Rosemarie L. Devine Scien tific Associate Terre strial Ecology John D. DePue .Technical Editor Editor (ANL input)

Vanessa A. Harris Environmental Scien tist Nonradioactive Waste Systems, Water Quality Darwin D. Ness Ecolo gist Terre strial Ecology Howard N. Ross Biolo gist (urp)* Aquatic ecology,

editor (ANL inpu~)

William B. Sutton Physi cist (u~p)* Cooling System, thermal effect s Steve Y.H. Tsai Civil Engineer Cooling System, Thermal Effect s William S. Vinikour Environmental Scien tist Aquatic Ecology

Undergraduate research program.

8. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT WERE SENT Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Council on Environmental Quality

Department of Agricultu re, Soil Conservation Service Agricultu ral Research Service Department of Agricultu re, Natural Resources & Economic Division Department of Agricultu re, Rural Electrifi cation Administration Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanographic Data Center Department of Energy Department of Health and Human Services Food & Drug Administration Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protectio n Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois DeWitt County Board Illinois Department of Public Health Illinois Institute of Natural Resources Illinois State Clearinghouse Brookhaven National Laboratory Atomic Industria l Forum 8-1

9. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the "Draft Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Clinton Power Station , Unit No. 1" was transmi tted, with a request for comments, to the agencies and organiz ations listed in Section 7.

In addition , the NRC requested comments on the draft environmental statement from interest ed persons by a notice published in the Federal Registe r on January 8, 1982 (47 FR 1063).

In response to this request , comments. were received from:

U.S. Department of Agriculture., Economics and Statisti cs Service (OAESS)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

U.S. Department of the Interio r (DOI)

Department of Transpo rtation, United States Coast Guard (USCG)

Peter S. Penner (PSP)

Dewitt County Regional Planning Commission (DCRPC)

Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH)

I11 i noi s Department of Nuclear Safety _(IONS)

U.S. Department of Agricul ture, Soil Conservation Service (DASCS)

Illinois Environmental Protecti on Agency (IEPA)

Illinois Department of Conservation (!DOC)

Illinois Power Company (IPC)

U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA)

The comment letters are reproduced in Appendix A.

The comments from OAESS, FERC, DOI, and EPA did not r~quire a staff response either. because these agencies or individ uals had no comments or because their comments indicate d agreement with the draft environmental statement *. The remaining comments did require a staff response. The staff's conside ration of these convnents and its disposi tion of the issues involved are reflecte d in part by revised text in the pertine nt section s of this final environmental 9-1

9-2 statement and in part by the following discussion. The comments are refer-enced by use of the abbreviations indicated* above, by the individual comment numbers noted in the margins of the comment letters shown in Appendix A, and by the page numbers in Appendix A on which copies of the comments appear.

Response to Comment of Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard (USCG 2/9/82 A-S)

Information relative to the likely impacts that plant associated roadway traffic may have on the nearby highway system was presented by the staff in the FES-CP. No adverse effects or.necessary mitigative actions to reduce such effects were identified by the staff in its analyses in the FES-CP (see Secs. 4.1.5 and 5.6). It was noted at that time that the applicant was negotiating with the appropriate state and local highway administration officials concerning roadway modifications to accommodate construction and operation-related traffic. In the ER-OL, the applicant indicates that the necessary permits for roadway modifications necessitated by the Clinton Power Station have been obtained from the DeWitt County Superintendent of Highways, the Clintonia, Creek, DeWitt, Nixon, and Harp Townships highway commissioners and the Illinois Department of Transportation, Highways Division (Sec. 12). Also in the ER-OL, it was indicated that

~eavy equipment did not present traffic problems on nearby roadways during Unit 1 construction (Sec. 4.5.3.4) .. No adverse impacts from*use of heavy equipment, truck traffic, or employee traffic to and from the Clinton site have been identified by the applicant, the NRC staff or the agencies and individuals contacted by the staff during the operating license review.

In the DES-OL, Table 5.5, the traffic density for transportation of fuel and waste to and from a light water cooled nuclear power reactor such as Clinton Unit 1 is estimated at less than one truck per day. This traffic density and loading is judged by the staff to be less than that already experienced during the construction phase of the Clinton project. Based on this estimate and assessment, the information supplied in the ER-OL and the FES-CP, and the staff review at the OL stage, the staff has not identified a need to update, in the FES-OL, the information presented in the construction permit stage environmental review.

Respo~ses to Comments of Peter S. Penner (PSP 2/17/82 A-6,7)

1. The savings indicated in Section 6.4.1 of the DES are for the use of coal as a replacement fuel (see also the Summary and Conclusions, item 4a).

This is the most conservative estimate of savings, since the cost of producing energy with coal units is cheaper than with oil or gas units.

The staff does not perform its own analysis of economic dispatch logic but relies upon the applicant to provide production-cost data. For the applicant's system, which is predominantly coal-based, the assumption that replacement power would come from coal is reasonable. The staff considers the figures used by the applicant for coal and nuclear energy generation to be reasonable.

9-3

2. Since Illin ois Power Company is predominpart antly a coal-based utili ty, the change in production-cost savings is notthe rate icul arly sens itive to adju st-ments in the rate of growth. Unless of growth became much large r than proj ecte d, nuclear-gener ated powe r would be replacing coal-m or purchased, generated power, eith er from the appl ican t's own syste rath er than oil- and gas-produced power.

3. The staf f agrees that the lower the capa city facto r is, the less the savings will be. Conversely, the higher the capacity facto r is, the grea ter the savings will be. An indic ation of the sens itivi ty of savings to capacity facto r is avai lable in NUREG-0480.

4. The Convnission has amended 10 CFR entalPart 51, "Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environm Prot ectio n," effe ctive April 26, 1982, to provide that need for power issue s will not be considered in ongoing and future operating licen se proceedin gs for nuclear power plan ts unless a showing of "special circumstancesrequ" is made under 10 CFR Sec-

tion 2.758 or the Commission otherwise so ns, need ires (47 FR 12940, March 26, power issues need 1982). Pursuant to the amended regu latio icants in for envir onmental repo rts not be addressed by operating licen se appl ental impa ct state ments prepared to the NRC, nor by the staf f in environm icati ons. See 10 CFR Sec-in connection with operating licen se appl tions 51.21, 51.23(e), and Sl.5 3(c) .

C~mmission Responses to Comments of Dewitt County Regional Planning (DCRPC 2/17/82 A-8,9) er comment.

1. The comment has been noted. The staf f has no furth

2. As noted in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.9.3 .4.2, monitoring of groundwater and surface water will continue during stati on operation.

the more recent 1980

3. The text on p. 4-22 has been changed to refle ct census data.

the basis of the year

4. The text on p. 4-22 has been revised to clar ify 2020 population proj ectio n.

5 *. The staf f does not agree with the Plann ing Conunission's claim that the ton Power Stati on fog and ice problem created by oper ation .of thein Clin Section 5.4.1 . The will be much more severe than that discu ssed staf f's conclusion is supported by recent stud ies at operating power plan ts in Illin ois (Refs. 8 through 17 of Sec.- 5). As indicated in Section 5.4.1 and in the Illin ois PowertheCompany conment 32 to the DES, the applicant has made a commitment to seve Illin ois Department of Trans-port ation to monitor the frequency and measures rity of fog and ice over nearby highways and to take mitigative to reduce hazards to highway traf fic if necessary. The staf f cons iders this commitment adequate, but furth er reconwends that local (cou nty) highw ay safe ty offi cial s be part of this program.

6 See response to DCRPC comment 5.

9-4

7. The information present ed in Chapter 4 with respect to the recreat ional aspects of Lake Clinton was provided as an update of information to the background descrip tion. As it was pointed out, the license e has leased 4150 ha (10,250 acres) 'to the Illinoi s Department of Conservation to manage as a recreat ion/con servati on area. The impacts associa ted with_

recreat ional use of the lake were treated at the constru ction licensi ng stage of the projec t.

Response to Comment of Illinoi s Department of Public Health (IDPH 2/17/82 A-10,11)

The staff agrees with the Illinoi s Department of Public Health that a stateme nt relevan t to Naegleria infecti on be included, particu larly in view of recent finding s that enceph alitic Naegleria fowleri have become establi shed in other artific ially heated power-plant cooling lakes in Illinoi s (R.L. Tyndall, E. Willae rt, and A.R. Stevens, "Pathogenic Amoebae in Power Pl ant Coo 1i ng Lakes, 11 EPRI EA-1897, June 1981). Appropriate materia l has been added to the text in Sections 4.3.2.1 , 4.3.4.2 ,

and 5.8.2. Furthermore, it is the judgment of the staff that since Lake Clinton is now open to water-c ontact recrea tion, such as water skiing, and is being prepared for swimming (Sec. 4.2.3), monitoring for thermo-phillic amoebic pathogens such as Naegleria should be institu ted in accordance with recommendations of the Illinoi s Department *of Public Health so that approp riate mitiga tion can be designed if such organisms are found (Sec. 4.3.2.1 ).

Responses to Comments of Illinoi s Department of Nuclear Safety (IONS 2/18/82 A-12,13)

1. Since the applica nt does not hold ASME Stamps (NA, NPT) he would be require d to contra ct out any work requiri ng ASME Stamps. We are not aware of commitments or contrac tural agreements for future work beyond constru ction which would require code stamps. Such agreements would probably depend upon the specifi c work and the availa bility of contrac The applica nt does have an ASME Owners Certifi cation Authorization fortors.

Unit 1 (N1425).

2. As discuss ed in Section 5.3.2.2 , the results of thermal analys is estima te that under SO-year drought conditi ons, Unit 1 would have to be operate at about 78% load factor for several days during the summer in order tod meet the thermal standards establi shed by IPCB in its Order PCB 81-82 (May 28, 1981). The Illinoi s EPA will monitor Illinoi s Power Company's adherence to the standar ds. It should be noted that compliance with the board order is dependent on discharge water temperature, not meteorological conditi ons. Thus, no meteorological monitoring instrum entatio n will be require d for compliance with the ICPB order.

3. A formal dose assessment for station workers was performed by the applica nt in Section 12.4 of Clinto n's FSAR. This dose assessment was based on curren t NRC criteri a includi ng 10 CFR Part 20, Regulatory Guide 8.19, 11 0ccupat i ona 1 Radiation Dose Assessment in Light-Water Reactor Power

9-5 Plant s Design Stage Man-Rem Estim ates," experience from curre ntly opera ting BWRs, and the speci fic design of the Clint on Statio n. As part of the dose assessment ihe appli cant ident ified changes in the dose plant design and admi nistra tive procedures that shoul d lower radia tion to workers l occur rence s. Speci fic infor -

during routi ne and antic ipate d opera tiona discu ssed in Sec-mation on dose to workers during SRV opera tions are Appro aches used by the tion 12.4. 1.3.2 and Table 12.4- 6 of the FSAR. a suppr ession pool e

appli cant to maintain worker doses ALARA includ exitin g containment cleanup system and admi nistra tive procedures for following SRV opera tion. These and other design impro vements to maintain occupational exposures ALARA are outlin ed in Secti on 12 of the FSAR. The staff did not consi der any poten tial futur e chang es to 10 CFR Part 20.

4. In computing whole body doses for inclu sion in Table 5.7, the source term in Regulatory Guide 1.3 and the primary coola nt inven tory were used for the large and small break LOCAs, respe ctive ly. The radiothe nucli de relea se rate was estim ated from plant desig n, rathe r than using conse rvativ e assumptions in the Regulatory Guides and NUREG-0800 , and median atmospheric.

dispe rsion condi tions were al so assumed. Whi 1e post-TM!since requirements the assump-affec t the safet y review, they were not considered here, requi reme nts:

tions used in the analyses are not changed as a resul t of the rvation Service Response to Comment of U.S. Department of Agric ulture , Soil Conse (DASCS 2/18/82 A-14)

The text in Secti on 4.2.2 has been revis ed.

Response to Comment of Illin ois Environmental Prote ction Agency (IEPA 2/19/82 A-15)

See response to the IDPH comment.

Responses to Comments of Illin ois Department of Conservation (IDOC 2/19/82 A-16 to A-20)

1. See response to the IDPH comment.

2. The text has been changed in Secti on 4.3.4 .2 to corre ct the mi~leading impli catio n that stock ing will be done on an annua l basis .

3. The occurrence of the river otter was noted in thewas DES on p. 4-21, third full paragraph. Since the presence of the otter detec ted on only a singl e occasion during field surveys, the staff belie ves that the observed otter track s and slide were made by a trans ient indiv idual . This opinion is supported by published information in that no permanent(Natu popul ation of area ra 1 Land river otter is* known to occur in the Lake ClintonAni ma 1 s and Vascular Insti tute, 11 Endangered and Threatened Verte brate Plant s of Illin ois, 11 Illin ois Department of Conserva~ion, 1981)

9-6

4. According to the applicant's ER-OL, stream flow records from 1942 to 1977 at the Rowell gage indicated a mean September flow of 910 L/s (32 cfs) under natural conditions. With the one unit operating at a 70% load factor, calculated natural and forced evaporative losses will be less than the average inflow under normal conditions, and reservoir releases will probably exceed 140 L/s (5 cfs) during most Septembers. The 140-L/s average for September represents two-unit op,eration where natural and evaporative losses are almost equal to inflow during September and the 140-L/s release is required by the State of Illinois as a condition of the permit for construction of the dam. Section 5.3.1.1 has been revised to state that the average September release is expected to be somewhat greater than the 140 L/s which was estimated by the applicant.

5. The staff has reviewed the information related to Salt Creek flows below Lake Clinton dam and has made additions to the text of Section 5. 5.*2. 2 as a result of this information.

6. The staff agrees that hunting pressure will tend to disperse waterfowl during the hunting season. However, the staff also notes that provisions of the !DOC Wildlife Resources Management Plan preclude hunting activities in appreciable areas of the site; other areas are designated as waterfowl refuges, thus alleviating hunting pressure as well as other disturbances.

However unusual or uncommon, the staff considers it possible that adverse conditions such as heavy snowfall could result in a scarcity of food resources for migrating and resident waterfowl, as well as depletion of food resources for other resident birds with re 1at i ve ly similar food habits. Other factors could reinforce such adverse conditions; e.g.,

heavy snowfall could result in concentrating sour*ces of available food, thereby causing overcrowding at feeding sites and increasing the potential for outbreaks of epidemic disease. The foregoing and/or other reinforcing considerations could prompt a decision to disperse waterfowl from the Lake Clinton area. Given such an event, it seems unlikely that management authorities would rely on 11 recreationaJ users with boats 11 to disperse the waterfowl, especially during and following prolonged inclement weather.

7. The text in Section 5.5.1.1 has been altered for clarification.

8. The text in Section 5.5.1.2 has been revised to reflect this IDOC opinion.

9. A statement concerning the loss of fish over the spillway of Lake Clinton has been added to Section 5.5.2.1.

10. The text in Section 5.5.2.1 has been appropriately revised.

11. The staff notes IDOC 1 s suggestion; however, the sentence in question (last sentence on p. 5-12 of the DES) has been deleted based on a comment made by the app 1 i cant.

Responses to Comments of Illinois Power Company (IPC 2/19/82 A-21 to A-31)

1. The sentence in the Abstract describing thermal impacts has been revised.

9-7

2. All references to "Ill-Mo Power Pool" have been deleted from this final environmental statement.

3. Item 4c in the Sununary and Conclusions has been revised.

4a. Item 4f in the Summary and Conclusions has been revised.

4b. The summary has been revised to include the new inform ation contained in the Illino is Power Company comments. (See response to IPC comment 31.)

1 i sts the

5. This section of the environmental impact statement merely identi fied during current signif icant surveillance needs that have been the entire environmental review process for Clinto n Power Statio n. There is no intent in this section to imply that the NRC will requir e, as a part of its operating licens e, that statio n discha rge tempe ratures be monitored and reported, because it is recogn ized that such survei llance has been made a part of the state NPDES permit.

6. See response to PSP co111nent 4.

7. The amount of oil-fi red capacity used is small compar ed to the applic ant's coal-f ired baseload capacity. The assumption that all tes replacement power would be coal generated makes the cost-savings estima conservative.

8. See response to IPC comment 2.

9. The text on p. 4-2 has b.een changed to reflec t the substance of the comment.

10. The suggested additional wording has been made in Section 4.2.3.

n

11. Section 4.2.3 has been revised to include water used by the Lake Clinto recreational areas. *

12. Section 4.2.6. 1 has been revised.

13. Section 4.2.6. 1 has been revised.

14. Section 4.2.6. 1 has been revised.

15. The text of Section 4.2.6. 2 has been revised.

16. Section 4.2.6. 3 has been revised.

17. The last sentence in Section 4.2.7 has been revised.

18. Table 4.4 has been revised.

19. The temperature values given in Section 4.3.3. 1 have been revised.

The data period used by the applicant includes periods with no systematic approach to tornado identi ficati on. As a result of the use of a systematic approach to tornado reporting since the early 1950s, use of the period chosen by the staff, 1953-1971, would provid e a more reason able certai nty

9-8 of including most tornadoes without redundancy or omissions in the report than does the longer period of record used by the applicant. Thus, an average of 21 tornadoes per year in Illinois determined by the staff reflects the likelihood of tornadoes being observed on the average in any year in the state and is believed to characterize conditions statewide.

20. The text of Section 4.3.3.2 has been changed to reflect this correction.

21. The staff has made appropriate text changes in Section 4.3.4.2.

22. The* staff agrees that the use of the word II annua 111 in describing the fish-stocking program is misleading, and has made an appropriate text change in Section 4.3.4.2.

23. Appropriate text changes have been made in Section 4.3.4.2.

24. The text of Section 4.3.7 has been changed to reflect these corrections.

25. The text of Sect ion 4. 3. 6 has been changed to reflect the suggested wording.

26. See response to IPC comment 11.

27. Section 5.3.2.1 has been revised.

28. Table 5.1 has been revised.

29. The staff's assessment of potential groundwater contamination from leaching

~f pollutants in the wastewater treatment pond is given in Section 5.3.2.1.

Because moderate to severe impacts on groundwater quality were considered unlikely from the wastewater treatment ponds, and because existing observa-tion wells for monitoring lake water intrusion would show any contamination from the wastewater treatment ponds, no additional observation wells are required. Continuation of existing monitoring was considered adequate mitigation. Thus, the discussion of groundwater quality and mitigation has been properly placed in the FES. However, should monitoring indicate the need for further mitigation measures, additional observation wells and the installation of a liner beneath the wastewater treatment ponds may be required.

30. The text of Section 5.3.2.2 has been revised.

31. The DES specifically addresses adverse effects during the 100-year flood, whereas the summary of the consultant's report (as provided in the comment) primarily addresses lower floods. The text has been revised, however, to reflect the positive effects of the channel improvements as stated in the comment.

32. See response to DCRPC comment 5.

33. See response to IDOC col'M1ent 6.

34. The applicant's responsibilities in the event of a local waterfowl dis-ease episode are implicit within the scope of provisions identified in

9-9 Secti on 6.1 (item c) of this document. The state d requirements are con-siste nt with oblig ation s of the NRC, a regul atory agency charged with prote cting the environment, which includes prese rving the well- being of ion relat ive to this matte r the waterfowl resource. While IDOC parti cipat parti cipat ion relie ves is welcomed, the staff does not consider that such the NRC. Furth er, the the appli cant of respo nsib ilitie s delegated by of the NRC would entai l staff does not fores ee events whereby *conc erns

" ... addit ional or pote ntial ly conf lictin g requirements ...

11

35. See response to !DOC comment 8.

36. The staff notes that fish stocking in order to offse t some impingement losse s is only a pote ntial , rathe r than an estab lishe d, part of the sport been made in fishe ry management plan. Appropriate text changes have Sect ion 5. 2. 2. 1.

37. The staff acknowledges that the Illin ois EPA stati has juris dicti on over the NPDES permit for the stati on. The sentence entrainme ng that the appli cant will be requi red to observe impingement and nt monitoring pro-ent more to indic ate that visio ns in the NPDES permit was put in the documgeme nt and entrainment there would be assessment to ensure that impin requirement. Jo avoid impacts would be minimal, rathe r than as a staffion (last sentence in futur e misunderstanding, the sentence in questdelet ed from the text of Secti on 5.5.2 .1, p. 5-12 of the DES) has been the FES.

38. Although the staff belie ves that the last sentence on p. 5-12 of the DES is corre ct, the sentence has been -dele ted from the FES based on the appl icant 's suggestion so as to elimi nate poten tial confusion in case the stocked experimental game speci es are not restocked.

39. The staff has considered the suggestion to repla ce the word 11 stocked 11 with the word "nati ve" in the last sentence of Secti on 5.5.2 .3, based on the present" unce rtain ty as to whether the stocking of experimental game speci es will be part of the futur e fishe ry manag ement plan of the lake.

However, the staff has decided to subs titute ther term "thermally toler ant" stocked speci es because this does not preclude the use of eithees.nativ or e to repla ce less thermally toler ant nativ e speci in Section 5.5.2 .3.

40. The staff has made an appro priat e addit ion to the text

41. This comment is a suggested change to parag raph 2, p. 5-29. The paragraph cited is part of a general intro ducti on to the "Radiological Monitoring" porti on of the secti on on Radiologic al Impa cts from Routine Operations and is not intended to be site spec ific. Therefore, appli the paragraph has not been revis ed to make it apply spec ifica lly to the cant.

However, although this paragraph was intended to staff refer ence documents that feel that a discu ss radio logic al monitoring gene rally , the itted todoes estab lishi ng a reade r might infer that the licen see is comm According ly, the FES-OL program that exac tly follows these documents.

has been revis ed to clari fy the language.

9-10

42. The text of the FES-OL has been revised to note that staff review of the applicant's preoperational environmental monitoring plan finds that plan to be acceptable.

43. The text of the FES-OL has been revised to include these points, except that the number of air sampling locations has been changed to 40 at the request of the commenter.

44. The suggested change to Section 5.9.4.1.3.1 has been made.

45. The formation of acids in the atmosphere from sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide acidifies rain and snow (see p. 559, "Energy *in Transition, 1985-2010," National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1979). The ecological effects of acid precipitation are greatest in waters that contain the least dissolved matter. Declining fish populations have been observed in lake areas where waters have shown increased acidity associated with acidified precipitation.

46. The staff agrees that conditions which force operation at reduced power will occur infrequently, and for brief periods of time. Therefore, appropriate changes have been made to the text in Section 6.4.1.

APPENDIX A. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT *ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT CONTENTS Commenter Page U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics and Statistics Service; January 11, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; January 13, 1982 . . . A-3 U.S. Department of the Interior; February 5, 1982 . . . . . A-4 Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard; February 9, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5 Peter S. Penner; February 17, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . A-6 Dewitt County Regional Planning Commission; February 17, 1982. . . . . A-8 Illinois Department of Public Health; February 17, 1982 . . . A-10 Illinois -Department of Nuclear Safety; February 18, 1982 . . A-12 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; February 18, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-14 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; February 19, 1982 . . . . .. A~l5 Illinois _Department of Conservation; February 19, 1982 . . . . A-16 Illinois Power Company; February 19, 1982 . . . . . . . . . A-21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; February 22, 1982. A-32 A-1

A-2 United States Economics . Washington, D.C.

Department of and Statistics 20250 Agriculture Service January 11, 1982

.Mr. James R. Miller, Chief Standardizati on and Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Washington, D.C. *20555

Dear Mr. Miller:

Thank you ~or forward~ng the draft environmental statement relating to the startup and operation of the Clinton Pow~r Station*, Unit 1 (NUREG-0854), which is to be operated by the Illinois Power Compan~ located in DeWitt County, Illinois.

We have reviewed Docket No. 50-461 and have no comments.*

Economics Division

A-3 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSl<nN WASHINGTON 20426 IN REPLY REFER TO:

January 13, 1982 Mr. James R. Miller*

Chief, Standardizatio n & Special Projects ~ranch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingto~, D. c. 20555

Dear Mr. Miller:

I am replying to your request of December 28, 1981, to -the Federal Energy Regulatory Counnission for comments. on the Draft *Environmenta l Impa~t Statement for Operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1. This Draft Supplement has been reviewed by appropr_iate FERC staff components upon whose evaluation this response is based.

This staff concentrates its review of other agencies' environmental impact statements basically on those areas of the electric power, natural gas, and oil pipeline industries for which the Counnissiori has jurisdiction by law, or where staff has special expertise in evaluating environmental impacts involved with the proposed action. The Counnission staff commented previous1y on this project on August 28, 1974. It does not appear that there would be any additional signifciant impacts in these areas of conce*rn nor serious conflicts with this agency's responsibilit ies not previ~usly addressed, should this action be undertaken.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement.

Sincerely, .

~Advisor on Environmental Quality

A-4 United States Departmen*l. of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 2024-0 ER 82/6 fE8 James R. Miller, Chief Standardization and Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Miller:

We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement related to the operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois (NUREG-0854), and find we have no comments.

The opportunity to review this document is appreciated.

Sincerely,

/

A.{/£,l A ~/,c-LJ

./ Bruce Blanchard, Director Environmental Project Review 8202100218 820205 PDR ADDCK 0,000461 D PDR

A-5 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAILING AOORESSG-WS UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

..r U.S. COASi CUARO WASHINGTON, O.C. 20~93

,HON~ 202-426-2262

.....-,,,~l.* . I~ t *'"'j

.. / .,... _

. ,...,........ FEB 9 1982 Mr. James R. Miller Standardization and Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in response to the correspondence received reg:~~:i..;..tm Environmental Stacement related to the proposed operation of Power Station, Unit 1, located in DeWitt County, Illinois.

The concerned operating administrations and staff ot the Department of Transportation have received the material submitted. The Federal Highway Administration bad the following comment to make.

The DEIS identified several adverse effects that the power station's operation may have on the highway system. The major effects are transporting radioactive fuel and waste over the highway system and the effects of fog and ice on highways in the area caused by the cooling lake. The impacts of transporting fuel and vaste over the highway is only discussed relative to the population. There should be some discussion about the effects on the highway system.

The fog and ice caused by the cooling lake has the greatest potential for creating a hazard *co the highways in the area. The power company's commitment to !DOT to set up a program. to monitor the fog and ice on nearby highways is considered satisfactory."

Sincerely, W. E. CALDWELL Rear Admiral, U. s. Coast Guard Chief, Office of Marine Environment and Systems 9202170~61 920209 ang Annr.~ o~nonA~t

A-6 712 W. Clark Street Urbana, IL 61801 February 17, 1982 50-461 OL Docketing and Service Branch Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sirs:

Solely as a concerned private citizen, I have reviewed the Clinton Power Station DEIS-OL Stage, and I am concerned about a number of the assertions made in the "purpose and need" section 2. The economic analysis conducted by the staff concerning the Clinton Station appears to contain a number of highly questionable assumptions which must be further supported by documentation and analysis if they are to be believed. Specifically, with regard to page 2-2:

(a) What economic-dispatch model was used and what was .the complete set of input data and assumptions? These data must be shown to be internally consist-ent as well as accurate and appropriate.

(b) As an example of questionable consistency, the report states that the fuel savings computed "would not be significantly altered if the demand for electricity grows at a lower rate than assumed." This runs counter to economic wisdom and must be analytically demonstrated via a production cost model.

(c) Similarly, since IP is a new reactor operator and may not achieve the

'.S { optimistic capacity factors assumed in the analysis, sensitivity studies should be conducted with respect to this key variable.

In addition, section 2.4 seems greviously deficient in that it fails to address the issue that the single Clinton unit will represent almost 25~ of I?'s system generating capacity. In Illinois Commerce Commission docket 79-0071, CBE witness Edward Kahn,submitted an analysis which found that the addition of a single large unit the size of Clinton adversely affected system reliability. At the very least, the DEIS should consider and discuss this possibility.

8202240140 820217 PDR ADOCK 05000461 D PDR

A-7 Docketing &Service Branch Nuclear Regulatory Corrunission Page Two February 17, 1982 Thank you for the opportunity to corrunent on this DEIS.

ter S. Penner 712 W. Clark Street Urbana, IL 61801 cc Phil Willman Alan Samuelson Charles Bacon

A-8 DEWIT1 COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 923 South Sherman Street R.R. 4 - Box 172 Clinton, Illinois 61727 17 February 82 Director, Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, o. C. 20555 In Re: Draft Environmental Statement Illinois Power Company, et al.,

Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois Docket No. 50-461 To The Director and Comnission:

The Regional Planning Comnission of DeWitt County, Illinois, has reviewed the referenced Statement. Our comnents are as follows:

1. As stated on page 4-23, a priority and the intent of DeWitt County is the preservation of the agri-cultural base of the County. The Commission

-comnends Illinois Power Company, et al., for their

~I desire and action in keeping agricultural land in production. The Conmission further recomnends that this be continued and encouraged on those lands suitable.

The Conmission recorrrnends the continued moni-toring of surface and groundwater resources to ensure the protection of both.

Ja. The Corrrnission feels that paragraph 4.3.7 (Corrrnunity Characteristics ) page 4-22, should be revised to reflect the 1980 census data as supplied to the County, by the Bureau of the Census. The Countys 1980 census population was 18,109; the City of Clinton's 8,014; the City of Farmer City's 2,252; the Village of Weldon 531.

The Countys population increase by 1,134 persons since 1970.

8202230330 820217 PDR ADOCK 05000461 D PDR

A-9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Page 2 of 2 17 February 82 The last sentence on page 4-22 (para. 4.3.7) leaves unclear whether the year 2020 popu-lation projection is for the enti~e County or for that area within 16 km (10 mi) of the site.

The Conmission reconmends that paragraph S.4.1 (Fog and Ice), pages 5-9 and 5-10, be studied in much greater detail. In the Conmission's opinion, the fog and ice problem will be much more severe than is reported. Traffic hazards will be espe-cially severe near the discharge flume, during those days when conditions are condusive. The Comnission recomnends that instead of monitoring the situation for a specific period of months, then ff a problem exists, act at a later date, the mechanisms and structure be in place so that when the cond*i ti ons become hazardou~emedies be undertaken inmedi-ately to correct the hazards.

s. The Conmission reco:nnends that additional study be made on the economic impacts of the completion of Unit No. 1 and the increasing influx of persons seeking recreational pursuits. The Comnission feels that these impacts will be much more than "minimal."

The Comnissfon wishes to thank you for the opportunity to make conments re*latfve to the referenced. The Conmissio~ sincerely hopes that these carrnents will be taken into consideration and that ade-quate responses to these concerns will be forthcoming.

Sincerely yours.~

~-.k.,t:_

' .,..~

J- I , *,-

3-~* .:--,.!. "-*'--

Rita R. Riddle, Chair DEWITT COUNTYr REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION cc: Files EIS-IP3 R-19-75

A-10

( ~ ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEAL TH ~

WIiiiam L Kempiners, Directer 9

535 West Jefferson Street

Springfield, Illinois 62761

Telephone: 217-782-49n Reply to:

February 17, 1982 Mr. J. H. Willia.ms, Licensing Project Manager Standardization and Special Projects Branch O. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reference to the Draft Environmental Statement (related to the operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, Docket No. 50-461).

The Illinois Department of Public Health wishes that a statement be included in the final environmental statement relative to a potential risk of Naegleria infection among persons swimming or skiing in waters of the cooling lake for this power plant.

Naegleria infections are very rare in the United States (the Centers for Disease Control of the U. s. Public Health Service reports approxi-mately 35 cases since 1965) and do not pose a major health risk in Illi-nois. Growth of the pathogenic form of this organism is enhanced when water temperature is increased, and direct water contact, e.g. swimming, skiing, etc., may result in a very small risk of contracting a severe form of meningoencephalitis caused by this amoeba. This risk rate has been estimated at less than 1 in 2.5 million persons by a staff member of the Centers for Disease Control of the U.S. Public Health Service.

Managers of recreational areas where increased water temperatures exist should be knowledgeable of the above information; however, the Illinois Department of Public Health does not consider the danger of Naegleria infection of sufficient magnitude to justify the prohibition of recreational use of such waters.

It should be noted that the above minimum.potential risk of obtain-ing Naegleria infection is not limited to cooling lakes associated with Ceo~

1P; 1/0 8202230337 820217 PDR ADOCK 05000461 D PDR

A-11 Mr. J. H. Williams, Licensing Project Manager Standardization and Special Projects Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 Washington, D. C. 20555 February 17, 1982 nuclear plants but exists for other cooling lakes associated with more conventional power plants (e.g. coal).

I will appreciate your consideration to include the above in.your final environmental statement.

Sincerely,

~~

Director of Public Health cc: Illinois State Clearing House 614 Stratton Building Springfield Dick Lutz Impact Analysis Section Illinois Department of Conservation Springfield, Illinois 62706 Ken Rogers Planning Section, Division of Water Pollution Control

.Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 2200 Churchill Road Springfield, Illinois 62706

A-12 Philip F. Gustafson Director Deputy Director February 18, 1982 Director, Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Draft Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit lll (NUREG-0854)... Operating License Stage. (Docket No. 50-461)

Dear Sir:

After review of the subject document, the following comments and questions are directed to your attention:

A. Permits and Licenses - Section 1.2 This section addresses environmentally related permits, approvals and licenses required from federal and state agencies in connection with the project. For all other nuclear plants in the State of Illinois, ASME registration, stamp requirements, and inspection certification with the* state jurisdictional authority have been addressed in the draft environmental statements. The "constructor" presently maintains the required registration and inspection certification for this applicant. The procurement from the appro-priate state jurisdiction of the necessary ASME Stamps, (NA, NPT) required to conduct maintenance on items officially turned over froc the constructor to the applicant prior to operation of the plant and during the plant lifetime also needs to be addressed. What commit-ments or contractural agreements have been made by the applicant in this area?

.. a: B. Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions - Section 5 m..aca

... era.

NO 00 1. Section 5.3.2 "Quality" discusses the effect of the project NO on the area's water quality, and indicates that under certain mn

-co meteorological conditions, Unit 1 may have to be operated at o=-: reduced power levels to prevent severe thermal pollution to the

... u Salt Creek. What operating Testrictions, technical specification 00 MC requirements, etc, will be placed on the plant, as well as the

~< meteorological monitoring instrumentation, to restrict these oa:

NC ther:ia.l releases?

A-13 Page 2

2. Section 5.9, "Radiological Impacts" discusses the radiological impacts of routine and postulated accident conditions, and the applicants proposals for its AI.ARA programs. The staff indicates that its occupational dose estimates are based on annual average occupational doses for other BWR's to date. The staff also indicates that actual values could be two to three times higher, which are still within the limits of the current 10CFR Part 20.

What considerations or assessments have been made for these evaluations in light of the proposed revisions to 10CFR 20?

Since the containment design has *several different design features compared to other operating BWRs, (e.g. suppression pool indirectly open to refueling floor area) what ALARA approaches will be taken by the applicant during events like relief valve releases and other small break incidents within containment?

Section 5.94, "Environmental Impact of Postulated Accidents",

specifically addresses plant accidents and their impacts. In light of the guidance from NRC Regulatory Guides and ~C NUREGs on Post TMI-2 requirements, which source terms and related assumptions have been used for this plant design in considering Design Basis Accidents and small break loss of coolant accidents?

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Clinton Draft Environmental Statement - Operating License Stage. Your consideration of the above comments is appreciated.

Sincerely,

~ .,.* .

". .,,,,: - .-7..'., /'.,_..-""1"'-I * ** / . - - - - . . . . . . .

Philip F. Gustafson, Director Department of Nuclear Safety PFG:RWD:jt cc: Gary N. Wright Roger Dettenmeier

A-14

,F~~ United States Soil Springer Federal Building

(\~)j; Oe~artmont of Conservation 301 North Randolph Street

~ Agriculture Service Champaign, IL 61820 February 18, 1982 James R. Miller, Chief Standardization and Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Miller:

The draft environmental statement for the Clinton power station, unit 1 (NOREG-0854), has been reviewed by our field office. We suggest that a statement be included in section 4.2.2 that addresses the management of agricultural land to control excessive erosion.

We have no other comments at this time.

Sincerely, 1*.

, , ..1** * . ;"" 1,I

' -1.~.:1* .. "" .1 AUGUST J. DORNBUSCH, JR.

I.h,C*

-- i Acting State Conservationist CC: I Roger Rowe, AISWCD, Marseilles, IL John Rowley, IDOA, Springfield, IL Ron Darden, IDOA, Springfield, IL Don Manecke, Orion, IL Holtsclaw, A4 Phipps-Goetsch, A4 N. Berg, Chief, SCS, Washington, D.C.

E. Pope, Director, MTSC, Lincoln, NE COOd-

$0-

,lo EEVOSS:sbs:6/4 A TIie So~ Conservation Servtee LI la an agency ot tl'le

~ Deoartmenr of Aoncultwe 92022301~2 820219 PDR ADOCK 05000461 ono

A-15

~~*;:.~-\*

iLLINOIS

~-*"$'-'.; ;** * 'i' t~*::L~~- Cl ~ ~~--

I Environmental P*rotection Agen cy 2200 Churchil l Road, Springfi eld, Illinois 62706 217 /782-3397 .

February 19, 1982 Mr. J. H. Williams, Licensing Project Manager Standardization & Special Projects Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Williams:

The purpose of this letter is to conment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement related to the operation of Illinois Power Company's Clinton Power Station Unit No. 1 (Docket No. 50-461).

The Illinois Department of Conservation and the Illinois Department of Public Health have indicated to us that the possible presence of pathogenic amoebae (Nyglaeria fowleri) in Clinton Lake could present a health risk. In view of this potential problem, we request that you consider including a risk evaluation, appropriate mitigation measures and the need for monitoring in your final environmental impact statement.

r5-1;ncer e1fu:- *

.\"C:J-./. . I c-l~~ \. /'\ _._, '.

.... /~"~

Richard J.=.-C~rlson

Director*

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency cc: Illinois Department of Conservation Illinois Department of Public Health Illinois State Clearinghouse RJC:KRR/kj Coo).

s

,..{

820223020 7 920219 PDR ACOCK 05000461 n PDR

A-16 Illinois Department of Conservation life and land together 605 WM. G. STRATTON BUILDING *400 SOUTH SPRING STREET *SPRINGFIELD 62706 CHICAGO OFFICE - ROOM 100. 160 NO. LASALLE 60601 David Kenney. Director* James C. Helfrich. Assistant Director Febtuary 19, 1982 Mr. J. H. Williams Licensing Project Manager Standardization and Special Projects Branch U.S. ?bclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555*

Dear Mr. Williams:

4 The. Department has completed its review of the Dece 1 Draft Enviromnental Statement related to the operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, Docket No. 50-461.

As stated in Section 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, the Department and Illinois Power Company have reached agreement whereby 10,420 acres of the site has been opened to ~lie use for year-rol.llld recreational activities including boating, fishing, htmting, camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hiking and othor water sports. The Department is appreciative of Illinois Power Company's cooperation in providing these recreational facilities and opporttmities to the citizens of Illinois.

As managers of these recreational facilities, we wish to bring to your attention the following information/problems/issues which we have encountered, or have become aware of, since the issuance of the Final EIS-Construction Phase in 1974. Mlile we believe it is important these items are included in the final EIS-Operational Phase because of. their relevance to the area's natural resources and the public's use and enjoyment of these resources, we do not believe they should deter from the anticipated issuance of an operating license to tlie Illinois Power Company for .the start-up and

.operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1. We are also confident that cont:imleci qiscuss.ions between Illinois Power and the Department will lead to nutually satisfactory resolution of the problems/issues disCJSsed here.

'lhese items are as follows:

.According to the Forward (p. XV) of the draft EIS, the purpose of the document is to report relevant new information that has become available subsequent to the issuance of the Final Environmental Stateioont-Construction Phase and to identify

CtP,t:

unresolved environmental issues or surveillance needs which are "(:°oe<t to be resolved. The Forward further states that no unresolved ~

issues have been identified in this DEIS for the case of Clinton Power Station. The only surveillance needs identified were the monitoring of fog and ice and the temperature at the discharge

,It point and at Salt Creek downstream of Lake Clinton.

8202230639 820219 PDR ADOCK 05000461 D PDR

A-17 Mr. J. H. Williar.is 2 February 19, 1982 The probable oc01rrence of pathogeni c amoebae (Nyglaeria fowleri) in the thermal discharge from the Clinton Power Station is a potential ly serious issue which we believe should be addressed in the final EIS and an issue which may require mcnitorin g after plant operation begins in early 1983.

Two studies (Tyndall et. al. 1981 - EPRil; 'I)"lldall et al. 1981 -

NRC2) which tested for the presence of pathogeni c amoebae between cooling waters of northern and southern electric l'ower olants and control lakes in those areas both reported a statistic aily significa nt associati on between the presence of the thermoph illic pathogenic amoebae and artificia lly heated water in northern states. We are partiatla rly concerned because of four cooling lakes examined in Illinois during the course of those studies, three tested positive for the presence of pathogeni c aIOOebae.

The recreatio nal plan for Clinton lake was developed in conjunc-tion with the Deparonent and includes plans for a public swimning beach and bathhouse in the area of thennal influence ,

and allows water skiing throughou t the thermal discharge zone.

Sumner temperatures in the discharge zone and at the beach are predicted to be within the range of 30-40°c, the range at lfflich other northern cooling lakes (including three from Illinois) were found positive for the pathogen. Clinton Lake was opened to swimning and water skiing activitie s in 1979, so a historica l pattern of use and economic development of the area has already been establish ed.

Since the pathogeni c amoebae is usually contracte d by inhalfag water through the nasal passages, participa tion in these activitie s may present potential health risks to individua ls using Clinton Lake for these and other water-con tact recreatio nal pmposes after plant start-up and thennal input begins in early 1983.

To guide us in our resolutio n of these concerns, we are solicitin g expert opinions from knowledgeable persons and agencies both in and outside of Illinois regarding potential public health risks, if any, to individua ls using Clinton and other Illinois cooling lakes for various types of public recreatio n. We have held discussio ns Lr,ndai.1, R. L., E. Willaert, and A. R. Stevens, 1981 -

Pathogenic amoebae in power plant cooling lakes. Fir.al Report to Electric Power Research Institute . EA-1847. Research Project'l 314-l.

i)'nda.11, R. L., E. Willaert, and A. R. Stevens, 1981 Presence of pathogenic aJ:Debae in power plant cooling waters.

Final Report for the period October 15, 1977, to September 30, 1979.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Pub. No. *1623 prepared for U.S. Xuclear Regulatory Conmission.

A-18 Mr. J. H. Willia.'ilS 3 FebruaI}" 19; 1982 with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the Illinois Department of Public Health. Based on these discussions to date, it is our understanding that direct water contact, e.g., swirraning, skiing, etc. may result in a veI}" small risk of contractin~ a severe fonn of meningoencephalitis caused by

l the amoebae Naegleria. Growth of the pathogenic fonn of this organism is enhanced by.wann temperatures, such as may occur after the plant becomes operational, and direct water contact under such conditions may result in a risk of acquiring this infection at a rate which a staff member of the Centers for Disease Control of the Public Health.Service has estimated at less than 1 in 2. 5 milliQn persons.

We will continue to monitor new information as it becomes available and we are available for further consultations conce111ing this issue.

In Section 4.3.4.2, p. 4-20 an annual stocking program is implied with regard to walleye, hybrid striped bass and tiger

nDJSky. These supplemental stockings will not necessarily be annual, but will be goveI11ed by management needs and fish availability.

It should be noted in Section 4.3.5, p. 4-21 that a river otter track and slide was discovered in February of 1977. The river otter is an Illinois threatened mammal *

In Section 5.3.1.1, p. 5-2 it is stated, "During an average year the September flow in Salt Creek downstream of Lake Clinton will consist only of the mininrum reservoir release of 142 L/s (5 cfs)."

True, the low flow of record was an estimated .6 cfs at the dam

(.7 at the Rowell gage x .886)1 and the 7-10 flow is an estimated 2.4 cfs at the dam site. 'Ibese flows,*by definition, do not even approach an annual frequency and do not represent September flows.

The average monthly flow for September, 1970-7i, was 9S cfs at Rowell, an estimated 86.8 cfs at the dam site. The minimum release stated in tr.~ DEIS in effect is 5.8% of the naturallv occurring flow. The 5 cfs release approximates the lowest one day flow occurring in the ;gght *Septembers, 1970. a flow of 5 .1 cfs on September 7, 19 - a flow occurring once out of 240 September days.

Since filling of the lake was completed in May, 1978, flow releases have frequently and for extended periods been 16.S cfs or less - 50% of water year 1980, 30% of water year 1979, and 34% of water year 1978 after May, or 39% of the time. Prior to dam construction, a flow of .16.8 cfs or less was experienced only 23.5% of the time. It is reasonable to asstnne that this 66%

increase in duration of lower flows has already impacted Salt 1Illinois Power's Imlltiplier to convert Rowell gage readings to dam site readings.

A-19

~Ir. J. H. Williams 4 February 19, 1982 Creek below the dam. However, flows of 5 cfs have not yet been experienced since lake filling, although 8-11 cfs releases have been common (24.3% of the time) with up to 21 days duration .

During September, 1978-80, 51% of the flow releases were in the 8.9 - 10.6 range, with up to 14 days duration , and releases were less than 8.0 cfs only 3% of the days.

At this time we lack tl'l_e instream flow studies needed to recOimnend scheduled flow releases ; however, we believe they should approximate 19 cfs to minimize fishery impacts downstream. 1b.e Department intends to work with Illinois Power to clarify and resolve the

.reservo ir release question s *

1he Department takes exception to the concept of the need for

" *** forced dispersa l of waterfowl from the area by repeated "

disturba nce using aircraft , boats, and other scare tactics ****

as a result of inadequate food sources (p. 5-11, Sec. 5.5.1.1) .

We are of the opinion that no such action is warranted inasmuch as traditio nal migratio n patterns will dictate that in periods of food supply shortage $, waterfowl will continue on their southerl y migratio n.

We recommend clarific ation of line 12, paragraph 2, p. 5-11, "7 { Section S. 5.1.1. Does "development of disease pa tho gens" refer to wildlife diseases or human diseases ?

In Section 5.5.1.2, p. 5-11 a discussi on of periodic clearing of vegetati on along transmis sion lines and rights-o f-way is presente d. It should be noted.th at in this Department's opinion hand trimming, cutting and use of herbicid es are all viable eness methods of accomplishing this task. We recognize the effectivutili:e of certain herbicid es for brush control and where applicab le them to create early successi onal habitats conducive to upland birds and mammals and see no reason tQ prohibi t their use (FES-CP4.5.2., Item Sb) *

Section 5.5.2, p. 5-11 di~cusses potentia l impa~ts on* the aquatic ecosystem. We note there is no discussi on ccnceniing *the loss of predator y fish (particu larly walleye, hybrid-s triped bass,.an d tiger musky) over the spillway during the periods of high water. 1b.ese

~pecies do not reproduce naturall y in the lake and must be restocke d each year at consider able expense. During 1981 the Depclrtrnent estimate d that more than a thousand hybrid-s triped bass in the 5 to 6 pounds range escaped over the Clinton Lake Spillway . 1b.e loss of these supplementally stocked predator y species can be prevented by spillway screenin g. Spillway screens would insure that these large predator s stay in the lake where they are a major asset and prevent them from entering the stream where they may have an adverse impact on other stream fishes. We are aware spillway screens may pose other management problems; therefor e, full discussi ons between Illinois Power and our Department are anticipa ted before a strategy for problem resoluti on is derived~

A-20 Mr. J. H. Williams 5 Febn.iary 19, 1982

-, {

We recommend deletion of "sport" in line 3, p. 5-12. The 10 sentence would then read, "as part of the fishery management ..." .

In Section 5.5.2.3, 2nd paragraph, p. 5-12 the tenn "stocked ts 11

-l

game species" is used. We would reconmend that this be cha.nged to "stocked experimental species".

The Department appreciates the opporttmity to conment and we*look fon(ard to receiving copies of the final EIS.

~cerely, DK:RWL:ss d2~e~

cc: Illinois State Clearinghouse Illinois Power Co. - Gene Robinson Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Illinois Department of Public Health

A-21 U-0418 Jll/NO /S POWER COMP ANY L32-82 (02-19) -L 500 SOUTH 27TH STREET, DECATUR. ILLINOIS 625:?5 Februa ry 19, 1982 Mr. James R. Miller , Chief Standa rdizati on & Specia l Projec ts Branch Divisio n of Licens ing Office of Nuclea r Reacto r Regula tion U. S. Nuclea r Regula tory Conunis sion Washin gton, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Miller :

Referen ce: Letter 12/28/8 1, J. R. Miller , NRC to L. J. Koch, IP, Subjec t: Issuanc e of Draft Environ ment Statem ent for the Clinton Power Station , Unit l-NUREG-0854.

This is in reply to the referen ced letter. Illino is Power Company has comple ted its evalua tion of NUREG-0854, "Draft Power En-vironm ental Statem ent Related to the Operat ion of Clinton con-Station , Unit No. l." Attache d are our connnents for your Enviro n-sidera tion relativ e to your issuanc e* of the Clinton Final mental Statem ent.

Please do not hesita te to contac t us if you have any questio ns conc~rn ing our commen ts.

Sincer ely,

-~*

/G.fE.rWuller ~

Superv isor - Licens ing Nuclea r Station Engine ering GEW:mr cc: Mr. J. H. William s, NRC Clinton Projec t Manage r

... n RR? ' NRC Environ mental Engine ering Branch Mr. H. H. Liverm ore, NRC Reside nt Inspec tor

A-22 ATTACHMENT February 19, 1982 Illinois Power Company Comments On Draft Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Clinton Power Station Unit No. 1 (NUREG-0854)

This attachment includes all the comments made by Illinois Power Company on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Draft Environmental Statement, related to the operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 (Docket No. 50-461-NUREG-0854, December 1981). The comments are prefixed by the page number, sec-tion number and paragraph, as applicable, of the Draft Environmental Statement to which they refer.

1. Page iii, Lines 17 - 20 This sentence states, "under certain meteorological conditions, the plant will have to be operated at reduced power levels *** "

To present an accurate and fair abstract, "certain meteorological conditions" should be further qualified. The applicant provided information (CPS-ER-OLS) that indicated these conditions can be considered the one in SO-year drought.

The applicant also provided information that the thermal standards are based on thermal modeling results based on conservative assumptions. There-fore, we propose the subject sentence to read: "Under certain meteorological conditions (1 in 50-vear drought), the plant may have to be operated at re-duced power levels based on the results of thermal modeling."

2. Page vi, Item 4a The reference should be changed from Illinois-Missouri Power Pool to Ill-Mo Pool.

3. Page vi, 4c "All the water for operating the plant will come from Salt Creek."

This statement is incorrect and should be modified to read, "All the water for operating the plant will come from Lake Clinton."

4. (A.) Page vi, 4f We propose the sentence read, "Under certain meteorological conditions (1 in SO**year droueht), the plant mav have to be operated at reduced power levels based on the results ofthermal modeling."

(B.) Page vi, Item 4h See IP comment #31 (page 6) regarding conclusions from drainage study.

5. Page xv, 3rd paragraph, Line 11

" *** two surveillance needs *** , temperatures at the discharge point and at Salt Creek downstream of Lake Clinton.

It is our current understanding that the NRC does not institute OL A-23 conditi ons that are to be monitor ed or tracked by another federal the or state agency. In this instanc e, dischar ge tempera tures to conside red when the Illinoi s lake and Salt Creek are careful ly Environ mental Protect ion Agency issues an NPDES permit for this facilit y. Therefo re, NRC should delete these surveil lance needs -

in order to avoid potent ial conflic ts with other agencie s' require con-ments and to avoid regulat ing an area which is the princip al cern of another agency.

6. Page 2-1, 2nd paragra ph Unit It is stated that the 1980 initial in-serv ice date for Clinton for 1 was based on an expecte d annual average rate of peak load growth After reviewi ng past peak load forecas ts, we were 1975-19 85 of 10%.

forecas t.

unable to confirm that a growth rate as high as 10% was ever

7. Page 2-2, 1st paragra ph re-In the NRC's produc tion cost analysi s it was assumed that all placeme nt energy would be produce d by coal-fi red units in the event that Clinton Unit 1 was not in operati on. Our produc tion be cost analysi s shows that some of the replace ment energy would produce d by oil-fir ed units.

8. Page 2-4, Section 2.4, 4th paragra ph to Ill-The referen ce to Illinois -Misso uri Power Pool should be changed Mo Pool.

9. Page 4-2, 2nd and 3rd paragra phs 2

A. In paragra ph 2: * "Unit 2 reactor buildin g" should read "Unit contain ment buildin g."

B. In paragra ph 3 it is stated that "The heater bav has been located 3.1-1) along the northw estern side of the turbine buildin g (ER-OL, p.

rather than the northea stern side."

The heater bay was never located or intende d to be on the north-east side of the turbine buildin g. There was a typogre phical error in the CPS-ER (Constr uction Permit Stage).

e, add:

10. Page 4-4, Section 4.2.3 Water Use, 2nd paragra ph, first sentenc ies."

" *** waterfo wl hunting and other Yater-b ased recreat ional activit

11. Page 4-5, first three lines water To provide a more accurat e stateme nt*, use the followi ng: "Ground use by the project will be limited to the *c1inton Power Station of Visitor s Center and recreat ional areas during operati on. Use no groundw ater at these locatio ns will be minima l and should have effect on local or regiona l hydrolo gy."

A-24

12. Page 4-6, Section 4.2.6.1 Chemicals HakeUP and Potable Vater Treatment Plant makeup and potable water will be taken from Lake Clinton and then treated by precblorination, clarification and solids removal --

using alum or sodium aluminate and a coagulant aid, li~ softening. and sand filtration. Plant makeup water will undergo further treatment using carbon filtration and demineralization (ER-OL, Secs. 3.3.4.1 and 3.6.2).

13. Page 4-6, Section 4.2.6.1, 2nd.paragraph This paragraph should be rewritten to more accurately describe this treatment facility. Our suggested rewrite follows:

"Wastes generated during backwash cleaning of the sand and carbon filters, removal of sludge from the clarification basins, lime softener blowdown, and demineralizer regeneration and condenser cleaning will be routed to t:vo wastewater treatment ponds, located southwest of the plant near the edge of Lake Clinton, with a total capacity of about 1.9 x 10 4 m3 (5.0 x 106 gal). The supernatant effluent from the wastewate~ treatment ponds will be neutralized by addition of acid, caustic, or lime and then sand filtered before discharge to Lake Clinton. If the quality of wastewater does not meet NPDES effluent limitations (Appendix B) provisions have been made for routing the sand filter effluent back to the wastewater treatment ponds. The sludge collected in the wastewater treatment ponds will be dredged as necessary and transported offsite to a licensed landfill (ER-OL, Sec. 3.6.4). Although the wastewater treatment ponds will not be lined, infiltration of seepage from the ponds into the aquifers in the vicinity of the station will be impeded by the low permeability (less than 10-5 cm/s) of the rock and soils in the site area (ER-OL, Sec. 2.4.J.4)."

14. Page 4-7, Scale Control, 2nd paragraph, line 5

" *** the sedimentation ponds *** " are more accurately described as "a single wastewater treatment pond."

15. Page 4-8, Section 4.2.6.2, 2nd paragraph In the last sentence 1955 is stated as having tbe '9hottest summer" in 23 yeLrs of record. The 1955 meteorological conditions correspond to the 1 in 50-year drought.

16. Page 4-12, 4.2.6.3, Sanitary Vastes Several design capacities have been changed. Thus, this paragraph should be rewritten as follows:

"The sanitary waste treatment scheme given in Section 3.7.1 of the FES-cP remains valid. The only change is the design capacity, which

-~

A-25 3 00 gal/d ay) to 161 m3/d ay has been incre ased from 14~ m lday (37,5 need s of an incre ased labo r (42,5 00 gal/d ay), prim arily to meet the is expe cted to be abou t 350 forc e. The norm al oper ation work force onse to Ques tion 310. 1).

ation (ER.-O L, Resp peop le for one- unit oper r usag e rate of 1.5 x a wate The staf f has deter mine d that base d on 6 . 13), the desig n capa city of 10 m3/s (35 gal/d ay) per perso n (Ref the sani tary syste m is suff icie nt."

ssion Syste ms

17. Page 4-12 , Sect ion 4.2.7 Powe r-Tra nsmi thre e power *tran smis sion line s Change the last sente nce to read : "The th of abou t 92 km (57 mi), and whic h have been adde d have a tota l leng ately 367 ha (906 acre s)."

the asso ciate d corr idor s occu py appr oxim

18. Page 4-16 , Tabl e 4.4 d to the list of nutr ient s.

Nitr ate is moni tored and shou ld be adde

19. Page 4-17 , Sect ion 4.3.3 .1 give n as 6°C( 35°F ) and A. Average minimum temp eratu re in Janu ary is aver age maximum as 32°C (50°F ) in July .

minimum temp eratu re in Thes e shou ld be chan ged to: "Ave rage age maxim um as 32°C (90°F ).

Janu ary is -6°C (21°F ) and aver repo rted in Illin ois B. It is state d that : Torn adoe s, have been 1953 -197 1. Thus an aver age of 21 torna does "404 time s durin g per year can be expe cted state wide ."

data when repo rting It is custo mary to use long er perio d of

n. An aver age of 10 torna do occu rrenc es such weat her phenomeno d of reco rd 1916 -196 9.

per year were repo rted base d on the perio data is: J. W. Wils on and S. A. Chag non, The refer ence for this ois Stat e Wate r Surv ey, 103, Illin Jr. "Illi nois Torn adoe s," Circ ular Urba na, Illin ois, 1971 .

3, line s 7 and 8

20. Page 4-19 , Sect ion 4.3. 3.2, para grap h NAAQS (.12 ppm) for ozon e This sente nce impl ies that the fede ral stat e stand ard (.OB ppm) that is freq uent ly exce eded when it is the sente nce shou ld read : "For ozon e.

has seve ral exce edan ces. The ly exce eded . howe ver, the the hour lv Illin ois stand ard is freq uent fede ral stand ard is neve r exce eded ."

para grap h, line 5

21. Page 4-20 , 4.3.4 .2 Aqua tic Sect ioa, 2nd ified as follo ws:

Refe rence to weedy area s shou ld be mod the shal lov sect ions of the

Weedy area s are scat tered throu ghou t 1981 majo r port ions of thes e lake but begi nnin g in 1980 and durin g no lon2 er exis t. Even with weedv area s have natu rallv reced ed and prov ide pref erred habi tat for redu ced veed v area s, the brush y area s refug es will be avai lable for the seve ral fish spec ies and there .al A-26 maintenance of fish populations during maximum thermal discharge periods (Sec. 5.5.2.3)."

22. Page 4-20, 4.3.4.2 Aquatic Section, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence This sentence should be rewritten as follows: "A stocking program to maintain the recreational fishery in the lake has been established under the management of !DOC subject to the approvdl of the applicant.

The word "annual" has been del~ted as it does not accurately describe the stocking program. Fish will be stocked in response to management plans for each species and in response to the availability of fish.

23. Page 4-20, 4.3.4.2, Aquatic Section, 3rd paragraph, 4th line Insert "_experimental" after "Stocked" and elsewhere to read:

"Stocked experimental game species include the tiger musky (northern pike x muskellunge), walleye and the striped bass x white bass hybrid. Since these hybrid species are infertile and natural reproduction is not expecte~ to maintain the walleye population, the experimental game species mav be restocked depending on the outcome of their introduction to a cooling lake."

It should also be noted that Illinois Power expects, based on other cooling lake situations, to have a self-sustaining population of native species in addition to the "experimental" species. Both of these groups of fishes will provide for a diverse sport fishery in Lake Clir.ton.

24. Page 4-22, Section 4.3.7 Change:

A. "Clinton (1980 population 7953)" to "1980 population 8014" B. "Farmer City (1980 population 2225)" to "1980 populacion 2252" C. "Dewitt County grew by a total of 970 persons from 1970 to 1980 from 16,975 to 17,945 persons" to Dewitt County grew.by a total of 1,133 persons from 1970 to 1980 from 16,975 to 18,108 persons" D. "Weldon (1980 population 543)" to "1980 population 531"

25. Page 4-22, 3rd paragraph, 1st line This sentence needs further clarification since all "sites" are still on the station property. We suggest the following: "Six of the 18 sites described in the 1973 report remain essentially undisturbed on the station property."

26. Page 5-2, 5.3.1.2 Groundwater To provide a correct statement, please modify the first sentence as A-27 on except follows : "Ground water will not be used during station operati at the Visitor s Center and in recreat ional areas."

27. Page 5-3, 3rd paragra ph, 6th line Add "if dischar ged withou t prior treatme nt" after "in the lake."

is If treatme nt is conduct ed or if another condens er cleanin g agent in lines 6, 7, and 8 is not applica ble and used, then the sentenc e in-should be deleted . Regardl ess*, the NPDES limit of 0.1 mg/1 is correct ; it should be 1.0 mg/1.

28. Page 5-4, Table 5.1, Table Title a footnot e Change "settli ng pond" to wastew ater treatme nt ponds or place at bottom of table to read "wastew ater treatme nt ponds."

29. Page 5-5 Groundw ater for lake The applica nt is presen tly conduc ting ground ~ater monito ring Water water intrusi on at 10 locatio ns; 3 on the site and 7 off-sit e.

the various recreat ional areas are also monitor ed during the wells at No monito ring of groundw ater season (about April through November).

at the wastew ater treatme nt pond is being conduc ted.

during If well monito ring for lake water intrusi on is to be continu ed be the operati onal phase, the applica nt reques ts this require ment in the placed in the environ mental protect ion plan (EPP) rather than ring FES. Future develop ments may dictate modific ations to this monito approp riate to place these types of monito ring program . It seems more require ments in the EPP with other environ mental require ments.

30. Page 5-5, 5.3.2.2 Therma l, 1st paragra ph, last sentenc e This stateme nt should be changed to indicat e these are modeled conditi ons and the station may have to be derated in this read

worst sunmier for the period of record ." The sentenc e should staff has subsequ ently determi ned, based on modeled as follows : "The sumrr.er for conditi ons, that under 1955 meteor ologica l conditi ons (worst power the period of record) , Unit 1 may have to be operate d at reduced (78%) for several days during the summer *** "

31. Page 5-9, 1st full paragra ph This paragra ph needs to be updated . A study complet ed by M &

El Alstot, s Power Company , dated July, 1981, March & Guillou , Inc. for Illinoi ions of that address es the upper Salt Creek drainag e concern . The conclus study are:

in the "Princi pal results of the five year gaging program , three years structio n phase and two years in the post-co nstruct ion phase, pre-con are summar ized as follows :

1, Inform ation provide d in Section s "B" and "C" contain ed in this report specifi cally shows that the channe l A-28 improvements and the maintenance of reservoir levels have, for rates of.stream flow which occurred in the five year period, had the following results: *

a. On Salt Creek in the vicinity of the Iron Bridge gaging station, the elevation of flood flows has been reduced from a small amount to as much as 1.2 feet. In no case is there evidence that the Clinton Reservoir has increased flood levels.

b. On Trenkle Slough, the channel improvements completed at no expense to the Trenkle Slough Drainage District, have resulted in a general lowering of water surface elevations, and at high flows the amount of lowering of the water surface exceeds two feet.

c. On Salt Creek, in the vicinity of Farmer City, the elevation of the flood flows has been reduced between 2.5 and 4.0 feet, with the larger number pertaining to the higher flood flows. In no case is there evidence that the Clinton Reservoir has increased flood levels.

2. The work performed under the agreement dated December 2, 1976 between Illinois Power Company and Trenkle Slough Special Drainage District has accomplished its stated objectives in improving the efficiency of the District's drainage system and offsetting any pQssible adverse effects of the Clinton Reservoir thereon."

The information from this study will be included in a forthcoming Supplement No. 3 to the Clinton Environmental Report-Operating License Stage (CPS-ER-OLS) to provide some additional updating information.

32. Page 5-10, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs Illinois Power has already committed to resolve fog problems with

!DOT. Therefore, the NRC should not make requirements that are poten-tially conflicting with what the state may require, especially with re-spect to specific recommendations on mitigative measures.

33. Page 5-11, 1st full paragraph regarding waterfowl dispersion Since the lake will be open to fishing and waterfowl hunting during winter months once CPS becomes operational, we can foresee no reason to use additional "scare tactics" to move waterfowl. The recreational users with boats will disperse the waterfowl.

34. Page 5-11, 2nd half of 1st full paragraph, regarding disease pathogens A state agency (!DOC) has accepted responsibility to manage the recreational facilities at Clinton. This would include waterfowl disease outbreaks if they should happen to occur. The !DOC has A-29 the prepare d a waterfo wl disease conting ency plan for the lake and the NRC should not make additio nal or applica nt strongl y believe s the potent ially conflic ting require ments in this area. Therefo re, require ment should be deleted as a state agency is already *active in this area.

35. Page 5-11, 5.5.1.2 , Transm ission System The FES (CP stage) prohib its brush sprayin g of transm ission lines does on recreat ional lands at Clinton (page 4-13). Section 5.5.1.2 cation unneces sary require ment despite our propose d modifi not change this request ing modific ation to in the ER-OLS and our letter specifi cally the constru ction permit. Comple te referen ces are:

OLS,

1) Page 5.5-1 and 5.5-2, Section 5.5.2 Vegeta tion Control CPS-ER-

2) Letter from L. J. Koch (IPC) to Dr. H. R. Denton (NRC) dated August 31, 1981, U-0286 , L20-81 (08-31) -L.

into It is therefo re reques ted-tha t these changes be incorpo rated so brush sprayin g under transm ission lines this section of the FES on recreat ional lands is allowed .

36. Page 5-12, top paragra ph continu ed from page 5-11, Line 2 ment Sentenc e should be reworde d as follows : "Addit ionally , impinge be partial ly offset by stockin g of forage losses that will occur may pro-and game fish if needed as part of the sport fishery management gram for the lake."

37. Page 5-12, 1st paragra ph regardi ng NPDES permit over the The Illinoi s Environ mental Protect ion Agency has jurisdi ction permit for the station ; therefo re, this stateme nt should be NPDES deleted .

38. Page 5-12, last sentenc e have This sentenc e should be deleted . The experim ental game species been stocked to evaluat e their potent ial to provide an.add itional sport fishery in a cooling lake and to study their tempera ture the fiJhery toleran ces under actual field conditi ons. A reevalu ation of bility management plan after thermal additio n will addres s*the desira of a continu ed stockin g program for these species .

39. Page 5-13, 1st paragra ph, last sentenc e "Stocke d game species " has been used by the staff to mean the this experim entally stocked species through out this stateme nt. In d" must be changed to "native " as the experim entally instanc e, "stocke in the future, dependi ng on stocked game species may not be stocked managem ent plan objecti ves and the success of the the future fishery experim ental species in a cooling lake environ ment.

A-30

40. Page 5-13, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence This sentence should read: "Although more thermally sensitive species may be adversely affected during hot weather, the ecological balance of the lake will not be affected."

41. Page 5-29, 2nd paragrdph The radiological monitoring programs have been designed and im-plemented for CPS Unit 1 with the cognizance of the NRC Regulatory Guide 4.1, Rev. 1, "Program for Monitoring Radioactivity in the En-virons of Nuclear Power Plants" (Ref. 46), and considering the guidance contained in the Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, Rev.

1, November 1979, "An acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program" (Itef. 47).

42. Page 5-29, 5th paragraph Change first sentence to read: "The applicant states that their Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program has been patterned after the Branch Technical Position of the U.S. NRC, '.'An Acceptable Radio-logical Environmental Monitoring Program," dated March, 1978."

43. Page 5-30, Table 5.6 Several minor revisions to the table are in order as listed below.

This changed information will be included- in the forthcoming Supple-ment No. 3 to the Clinton Environmental Report - Operating License Stage.

1) For air sampling method - add: "at 41 locations."

2) For wellwater sample method - change three locations to two.

3) Add: Drinking water - one location - same parameters and sample frequency as wellwatet.

4) For fish - change sample method to: "Electroshocker/Net, one location."

44. Page 5-37, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence This sentence should read: "The secondary containment gas control boundary which includes fuel building and parts of the au.~iliary building, encloses the primary containment, the spent fuel pool, and other auxiliary equipment."

45. Page 5-60, 3rd paragraph, reference to acid rain There exists no scientifically proven evidence which supports the theory that sulfur dioxide emissions cause acid rain. There is no firm evidence that rain has become more acidic over the past 30 years either. Therefore, the staff should not conclude that sulfur dioxide emissions "lead to environmental and ecological damage through A-31 the phenomenon of acid rain."

46. Page 6-4, 6.4.1, 2nd paragra ph Any potent ial limitat ion on power output based on thermal dischar ge criteri a must be qualifi ed as possibl y occurri ng in the 1955 modeled case, which was the worst in SO-year drought example .

A-32 t:NJTED STATES cNVlrlONMENTA!. ~Ol=CTION AGENCY REGION V 230 SOUTH DEAR60rlN ST.

CHICAGO. lllll'.IOIS 60604 REPLY TO ATIENTION OF:

Hr. J. H. Williams Licensing Project Manager Standardization and Special II FEB 1982 Projects Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio S Washington, D.C. 20555

/ E-NRC-F06012-IL (82-005-701)

Dear Mr. Williams:

We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) related to the Operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 in DeWitt County, Illinois. This facility will use a boiling-water reactor to provide an electrical output of 933 megawatts of electricity. Cooling water will be obtained from a lake which was created by the applicant (Illinois Power Company) when they constructed a dam near Salt Creek and the North Fork of Salt Creek.

Based upon our review of this draft EIS, we have no environmental objections related to the operation of this power plant. The applicant has indicated their intent to comply with existing enviromnental regulations related to water, air and radioactive releases. Our Agency previously c011111ented on the draft and final environmental impact statement for the construction license application of this power plant. At the time of our review of construction license appli-cation, we had significant environmental concerns related to the amount of heated effluent discharged to Lake Clinton and Salt Creek, and the potential for*adverse water quality impacts upon Salt Creek below the dam. These concerns were mitigated by the applicant and our environmental objections were resolved.

A Radiological Emergency Response Plan has not been prepared for the Clinton Power Station. The Radiological Emergency Response Plan for the Clinton Station has not been included in the State plan since the plant is still under construction. When this plan is available and a test is scheduled, we will provide comments on the safety and environmental aspects of this plan.

We have rated the draft EIS as L0-1. This indicates that we have no objections to the operation of the power plant and believe the EIS addresses the environ-mental issues adequately. Notice of the availability of our coninents on the project will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our respon-sibility to keep the public infonned of our v1ews on other agencys' projects.

If you have any questions related to our comments, please contact Mr. William Franz, at FTS 886-6687.

Sincerely yours, 2_)~-p_g-~

Barbara Taylor Backley, Chief Environmental Review Branch Planning and Management Division 8203010059 820222 PDR ADOCK 0~461 D PDR

APPENDIX B. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT FOR CLINTON POWER STATION B-1

B-2

.,J..t cu:>>-i-<J Io/;. ~/1 7 6ml UNITED ST ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.

c(itCAGO, ILLIN~IS 6060C CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Larry t.. Idleman Director of Environmental Affairs Illinois Power Company OCT 211977 500 South 27th Street Decatur, Illinois 62525 Re: Request for Modification of NPDES Permit No. lL 0036919 Clinton Power Station

Dear Mr. Idleman:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has examined the request in your letter *of August 23, 1977, for the modification of the above referenced NPDES permit. Our final determination is to modify the permit as follows:

1. Outfall 002 has been deleted.

2. The limitations for outfall 003 hav~ been revised.

Because the revisions made in the pennit are minor in nature, no formal public notice of the modification will be issued.

Enclosed is a copy of the modified permit. This permit is effective 30 days from the date of signature and it supersedes NPD~S Pennit No. IL 0036919 dated September 30, 19751 ~ ~ f F/1f/77.

Very truly yours, i;)<ili.)i /J,.y.-<V--

Da 1e S. Bryson, Acting Director Enforcement Division Enc 1OS r **fl Modified Permit cc*: Mr. T. McSwiggin, Il 1inois Environmental Protection Agency, w/Permit

B-3 Page 1 of 20 Perini t No

1L0036919 Applica tion No. IL0036919 AUTHORIZf\TIOU TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATIOU SYSTEM In compliance Hith the provisio ns of the Federal 11 Water Pollutio n co*ntro1 Act, as amended, (33 u.s.c. 1251 et seq; the Act 11

),

ILLINOIS PmlER COMPANY is authoriz ed by the United States Environr.1ental Protection Agency, Re:gion V, to dischar ge from a facility located at the Clinton Powt1r Station Clinton, Illinois to receiving waters named Salt Creek (Lake Clinton) in accordance with effluen t limitat ions, mo_nitoring requiremcmts and other conditio ns .set forth in Parts, I, II, and I II hereof.

This permit and the authori zation to dischar ge shall .expire at the midnigh t, July 31, 1980

Permitt ee shall not dischar~-~ after above date of expirat ion. In order to rec2ive authori zation to di5charge beyond the dut~ of expirat ion, the pcrmitt ca shall submit such infcmna tion, fon11s, and fees as are required by the Age:ncy authoriz ed to issue NPDES permits no later than 180 days prior to the above date of c.<piration.

This permit, modi ficd in accordtince \*Ii th 40 CFR 125, sha 11 bccor:ie effectiv e 30 days ft'um this date of signatu re c:nd 5upersc,;es NPDES Permit number I L0036919 da tcd September 30, 197 5 Signed this OCT 211977/

~a kJ ~~

-/\-c-t1- ~D1--*r-,ictor, Enforcement of*Ji5ion 9

Page 2 of 20 Permit No. IL0036919 PART I AS MODIFIED

-A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginning on the effective date Qf this pennit. a9 d lasting until the expiration date-the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number\s} 001-Sanitary Waste Discharge Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:

EFFlUEfff CHARACTERISTIC DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS kg/day (lbs/day} Other Units (Specify)

Measurement Sar:ipl e Daily Avg Daily Max Daily Avg Daily Max Frequency ~

Flow-M3/0ay (MGD) Weekly Daily Average

~Flow Est1rnate BOD5 10 mg/1* 45 mg/1 Weekly Grab Suspended Solids 12 mg/J* 45 mg/1 Weekly Grab Fecal Coliform 400 counts/

100 ml Weekly Grab

Or 85% removal, whichever is less.

The pH shall not be less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 and shall be monitored .by \*1eekly grab samples.

lhere shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location(s): At a point representative of the discharge from the treatment plant (8005-samples should be taken prior t~ chlorination.)

Page 3 of 20 Permit No. IL 0036919 PP.RT I A. EFFLUEiIT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING 'REQUIREMENTS D;;ring t.~: period b!~in~i~g on t~e effect~ve date of .. this permit.nur.:ber(

tr.c perr:n1.t<:~ 1s au1.norized to d1scharge .rom cutfalt( s) serial a!'d lasting until the expirati on dat, s) 003-Construction Runoff.,Watei:

Treat~~ nt and Demineral izer Waste!

Such discharg es shall be lifi!ited and monitore d by the perr.1itte e as speciffo d be1c:*::

E:FLU~iff CHAP..!,.C'iE?.ISTIC DISCHARGE Lrn!iAiIONS .

kg/day ( lbs/day J Other units (Specify )

Meas ure:r-~nt S!:::; i e Daily AvQ Dn~ly M~x Dailv Avq Dail v r-iax F1c*.*:-H3/oay (MGD) Weekly* Daily Averas~

F'iow Estimat c:,

I Suspended Solids 15 mg/1 Weekly u, Oi 1 and Grease 15 mg/1 Monthly Grab Tr.e pH !hall not be less than 6.0 ncr grsl~er thar. 9.0

~nd sh~ll be ~onitor~d Th~re shall be no discharg e of floating scli:i~~ or visib1a f~am in oth:!r than trac~ u:::ou:i:ts.

M'- ~-,!Sn

- ....s :.~

-eqi.!-:* 1'c:r.:rnts sp~c1* n-* e~-' ~ bove s::c.1 Sa:7:;> ks w, t;'.!ken in ccm;., 1,* anee

tn* tne *

i::on,*...:.o:--rng .....~,

but prior ttJ r.iixing i\t t!1:? fo11cwir.~ lcc~tfon (s*): At a point represen tative of the discharge with cU.er \*tas tc streum:;.

Page 4 of 20 Permit No. IL~n3~~l~

PART I ~~**.:,* ,4" .1* I..._! r.ff

.A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS D1ri~g the pericd beginning on the effective date of the) modificat ion aQd)lasting until the expfr:~1on date, the p~rmitt~e is authorizad to discharge from outfall(s serial nur.ber\s 003-Preoperational Metal

* . Cleaning Wastes Such discharges s.hall be limited ar.d rr.onitored by the permit~ee as specified belo*,::

EFFLU:!ff CH.f\?..t.CTER!SiIC DISCHARGE LIMITATICNS MGN!TORING REOUIRE~1C:NTS kg/day (lbs/day) Other Units {Specify)

Measurement Sar.:pl e

Daily Avo Daily Max Daily .n.v9* Daily Max Freo1Jency. * ~

F1ow-M3/iJay (M';D) Daily Total Pump estimate .

Su:;pended sol f d:; 15 mg/1 Composite of two CJ Total iron 1.0 mg/1 or more f:lrabs I

Total copper 1.0 mg/1 " II °'

Total Zinc 1.0 mg/1 II II Total Phosphorus (as P) 1.0 mg/1 II II A1Jr.tonia (as Fl) unionized 0.02 mg/1 II II on & Grease - 15 mg/1 II II BOD5 4 mg/1 II II ihe ;:H s~a11 not be less than 6.0 . nor gre~ter th~:-: 9.0 and ~hall be r.:onitore:d by daily grab samples ih~re shall:

be no discharge of-floati ng solids or visible foam in othe~ than trace*amounts.

Sa~pl es t:l!<en fo cc~pl i ance wf th the r.:on*i tori ng r~qui re.=nent~ specified a!;ove sha 11 be tt.kan

.a~ :he: fcll~wing ~ccaticn (s): at a point representative of the discha~g e.but prior to mixing *

,nth other \*taste str~ams.

Durin9 ~~ ~~ Di~c~~ri?

4

B-7 Pa~~c *s of 20 Pcrmi t llo. IL 0036919

,~ t:or,u 1rn C S,CIIEDULC OF CO:*!PLI/\HCE

1. The pcnni ttcc sha 11 nch icvc co::ipl foncc with the cff1 ucnt

)1mftations 5pccificd for disctrnrgcs in accordance with

.the followin~ schedule:

A. The Illinois Power Comp;,iny shall submit i?n acceptable: Lc1k<? ffonagcr::ci;t Plan for approval by the Illinois Environ~ental Protection Agency.and the Illinois 0{?partrr.ent of Conservation by December 31, 1975. This pl~n shall include, but not be limited to:

1) Detnilcd Plans for Control of Nuisance /\l2ae and Aquatic Macrophytes;

2) Detailed Plans for Fisheries Manage~~nt at Lake Clinton.

B. The Illinois Power Co:npdny st.~11 sub;r.it qmrrtcrlj' progrr:!;!: r~;,orts on participatory rcseurch and monitoring programs. (first report is due by April 28 ,* l 97~.)

C. ihe Illinois Power Company shn11 sub:-ait annual su:nmary rcpoi"ts of research ~rnd rr.onitoring as rcq~ircd by Part IV A{3),(4},(5),(6) ~nd Part B(iii}, (v), (vi) of this pcnnit. The first.annu~l sum.11ary report slw.11 be sut.mitted by Junuary 28, 1977.

2. No lilt.er than 14 r.il1cnd~u~*cf:iys following c1 date idc*nt.if1cd in the ubovc !,chr.c!ulc of cr.,~1plfoncc, thr. pen:1it.tce :;hall submit either il report of progrc!is or, 1n the* ci:1sc of

sp~c1fic actfons beinCJ requ1r,~cl by ich~ntifi<.'d di\tc~ a Jti:i_t.J;.rn r.o ti cc of Cl1::1p l i ,,nee! or non comp 1foncc. In t.hc 1,,ltcr c,,sc, the notic:c :ihal 1 inclwlc the c.,u~e of non--

compl iil,~cr., .lny rt'mr.rli.,l ;\cl1cw; t.1l~cn. ,1n<1 the proh~blilily of r11t:ct1na the next schcdulc~d requirement!;.

B-8 6 0 ,: 20 l"rrnll ~- ILOOJ6919 FART I -;,.* -: ,*,. ~'l°i*

l<<*ltnarsr. J~n Jll't'ITl~c 1 of J. ~rrsrntatlY r S**~t

Sanrtr, an~ neasur~nlt ta,rn at *,rqulred herrlD ~hall be reoreseatatlY i1ie waiuaa and aaiure ar lh* **-itorrJ Jisch.arir.

2. lrportl*C

The rernlttrr ,hall rrcnrd aoaltorlnc w.. ,~1,. onnc-:sthh* ~l~charir Jlt,nltnrla1 aeoort r~r*s. aslaa oac SIJC'it fura ft1r r:arh i!hcharir each s:nnth.. 11, .. ,*c,n1,letrd (orn, sh.al 1 hr nuinrd by rernlttee for a period o[ three ennths l>es:lnnhit vith *:1e:I, r.:1lr'I lar *1u:1uer, :inJ t!.r fnr.,, fro., thc>se three riontlls shall hr "died tn 1:!';i.r.\ "" latrr th:a11 tbe :Ath d'IY or tl.c inlJ:,1,;in~ nonth; 1.e. (al J.aauary February.

0 (tubalt Karch (suhr:lt Arrll ZS); (b) ,\rril, J',y 0 Junr C,ul.ntr .h1ly !&): (cJ July, .\ucust 0 SC'ptrnbu October ?ll): Octohrr O ~~Hnher O Dcu.nher (suhril t .t:anuarr :a;.

Tile pcralttec shall retain a copy or :all reports sci>altred. Alt r~rnrts sh.all br suh.,ltted to:

U. S. fnYlrc,nac-at:al rrntcct ic>1, :.s:ency Attenli,.*: C,lt'f O r.ai:i:,11:l:tr~ 1:r.11

.s1* ~*th l'r:ubora ~' rr.. t Chlua:0 0 lllh1ols 6"6*U The peraltter sh:all su~alt these itt1nitorln,: rrrort!' c~r~ r.l'nth to t~e :arrrorri:ate Pi,:rlct Office or otherwise the llllanis tnYirc>n:.cnt;1l rrotect111n ~~~acy br the J~t~ J~~ of the (ollOlo'le~ "onth unless directed bJ the Illinois t.awlron::ent:a l rr11trctio11 ,\:C'nq*.

3. Nnaco:r;,11:ance ~otifiratlnn

1£ 0 !or :anr r~:asoa 0 the J'('r~it*~r J~c~ not coaply with or vlll be unable t-, conrl>* wun ;snr :.l.iil,-* r-~,dmin e££h,ent Hc:ltatian !'t-.*ciClni iat thi~ rf'rnit, the rrrrlttee shall proYidc t\e r.r,ion~l ~d:ini~tr:aro r aad the State vith thr £oJlm.-inc iafor*atioa in vritln1, vithla 0

fiYe (S) J:sr, oi bec":iin!t :n.::are or snrh coi:dlt ion: (:a) :a J,*r-.:rirtil'n or the dischn,:c; (b) cause of nnn~onplbat 'e; ic) the pc-rird of n11ncc,opli:an.:e 0 ia*:luJini: rx:.ct C::at-:s a*d ti:ies: !Jl U aot corrected, to reduce.

Jhe anticip:atrd ti~ the noncocpti:ance js r~rrctrd to rrn:lr.uc, an~ (e) steps* bein& taken eUalnate 11ad rrevent rccurreace ot the nc.acoaplrina: Jisc!iar,e.

,. Peflnlt ions

a. "Daily ATcr:a~~- Dl~ch~r,:e 1, "ei5:,t ita!'h * 'tt:e **.:-Hr :anr::.,c" i!isch:ir:e r:caru :~-: *culrroduction c!lscharic: by '-"c:isht during a cal*

cndar aoath a,~ide~ by the aucber oi days in the aonth ::.a: thethis or co::::rrcial facility vas opera:in1. Lncre lc~s :han ~ail~ S3ap11n~ is requirC'i hr ferait, t~e daily averase dls*

cllAr1e shall be tctr:-:ii~ed hr t~c ~u:-r.ation 0£ the rhe r.easure~ ~ailT Jaschar,es br "el&ht divided by tlu, 1111*'hr.r nf c!avc durin* t!t~ c:11lrn-l11T s:nnth 1.'1en ri::a"urcce11ts ""ere nade.

2. Crnccntratlo n !asis

the ~,t:aily averaie" coaceat:atior . r.eans the a~ith:etlc *~eraie ("el&bted by rrr;v--.;;iluc) a, ~1. the u:aily ~eteniinatio ns or:a co~ce~tratio n aade turini a c11!endar conth.

Dally drte~ln3tio ~ of concentr:tlo ~ ~~~t ustn2 co~~oslte s~plr shatl be the concentratio n of the coa~osi:e s:~ple, inen ,rab s11.,plcs a:c: uscl 0 the ~allf ~c:erain3tlo n 0£ con:entratia n shall the calentar

- the arit?ir.etic avera;e (ve1,hted by £1Dt.' value) o! ~ll tte sa::i?lcs c~t:c:cted t~rl&,

- T* .

b. ..Dally !.faltlatr1" Dhch:ir,:e vcl1ht J. ~h-: Pas ls

i!:c: ..d:aily si:n:1::iUQ" dhcharrc: r::ea!ls th-, s::axlnun tcul dlscl.arae by persut:ro"""'"il"ur!'ni anr calc::u!:ar 1f:1Y.

2. Concen:ntSo n !!:uh

T?ie ' &!:iilr r:axir:::::i" concentr:s:lcm atans tt.c aa:rlaua value 0 In teras of c~nc~~e rn~ttc:J in the disc~ar,e &!urlns ar.y c:aleadar ~oy.

s. Test Procedures* Test procedu~es for the an3lysis 0£ ro11utar.:s shall con[orn to re1ulations p~bllshad pu.su.aat to ~ectlon lOl(Jl of the Act 0 under wblch sucb proceJures nay be rc:~ulred.

,. Recordl~g or Resul:s

For each oeasurecent or s,"rle talen the p~rs~ont to the re1ulreaents of this peralt U\e per:11!tc~ ~~ala rccnrJ the: !o!le~in1 inr~ra.,tio:s: (a) c~ac: J:lace 0 late. and tlac of s111plla1 0 (b) :he da:r* :hr an:alnrs ~cre rrr!onac:J; (c) the rc:rso:s(s) ~!lo pcrfcrnf'd tile analyses. (d) the andytlcal trchni111es er acthods used: anc! (e). the results or all rr11uired analyses.

7. Additional ~~r.i:orlns b~ reralttee

I£ thr ptrnittee aonltors an~ ro!Ju:ant at the location(s) deslcnated Lere1:s norc .rr,1arnt1* ;1;.1n :e,iuncd by t!.b i:ernit, usi:ii: a;,pro\"cd an.Jl!'tlcal nethoJs :as speciChd aboYe, the results of ,uch ror.itnrin1 ~h:all ltf' inchi.led in the calcul3lln:s ..ad rerortin~ cf th~ Yalues requirrd In tJle Dhdurie )1rani :or inl Rcrorr: Fora (trA :;o. 33::i *11. Such incnucd irequl!ncr s~all also be iadlcatecl, I. lrcord" Rrtrntlcn

All rrcnrds anJ lnforr-,tln~ resultlnf frcr:1 the: ftOftltorln, actlvitlcs requlrC'd by thls

~:---a.ii:Ju.: hni: 1111 :'l"Corcl, or :an:11r~c:s ;,rrforacd :i",I c:slihrati9n :iaJ nalf\ten:a:icr of i:1struacnt11t ion

r.d recnr,lin~s fr,-q conti1111nu* ac,:iltori:l~ instn:Dl"nta: lnn sh~l he retalaeJ Cc,: :a alnintm or three (3)

Control A&ency.

r~*rs, or Ja~~er 1£ rl"qu~stcJ by the Res:ion:il ,\.lalni~tr:ato r or the St2te ~:1ter rollution P,UT ll

A. ,1A!CACt~!E.,-Y R[* ?tJ l Rr-'lt~'TS J. Chan,~ In ~isch:arrr

All Jlschar,rs authetri:C'd herein ,h3ll be consl*1ent aore vith the tcras :and conJltlons iil:.. ~rr:--ir .c *!isch.:sr<<e nr ~ltT J'('llatanl IJcl\ta ifleJ in this rrrait frr11urnt1y th3n or n a Jew~l ln r,,~,.,s, CIC t'tlf :mthnri:r,I sb:111 C<'nstllutr Tinla:ia:, nr 1be rcrnil. Anr :anticir:ateJ hdlity r*1*:1_,,,,"~* 111,.,tu,*til'ln in~rr3~r~. or rr~r!I!' a,.,.llUc.:itinn , whlc~ vill rrr.ull la ncv. JiHereat.

er inr:rr:a~r.t di,C'h:trces c>f ft>llut;snt, au~t he r1*1'nr1rJ a.,- ,ut,flh,~ioa a£ a rrrni.1 ncv ,CPl*I S :arrllcallon ar 0 If 0 tar notu*e to tho 111ch 1:h11at,t"s viii uot ,,01:s: .. rhr ,.fClurHt llnir:1r1nn, srec:Cir,I ia thh -JificJ to specUy

l'f"r"lt bcnln~ aurf:..,ritr nC imch .:h11nt~s. l11JJ""ins: ruch 11ntlce 0 the rerait n:ay t,e

a.I ll*lt 3ny rotlutants not prcYlousl)" ll*ltcJ.

8-9

. .,,': 7 ..* 20

~. F*C'llltl,.c ~rnth,n

~., ... r,**'"'r*

1i .. r**rn!tl" .. ,.,11 11t :1!1 ,,.,, ~ :,:,l:,t,ln '" rn11J lo'nrldn, nrder 1nJ orerate

~jj=ji':"'IIT")*:o**:--jj;o:,Jhk ,ill th*tt-**nt "r r:111:tr"I 1:,d:l~it*!' "' !*¥'!olC'"I!' inst111IC'd or USC'1I by the rernlth'" to :11:1t1,,.,,, tn11rl1:111*:f' 1,ifi, 11,r t**r*" ""*' rn1.,!1tu,,,. nf thl'I rt*r .. lt.

J. A,fvrrsl!' 1,!!r:tCt

Tho: rrrl'littt*o: *h:111 ,,J.~ :ii! r<<':,*n-::i~I" **rr* tn .,l:iini:c 11ny aJverllC' h1ract to ii'iv~* ..~rs '"c11ltini: (r,,., n,,-:,*n:irli:lnrr -.;It~ ,~,* rH1*1r:'1l llnit:1li""' !IJ'rcHled in this pen1it, lncha.llni: s111:h :icC'ch r,Ht',: ur ,1.:J1 :1c.n.1! n .. ::1 *uri'lt: *" nr.::c-~!l.1r,* tn rlc-tcrr:,lne the n:iture anJ tnract of tht' no1:c,11,;,l)*i11,: ,li*i:hu~t'.

c. !U:t*slnc.. Any ,hV'!hlnn frc,r, nr b!';'!l'IS oC C.nllltifI n,:c:c!l!l/lf\' Tri fr'lll:-:Uln coll!rlhnce with the trrns"-TnJ conJitu,n, ,,r t!1i'< 1*crnit i , 1*rtil,i':::c.!, r*nr:,: fl\ '-'l:er** 11:,11,*e>i,l:iblC' tn rrevent Joss ol ll(e nr !l~Yrrc rr~rcrty J:i&:1ic, er (ii) wh,.r,: r*rr*,ic~ ~tor~ Jr:iln/liC' rr runoff ..-ould d11m.1Ke any facilltlr, ne,,:~,:iry for "':ii*li:in,*,* "itl. r!:*.* c:l*:r~~ !l-it:iri,,~-; :in.! rro~il*itions oC this rer1111'.

The pr.ri:ilttee shnll rrn~rtlr noti!r tL~ ~r,i~n*: ~J-:~istr:itcr a~d :~- State in "":itin1 oC e~ch such div-:rsion ~, bvr,-.~.

s. Re"nvrd !>11h!lt:im:r.~ * :,ul!,t*~. ,111,:.:r", !l.lt,*: t,:,rl.i:,~~. "' ot!1t-r :,c:111::an:11 rr~ovcd fro111 or rcsultln1 fro:ri trc:11:-:cni'cr-, .. :itrol n! ....,,tr..-,tcr:i ,1.:in .. I: .!~.'i'* :*:\! ,.r i'I" ~,n:ier such as to prevent any pollnOnt fron ~uch :--areri:,h :rr*. ,;;*tr.rlr.; :i:1\'i1,*,*,:r 1.:1:11.*r*.

6, Pow,r Fallurr5. In nr~cr to =*i~t:11n c~rr!l:i~cr v'~~ t~r cr!l~r~t tt~lt:itlons nnd prohibitions ol inrspe~the pt-ri:iittec sh:ill rit::c:*: :~: ;11 ~~i:--1J:i:,.::r ':hh the !.cllr.!11le l'! Coi:iplhncc con*

tainci! in rart i. ;-nivi,1~ :.n 111tc:r:1:1th*e r-:,.-"r !'",Irr*: .... u,c,rnt t? urcr:ite the wastr\o":i:er control f*cilitics: or, it nn l;i:u i~~:c-fi~n,~,,~~ ~~-~~,~ t~ f3rt I, 1h) halt, rrJucc or other..,ise control rroduc:tinn :in,i/nt :ili ,lL.c:li:ir.ics 11:*rn :lh' u:.:*:::-;-.r;, ;,,~*. or idl~1rc o! nne or ::iorc of the prie1ary snurcr.s nf rn..-c: to r:u- "a~*c..-,ter rr-r.trc,i !"*:*d~!,*-:,

I. IESPO~Slr.ILITIF.~

1. R~,:h~ r.f I ntn

Tl:** pcrn1it tr<: !II:;:~! .. ~le:.- t!.c he : r!' :he ~tHc ~.'::tcr i'ollution Control ,\gency, t i.:i;'"j-.;ji:i"'IA.lni:ilstr :~r>r, :,,:,!/ .. * * *.,*l:- :i~*: ,1:*i :* .: :~:*rcHr.rnih*r!', t:r<'r. the ;in*sent~th*e or crrdcnti;1ls: (.,1 t.:, .:*11cr i.;,,:, :!.~* r<*:-:-:l:t.*, ':a :-:c-:.i*r, ..-here :i-: rrr:urn: '<ource is locatcJ or in which :inr rcr:.: !!I art' rc-r1uirc,! t** lei..~--~ *1~.::r t':~ te:rr. :1:1*: c,,:.!itlll!I of :his perr:!it; :ind (b) 3t rcdsnnJhlr ti~r~ tn ~arc A~~"~" t' ~~~ ~~.,r r~p :1'1~,J~ ~~u1r~J *o ~c k~pt under the terms

nd cn:,,l\tinn, r,t' :* 1., ;,..-rnit: :,, i*,~:-*.**:t :,~* -. ~ .. , ~*:-*: 1*,111:; ~,*11: c-r ~,:-r:ilorln;: ~,ethoJ required 0

In thh rer'1it i :i, ..1 t,'l ,111.irlc Mir ,:i.:ci*/1\ ~~* r,:" :'":, ;t 11:t*,

z. TransCrr nr C'*,nr1 ~hi.r i,r l:'~:i: **,,1

t:, tht* ~\*,*:-.r ,., :i::*.* d11r:i::*.* f:1 ror:!:,l or O'-'Uershlp ol f'acllitles lrc1111 w1111.h the .,1L1:1n:'" ,,1.,* .. :1.*'" e:::inn:~. ~!.e :*r:--::ttc* ,!::::t r.i,:i!,* the- ~uccccdin1 n""ner or cnntrollcr e£ :!::: ,*u~ten~t' 1*! ;.:,1: ;i.:r-:-l: '*r :,*c~*:. , cni'~* "' ""l:i.::h *llitll l*e Corw.1r,led to the Reitlnr,11\ ,\,h1inistr:it"I' :1n,I t::o: ;a:11,, :-*.u,*1 ::"n:h:tl.*:- l'.,nt:-*l ,,::,.n-::,*.

3. Anl1nh_l]J..~~f.!.,2_11i:_t!

i:~cca,t for ,l:1::1 ,!c*t:.r:*:::,*.I ~., h11 \'rnr!cfcnt i:,l under Sc:ctlon lOS ol the

~ \ f n:11ort!I prc.*:,.,rc,1 111 :1..:,;r,ril,1r,**\ ~*1:h **w h*rr.~ ,.~ :hi:o rcr:ilt ll!:alt ltc n,*nihblc ior 0

publlc lns:icction ;1t I h<' n(fh,.., ,,r :::\' St::rr ;:.,t:-r r~l l:atirn r.:*r.t:-ol ,\i:cnc~* :111J the Rcgion:l'l Arlmlnhtr:1tnr. ,\~ rt'1:11lri**I l*:: t',** :.. t, **J°1'h** n: .: :t:i !':,nil nc: 1,..- "":*1l~t'h'J confidential.

Knowint:I)' :,:1i..1n*; .1:ir :.,1,r p:.*tr~,... t '":: !'I::,* *"11'h :"L*:*i-r* :::,,* n*rnlt in t 11c i~:,t*sitlon or crlcalnal p,.n::ilties as rr')n.!c-.i l " I 1n ~t*,*t1r:, ~*'!' t-:* t;w ,*.**:. *

c. rer111it ~10,11rtc:1~io11 * ,\CtC'r 1*.lti.:,: :an: r;*:,nrt1:11itr inr :1 1u*:1rini;, t!ih ;ier:,,i: i:i::iy he 110JlHed, iiisji..-n,!t'J, nrr.:\"~\'J in 1;!:r-it I'll ii: r*art ,:11 !n*: i**: :~r'I fnr C':lllllr: lncl:.Jin~. but not lbltc:d to, the fol\t1t:lni:: (n) dul:-:th:11 r( :1:i.: :\*;:, t"r r*:.'nl,,::,- ti!' thi:c :*emit: ,h) obuinlns; this perr.alt by 11lncrrc-srntar 1,,11, \*!' f/lU11rr to ..!:.:..-t, ... ,. (1-1 !~ 1:: pdr1*:i:-at r.,..:t.,: c,r (r.) n i:h::ini:e in :iny condition ch:n rC"quirc:: citl:t'r :, l\'t:1r,1r:11~* c,:* p.*r"!:tnt'~* rC'1!:11:ticn or cli::\ln,tion oC the :authorized disch:ir,:e.

s. Toxic l'nl lutnnt,

Xntwithst::"\,t.ini: rnr: I I, P.--1 ,1!*,wr, If' n tnitk r!"rl11ent st:1nd::1rd OT prohibition

\'inc:lu,l111r."""iiif"";c1:r*l11lc- c-f rrl"r\i.1:1cr. ~l'ed(:c.i i,: ~-.u*t, 1?!rl11r11t .,,:1:1.hrJ or rirchlhltion} is

~i1t::1bli11hcJ un,tr.r ::c~:1,*:1 ~,1"(:,i 11! t!.~* .i..:~ ,,,r ., :,,.,:,* fl"ll 11t:1**: 1,"ti.:I, Is rrf'scnc In the discha .. ,e and such st:111\1:trJ "r pr**hi!*1t111n !:I :-,,rr *:r!n,:,:.~ :1:,a :in~* !:::l::atinn lnr ~t:dt rollutant in this rera:alt, rhis rl"rr.it ~i,.,11 : .. , rc-,*i:;r,! c*r 1:1n,1!1 ac ! ~** .~c~t1r,l:iw:o: 1;irh th* tt').IC e{Clucnt st:ind::irJ or prohibitifln nnJ tl1c l"'fMltth' ~n nrlil ir.:

6. Civil ~n,I C:r_l.n~*1*~.L!J,.:"?.t.lllf\:. l,XCl'j': ;;,: rr,\'! :,.,'. *:, i;"1it .. ~,n.;irlnns on !h*passlnr." cr:irt II, x:lf:in"J'"1'l'l,w,*r I ;,1,1or,**,..r.':irt II, /,*, i. n'lrl:1:1,: *; :*.. ,; 1*1*n11t ,'lnll be i:c:nstrueJ to relieve the rc-rnlttt'~ fruA civil ~r cri~\n/11 ~naltic-~ tc-r nr~r~l'llnncr,

,. C'lt1 n.!!!!_J~)J~*!~11!~1tnr.1.c.!~.J.*'*':!1.l.!.~'.:. * *;r~?-ln,: i11 !?:I*. r,:r:,lt '-h:tll l*C' cnr.-:trucJ to rrcclude the

'fij';;i1111t1nn ,,1 anr T,*,:al 11~:11111 o:- rr.lcH*r th~ rrt:-:*rt.*c* lrc.r.1 :tft\" rl.'"ln~ihllltlcs, li:ihilities, or rt-naltir~ cc, ~hich the rcrnitt"r 1~ or rAr he s~1cci undrr ~rction lll rf the Act,

,. ~Ll:,~

N~thi111: In tl11'< l'rr::ilt ,1 ..,11 !,e 1:on::!*:ir.l tn rrcclu,l,* thf' lnuitutlnn or 11nr tr,:al 11r.ran11 t*r rrl1r\'l" tht' rc-r:::1::r~* Crn:* 1n,* r.~:*rn*n:,liitl**,, ll.1 1ollitir~, or f't'~:iltlcs cst:ihlished 1*11n.11nnt to Ull)' ;1r1,th*:1hh* "l3h' l.1..- **r ,,*,~1:!at1l'1111r.,I":- 11uth11ritr rrescn*rJ t,y Section SID oC 1h11 ,\ct,

,. !_~rrt.1. RIJ:hts

1'hc- h~uance c,r thl-: i"'t"l!t d 11r, nnt cnn\'t'Y :ir." i,rc,11rrt)' rl1:hc*s in tlthC'r red

<'r r*.:*;\,;,i:,1" 1iiiirercv, nr All\' ,*x,.111-.1\*~* r* n*11,*c:e'I, nnr ,*r,** It :111thl'1 i:e nrty injury tn rrlv,ite rrn1*rrtr or nny i11,*.1,ion oC 1*,*r,,111.11 rlt:iiri', r,,,r ;111,* lnf:-in~r:,f'nl oC 1:r,clcr:il, ~Ute or loc:tl lav, nr rr~ulntiun,.

JO, ~rvrrnldlilt

i*hr 1*rnvlsil'n:I c,( tH:1 11,*r;1lt ;1r\* r.rn*r:il,lr, nn,1 Ir :11\\' r,rc,vhln11 nC this ncr"lc iir'ilii,-i11;';;1'c11tl1111 ,., .... ,. r11*\'lf,i*111 11i t!;:-. r**r-,lt !,* :1*1:* t:1r,*11.,,t,1n,e, I!, hdJ invnllJ, the o 11rrllc11t1,*11 nf !lmh *11 r,l\*1::\1 1 n tn c,tl,cr \"lrc*111, .. 1:1n\t'!I, :111,I tl,i: rt*:-:Jin,l~r of this r\'ri:ilt, shall 11nt t,n 11a'r1*ctr,l th,*r, hy,

B-10 l'ogc: 0 of 20 Pcnnil llo. IL 003G91.!)

AS MODll"IED PART III OTIIER R[QUI REMEUTS A, Rainfall Runoff

1. Rainfall runoff from construction activity at the generating facility site and from m.:1tcrial. stora~Jc areas slrnll be controll~d to meet all effluent rcstri ct ions spcci fj cd in Part I A ( 2) of this pcrilli t.

-2 /\ny untrca tcd over fl O\*I from filcil i ti C$ des i 9ned, cons tructccl ,rnd operutcd to treat the volu~1e o.f ,~iltcriul stc1ra9e runoff and construction runoff which is associat!?d with ,1 10 y!!ar, 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months rainfall event shnll not be subject to the limitations for Suspcnfod Solids and pH specified in Part I A (2) of this pcr~it.

8. E1'osion Control The perrnittce shall utilize [Pl\ Publication llo. tiJ0/9-73-007 "Process, Procedures, nnd l*~l?thods to Control Pollutfon H~$uiling fn,~ Construction

/\ctivity," October 1973, in developing nnd. imµlc*:;~r.nting procedures and methods _for controlling erosion and sediment deposition. -

As a minimum, the following practices shall be instituted:

1. Minimization of the duration of cxcavntion and grading activities.

B-11 r~uc 9 of 20 i>~p:ii.l I:~*, JL O!D':91!1 AS l,iO Di ii rn

2. Contt*ol of the speed ;ind volume of storrnwalc?r runoff, i!S nccc!~StirY, by:

n. Proper sizing of dr~inagc ditches;

-b. Use c,f c:nergy dissipativr. devices such us chcc!: d,Hn$ and r,oc,linu arci?~.

3. Construction of sc!dirnr.nt traps t1nd sctll irag ntcas c1s n~ccssnry to prev~nt scdin:cn,t from leaving the site.

-.1. Soil stahilization ~y minimizing slopes, revcgctnting spoil banks i'tnd cleared s*m.. faccs IJy seeding or soddin!l unrl tr.ro~:gh the proper and ti,r.cly surfclcin9 of parking lots, ro,acls and laydown areas with crushed rock Ol gr~vcl.

5. Tnking ull necessary precautions to minimize erosion through prop!?r timing nnd installtition of necess:1ry erosion control d~vic!:s, by avoiding land clcnring in fall (insofar as feasible) and prior to instn 11 a ti on of scdin!~nt tr,1ps, runoff drainage or itny necessary impoundments for scdii.1ent control.

C. - ~ 1 of Otlier Construction - Related f,ctivitv

1. The company \"Ii 11 di kc and bc?rm such arct? s as neccss?.ry to prevent accidental spilJs and leakage o~ fuel and oil.

2. Proper receptacles will be provided for collriction of oil soated rags nnd papers to prevent contact with area runoff.

3. In order to prevent oil discharges, drainage from **equip:;:~nt maintenance buildings and cquip:1:ent rr.aintcnJncc arcils \*:ill be routed throu~1h appropri a tc trca t:nent sys trms to prov i c!e the following effluent quulity and monitoring dtn-ing pci"iods of dis-charge:

Limits Part1111ctcr Monthly /wC!ra9c Onily rfa:dmum Flow Monthly Daily Mnxfa fl 0\-1 [ S ti Ii~~

Oil c1ncl Grci\sc 15 mg/1 20 1119/1 Monthly Grllb

B-12 Pil!JC 10 r,f 20 P<!r111 it flo. l L 003 C~l !J PJ\Jff IV A. /\ltcrnlltivc Th!~rm~l Efflurnt I.imitations Pl!.!:E.!!:JO!:. to Sr:c:1.J!!.'1..-3JJili!l of the . ct Oascd upon c1 dC'!'lll>n5triltion by th!? Co1:ipi1ny thtit cfflu*mt* 1i:nitr1tions prcposcG for the control of th~ th~rmill compo11c:1t of tlH; di~c!wrc;r. i,re morr stringent thiln nccCS$ury to*c1ssurr. the: protection and prop.19alion ui il balunced, indi.!Jcnous populiltion of $hC?llfish, fi!ih, and wildlife in iHld on the body cf

\*tater into which the disch?.rgc is to be mc>dc, the Rcnfonal ,'\d::iinistr,1tor h.:ts exercised hi$ authority und~r Section 31G(a) of the /\ct nnd imposed i!lt~rntl:tive thermal effluent limits subject to the following conditions:

1. The Company has c~~1i~ted to the instnll~tion of a spr~y canal sy~tcrn described, in a l ettcr from the permit tee on /,pri 1 14, 197 5, as fo 1J O\'/:;:

uipc proposes to install 112 spr~y modules with Unit #1 and 120 spr<1y moclul es with U:,it fl2. As can be se~n on Fi 9ures 1 & 2

[attached on pages 17 & *1a] the discharge temperature will only occasionally peak at S6°F for short dur~tions during the one in ten year hot surr.mer a,~d in an average year, the ~a;dn:um te::1perc1 ture rcilched wil 1 be approximlltely 92°F \*tith the tcmperttturc for the mo~t part being belO\*/ 90°F." .

-sa'id system shan be operated in the foi lowiny manner:

a. In the late spring when the condenser disch:irgc tcr::p~raturc reaches 92°F or on June l, whichever comes first, the supplemental cooling syste~ will begin o~eration with approxi-

mately one-fifteenth (1/.15) of the cup~city being !i\*:itched on;

b. Each dny thereafter another one-fifteenth (1/15) of the system will begin operation, until by June 15, at the latest, all modules will be operating; *

c. In the lat:e summC?r, when the condenser discharge temperature rcc1chcs 92°F on the declining siclt' of the time/te:1i~pc.1 i;*a.ture 1 curve, or on September 19, whichever occurs L3st, the"=-

supplcment:il cooling systc:n will br.~1in to be sequenced off with npproxir.1atcly onc-fiftermth (1/15) of the modules being shut dm*m for the? iirst s~x (6) tfo.ys;

d. Each day thcrcilftcr another two-fHtccnth s (2/15) or less of the modules will he shut off unlil hy September 30, at the cnrlfost, the complete :;ystcm \*till be off.

2. 1"hc cfflul'nt tempcri\1:ttrr. to th~ lilkc will not c~cccd 96°F t1t nny time.

3. Th" pr1*m ii. 1,,,, r; h:l 11 p.w f. ir i ,, , 1,, in :t t* l"'ru1;1 1 rr c; ,,.wr. h 1wmw ;,m ,., t c.*>:isli11!J couli11q 1.,J..l! ~;itc*:; l.l\ il*1L,.*1uti111! I.Iii: l:lll!t.L~ ul lhl!l'a:.:l

<li:a:IMrq,*!: (i11cl11di1111 lhcdr inl.rrilr.l'io11 with othr:r physlc,\l, dH~11dc:i\l 1 iln<l hiolu,1i,:,,1 p,w.1111t U*1'!,) cm r:,1,alin!.) l,,b!!:.

1

B-13 PART 1v*

~ngc 11 of 20 Pcnnit Uo. IL 003G919 1)'~ S.O~IF!lu "further the pcrr.iittcc shull cvr1l11t1tc the results obtain!.'d from such ongoin~ rc~cnrch illong with other resctin:h rcsul ts und diltti

(ns obtain~d from the literature and other sources} in a continuing p1*occss 1 ikely to rcsul t in a better underst;iwJinri c,f the effects of the proposed thermal discharge into Clinton Lake.

And further, the permittec shall monitor the oquatic ecosystc;n before, during, and after lake filling (prior to and after initi~tion of thermal disch~rge). Such r.10nitoring plan sh~ll he s:itmittcd to the U.S. *Environ:ncntal ?rot~ction Agency (U.S. EPA) and th!? Statt! of

.Hlinoi.s for evaluation no later than Decem~er 31, 1975. The U.S. Ci-'A agrees to consult \*tith th~ URC, !EPA, und I1"1inois Depart!::ent (d Natural Resources prior to approval or disapproval of such plan.

4. Jf, as a result of that research, data collection, monitoring, or C\'aluation of the literature describ:?d above, it is d~termined that condHions in Clinton l.ilke win bP significantly different than hns be<:!n described in the 31G(a) dc;;:om,tr~ticn, or ff il i5 c(;i:Ci"i11*ined thc1t the cooling water use, recre?atfonal aspects of the lake, or that protection and pfopagation of indigenous aquatic life cnnnot be assured, the Co~1pany agrees to take whatever 1:;e;?surcs arc needed to col'rect the prcblc:n, including back-fitting of the proposed or existing plant with additional cooling facilities.

5. The permittee shall research and su*t,-:1it to the U.S. EPA and the State 9f Illinois no later than December 31, 1975 a detni1~d plan for the control of nuist1nce algae and aquatic macrophytes \*1hich may develop in Clinton*La~e. * * *

6. The permit tee shall submit to the U.S. EPA << detaii~~~f. Fishery Mt1nagcmcnt Pliln developed in consultntion with the Illinois Department of Con!;crvLltion, no later than. December 31, 1975.

furthcrr.,orc, the permittce shall sub:nit to the U.S. EPJ\ und the Illinois Environ:11cntal Prot!?ction J\gr.ncy in annuul swa::1Jry reports the rcs11l ts of its p.1rticipa t.ory rcsc<<rch in cool inq lake 11:.rnJ~1c:;:(!nt and impncts c:o:r::mmcinq with Di?ccrnber 31, 197G um! sh:ill !;Ub::1it its pl ilns to imp l r*mcnt lhc fi ncl i ngs of such rcsccJrch if the rcsei1rch sho\*:s such IIC~ccl.

8-14 f>Afff IV P(!g<! 12 of 20 Permit r:o. IL OOJC,919

n. Condition ~. of StiJt~ Ccrtific:i ltion As r.rnurrrco The lllinois [rivironrnrmUJl Protectio n /\~rcncy h:'1!; certifi,?d 011 f..u~Jtist li, 1975 thnt th!! cli~char~1c: shJll co:nply ~*tilh the c1r,plir.ublr. 1wo*li~icrns or Sections 301, 302, 30G ilnd 307 of the rccle:ral \*!11~cr Pollution Control

/\ct, as c1rr.cndcd. This certifica tion is contirig~ nt upon the follm*ring provision s:.

(i) That Illinois Pm*u:~r Co. ttgrees to operate, as a minimum, a

-supplcm!!ntal coolin9 system employing 232 spray modules, arid othcn*tisc consisten t \*!ith tl1~t described in the lllincis Pollution Cv!ltrol Co"rd Opinion PC3 75-31, in the follo~*:ing manner {\!hen only Unit ;!l of th~ t,,,o unit *f,:cility is opcration c,1, only 112 spray r.mdulcs \*till be required . .~t the time \'/hen Unit k2 becomes operatio nJl, an addition Jl i20 sprily n1odulcs must be installed and operated .):

a. in the late spring \*then the condense r disr.h::irge te:i:perat ure reaches 92(\F or on Jun~ 1, \*th'ichev(lr cc;:;:~s first, thn suppleme ntal cool in~, systc:n ~*tiil bc.!gin operation ,rith

ar,pro~:im atcly one-fifte enth (l/15) of the: capacity being suitchcd on;

b. c<<ch day tlwrcaftc r another enc-fifte enth (1 /15) of the ::;ystr.m will begin operation , unUl by June 15, at the. latest, all modu l cs wi 11 be c-pcra ting;

c. in the late sum.'liCr, when the condense r discharg q temperat ure reaches 92°F on the declining !iidc of the timc/tc;n perature curve, or on September 19, \*thichever occurs lust, the supplemental cooling system will be9in to be s~iiucnccd off

\*tit:h c1ppro:dm:1tcly one-fifte enth (1/15) of the *module5.bcing shut do\*:n for the first six (6) days; *::

d. cilch clay tlu.!rc,,ftc.:1* nnother two-fifte enths (2/15) or 1 css of the moch1les ,-till 1,c shut e>ff until hy Sept<m1be1* 30, at the cilrliest , the complete system will be off.

(ii) Thilt the effluent tcmpei*aturc to the l<<l~c \*/ill not exceed 9G°F at ilny time; (iii) lh~t Illinoi~ PO\*l<~r Coa:p,'lll\' prior to the filliWJ of th<? ianpouncl111r1it

~uhmits ;111 ,1cc:t*pt,1hln l.11:l** 111,lll,'l~Jr!1111~nt pl,,n for ilpp1*nv,1l h\' t.h~

Jllinni!: l.nvi1'1H1:::,'nt.,J l'1'i1tc?C:linn /\rJc~lh"':}' illlcl Lill! lllinr,:~ (),*p,U'llllC" r\t of Cnn:;,~1*v.1Lion, \*:itich pl,111 ,-,ill prt?'a'l'\'l? Lhi! l,'\J,t?'r. l'l:CrP,'\liu 11,1l ilml fhhi:!t*i,:~ v,, hw;

B-15 P/\ln JV Pilgc 13 of 20 Pcrmi t r:o. J L 0036919 AS l,10D!flED

(iv) Tht>t 11 linois Power Comp~ny l:ccps the lake open 1:o rendily available public ncccss througho ut the life of the l,tl:c;

(\r) Thnt Illinois Power Company develops und sub;nits vn acccpt<:ig?.tion of ir.dig~no!Js aqui:tic 1 ifo cannot be asstwcd, 1"11 i noi s Po~*,er Cc;:1p<<n.v sha 11 tukc ;*:iia tc'.'cr meastn-r.s c1re rwcd{:d to correct tht"! probicm, including backfitti ng of tl?e proposed or existing plant with additiona l cooling facilitie s; (vii) That Pcti tioner 11 li noi s Power Company submit qutirtcrly progr~ss reports to:

Illinois Environmental Protectio n Agency Manilgcr, Vc:rfonce Section Divi~.ion of ~-!at~r Pollution Control 2200 Churchill Road Springfi eld, Illinois 62706

B-16 Pil!JC!

M of 20
'Permit r:o. IL OMf,!119 AS t.W~lflW PART V
Propo~r.d Condit ions for Future Di schnror.s into ll!_!:r. Cl into~
The following c1rc! proposed conditions for a pcrr.1it to be is~ued lo the Com(Htny upon the cr.pir<>tion of this permit on ,luly 30, 19~0. 1"hcse rwoposcd conclit ions r~fl e:c t the prcsnn t asse~s:r.crn t of U.S. [PJ\ and the lllinois EPJ\ and ilrc for infor11mtional purposes only. The lirilitntions apply to discharges* or \*taste sources not in existcnc.e during the construction ph~se of the Clinton Powe~ Station.
A. Outfall ncscription Outfall Serial No. 004 consists of the foilm*ling sources:
1. Circulating Water Flow
2. Dcmineralizcr Wastes
3. Plant Sanitary Wastes
4. Radiation Waste Trcntmcnt
5. Hcnting Ooilcr Slowdown*
6. Auxi.lfory Cooling Equip:nent Outfall Scrinl No. 005 co~sists of Crib House Screen Backwash.
Outfall Serial No. OOG consists of the follouing sources:
1.
Oily Su:r.p Drains
2. Honradioactivc Plant Drains 3, Storm Drainage Only di sclmrgcs from w~stc sources dcscri bed in Part V.~bove or covered by the existing permit ,-rill be pcn:1itted. Haste sour~_cs tht?t are not COVC!rcd hy this permit include, but \\re not limited to*t.,i1iettil .clcuning wastes nncl polychlorin.:ltcd biphcnyls, (such as conunonlji'found in h~ilt tril.nsfcr oi.l s).
Pi:g~ 15 of 20 Permit No. IL 0035919 PART V AS MODiFIED *
-* EFFLt::::,T UM!TATIONS AND i'aO:UTOiUNG REQUIREMENTS
1. ~:.:ri:-:g the ?eriod begir.hing on August 1, 1980 a~d lasting until July.31, i5SS
-:::= t!~:-;;;~ttea is_ a~thorized to discharge from o~tfall(s) ser,nl nut':"ber(s) 004 S:.::h di schar;e5 sha 11 be ' limited anci monitored by the permi ttee as specified below:
DISCHARGE LIM!T/ffIO:iS ~G~!TOR!~~ REOUIR~~E~!S kg/d~y (lbs/day) Other Units tspccify) sa~;;e Daily Avg Daily Max Dailv Max r,::-e Continuo~s Car, ti ~::c::s. .
0.2 mg/1 0.5 rng/1 . Cont~nucus Dur!ng Ch!or!~~t!:n
o. 2 rr.g/1* Cor.t1n~cus Dur1r.; Cr.1~~~~~:i:~
96~F Ccntin~ous Cc~ti:~=~~
Contin~cus c:~~i~~=~s Contir.uc~s Conti~~=~s
-. f*~o~thl y ;,*:erase Mon:*hly :-:inku:n, Ave:-a;e ,~:i:!
-

-

::- cf ~~:-ay_:.:cdules in.Operation l*it?X i i:'::.!::1
Th~ rele~se of tot~l chlorine residual into lake Clinton will be limited to two ho~rs
~~r day for the.facility.
ih~ pH shall not be less .than 6.0 nor greater thc1n 9.0 a~d s~i11 be ~onitor~d on a continuous basis at the discharge to the discharge car.al.
Ther2 sr.~il be no discharge of flcatir.g solids or visible foam in other than tra:c a~ounts.
Sa~~1 S taken in cc:-::pl i a:icC with the rr.oni toriilg r~::quir~i.:cnts speci ficd i:bove sha 11 be t~i<en at. ~h':! folic-,:ir.a locatior.(s): (1} Pcasurcd t!t tr~ Condenser
.., {2J i-:e~~~,r~*d ~:.: tiie di:;:h~1*g~ to lake Clinton
Page 16 of 20 Perwit No~ !L 0035919 AS :,.~COIFIEO PART V
'===L 1 ::-,*-
-*. "'-"' t*,1&.. 1-,*.,.T"~*s
& ln1 .v.t nt\ '"'D uo"1-.
,, u. ORI'-"" ,,u R:'Q"
.. vlK-.... C'r,... N-as
,C.
2. ~:::-i~g the ~erfod beg~r::iing on Jl.ugust 1, 1980 . _ and 1astir.g'u:1ti 1 July 31,
t~a pe:-=.1tt~~ is ~u!horized to discharge frora outfa11(s) serial nur.ber{s) C04-Boiler Slowd~wn, CE:::i~er~1izer wastes, P.~dieticn Waste Tr,~at~~nt Sysi:e::i S:.=ch disc:ia:-ses shall b'~ limited and ~onitorcd b}' the permittee as specified below:
DISCliMlGE LIMITATIONS kg/day (lbs/d~yJ Other Units (Specify) s:~;:~
Daily Avg Daily M~x Daily Ava Dailv Max Freocencv T,::a t~eekly c~ i 1y .~.\*gra; e Flc*.: Es~i~ate OJ I
CX>
~~e~ Soiids 15 rr.g/1 \*:eek1y 8-hr. Cc~~~s 1 .0 mg/1 ~*:e:?kly t8-r.::. C::"'.".;-~s 1.0 mg/1 \*:e:ek1y 6-hr. C.:-:;::3 ihe pH shall be monitored.by weekly grab samples.
There shall be no discharg!? of floating solids or vis.ible**foi:r.1 in other than trace a:::o~:1-:s.
.... ~ * .. * * ...
rc=:::n '"s spc~i i"ie ... ~.,o\:a s:.a 11 ~~ '"~-<~:,
4..
C: * .L* * * *
... ?:::? 1~s 1o?i<e~ , n cc:::~ 11 anee i'll '" '"r.e ;;:cm ton n~* reqi.:1 -**s~r-*- J: SC;. .. **r--:.
'-- -**- re,,
,.;. .i..:.~ r*.,,* n"'!~ 1C"a
',...,..
s).* A"".~
'- .... ,*o:,( \. .u po,* .... ** t r"'~
,..; ... ......*~*cn ... :, *,*vr.. 0: ... h,, 1*r:o:,"1 1
\,.U \. ,~ I \. - I.,,
f ... cn""
\::'"6 -*** *'- ~! ...... \,. ..c... ~-
nr-icr tr.: di1utfo;'I \*!ith condenser c-:,o1i:;g ~*.*i?!c~.
Ptg~ i 17 of 20 Pcr~1t No.IL C036919 PA~T V AS MODIFIED
...::. EFFLCE:r;- LrnITATim;s Ai~D MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
3. D*.;':"'fog th~ pe:"'icd beginning on August 1, 1980 d 1 ,.. ...., J 1 31
~te ~~~~it~Ec is authorized to discharge from outfa11{s) *ser,~1 -* a~) as~ing
~ nu .. :oens 004 Sanitary uY '
u~~, 1,astes s~=h dischar£eS shall be ' limite~ ar.d monjtor_eq by the permittee as*specified below:
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS kg/day (lbs/day) Ot:1er Units {Specify)
Measurc:i.~nt S?~.;:,1e Daily Avg Daily Max Daily Avg Daily Max Frc~w~ncy ~
Weekly Daiiy .:\ver-a~g Fl c~*: Est i:-:?. ~e 30 mg/1 45 mg/1 \{eekly Gr?b
....... _ 30 rr.g/1 45 mg/1 \fackly G:-i! o
=~=~~i ~e ?.es1c~al T~:?1 ?~,s~hjrUS
1. 0 r.19/1 1.* 0 mg/1
\,~~kly
\*:ce~ iy Grab
~rab The pH shall be rr.onitorep by weekly gr~b st~ples.
h~r~ sha1i be no cischa~g2 of floating so1ics or'vi~ible*fcarn ~n ?ther* than trace a~:unts.
S?:::;,i es t~ke:i in cc:7.;, 1fonce with the ii:oni to ring rtcui rc"'e:,ts sped ficd a~cve sr:c: 11 be ttik:?:t a~ t:-:~ fo1 lc'.dng 1ccatio:,(s): At a point reprcsr~nti!t1v c of the disch:Jr'lc frc:n the trei:t~e~t sys~~:,
(eons s:im;,les sh~ll be taken prior. to chlorinutio:, ) j)iior to
..* * * .,,. --- , ......11,*,,,. rnr,~ir*(! '.*.':~t*r,,~.
rage 18 of 20
?errni t No. IL* 0035919 PART V AS MODIFIED
~FFLUE:?rr qMITATIONS Ai~O MONITORING .REQUIREMENTS
4. D:i?"i:\; tr.e period beginning on August*l ," 1980.. ar,d lastin_g until July 31, 1985 the ~~rwittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) ser1al number\s) 005 rntake Screen Backwash.
Such discharge~ shall be limited.and monitored by the p~rmittee as specified below:
DISCHARGE LIMIT/\TIONS kg/day (lbs/day) Other Units (Specify)
Measurement Sample Daily Avg Dailv ~ax Daily Avg* Dailv Max Freauer.cy Im.
Monthly *oaily Average.
Flow Estir.:nt~ c:J I
N 0
There sha11 b~ no discharg~ of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace a-nounts
Sa~,,~s !ak~n in cc~~11ancc with the monitoring r~quirem~nts specified above sh~ll be taken
~- .. ;...,
v w '--
'"o ,,~**,*-g I ... * .J*"* ** lo *..... ,;-t:o.,(s)*
I ,1
N/A
Pa;~ .19 of 20 Permit No! IL.0036919 PART Y
5. en August 1, 1930 .- { ) . .'L. a1id)l asting until Jul:, 31, 1;35
-fa ; the per-iod begir.ning outfa ll s ser,~1 nurr~er\S CC5
~h~ ~e~~1t~~a is a~thor iz~d to disch~r9e from S:.::h c~sc:~a'!"'ses shal 1 b'e limite d and "'onitored by the permi ttee as specif ied b~~c~-::.
DISCHARGE LrnITATIONS kg/day (lbs/d~yJ Otner Units (Speci fy) r-~eas ure:::!? r.t Daily Avg Daily Max Daily fwa Daily Max
\*:cek1y Tc~~i F1cw
-* **3/*~?j' {"r="'),*,...::.,
Est fr:-::? te r i :.:.:-:*.
s~s~s~:~= Scii~s (l} rs mg/1 50 W~ekly
}!eekl y Gra Gr::
~~1 a~d ~rease (1) 15 mg/1 15 mg/1 20 mg/i \~eek1y Gr~
"~1*1 -* -. ., -
........ ;..,.:,co
t .. .; {2\*
. ....,J. .....
-,* ***:, *:'o.-:,." ' .. oz"
-* &cJ;J..> I Ii-,rge o,*sct-:
7he p:-t sha11 not be 1css than 5. 0 nor greate r than
9. 0 a::cl sha 11 be ::~ni torccl by weekly grab sumpl cs.
1h:?:-~ sha1i :~ no cisc:i~rg!? of floati ng solics or*vis.ib1e foa~ in other than trace ai::ou:its.
be ta~en Sc1~~les take~ in cc::~;,1iance with th!? ::10nitoring rc~uirc~ents spe~if ted nbcve shi?.il a: th~ fo1lc~ing locati on(s) : (1) At a point representative of Outfa ll Jisch~ rt~.
(2) J\t U *j)rJint TCPl°::?~Cnt~tiV C Of *fhn di5cJp*'rr."\
.J "-
frC"i' t'r.t!t 0:1,,
I .*
'*'""".a.a
8-22 PART V 1 Page 20 of 20 Penntt No. IL 0036919
~;s ~~ooro C. Intake Monitor~ng Hfthin 30 days of the receipt of the permit and the determination of the Regional Administrator, the permittcc shall submit to the Regional
Administrator and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for approval the design for an intake monitoring progr~m to*document the effects of the present intake on the various species and life stages of fish. Such a
monitoring program shall include, .but not be limited to, a tabulation of all fish trapped by the present intal:e structure. This tabulation shall
be performed every fourth day unless .the permittee justifies some alternative schedule to the Regional Administrator and the Illinois Environmental P,rotection Agency within shty *(60) days after start up of Unit #1 and end W\thin twelve (12} months of the commencement of tabulation and shall include the number, weight, length, and species of each fish entrapped. Such 111Qni.tori._ng data shall be submitted qu*arterly with other reports.
The nermittee shall submit a final report to the Regional Administrator and to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency by no later than providing proposals for measures to be taken by the permittee to meet the?
-requirements of Section 316(b) of the Act for the best cooling water intake tec*hnology available. Development of the report shilll be guided by the uoevelopment Document for Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Envi.ronrnental Impact for Cooling Water Intnke Structures", as proposed by the U.S. EPA.
This report shall be evaluated with regard to Section 316{b) of the Act.
As a result of this evaluation, the Regional Administrator may modify the.
permit in accordance with Part II B4 to establish an implementation schedule to insure compliance with Section 316(b).
APPENDIX C. EXAMPLES OF SITE-SPECIFIC DOSE ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS C-1
C-2 APPENDIX C. EXAMPLES OF SITE-SPECIFIC DOSE ASSESSMENT CALCULA ~ IONS C.l CALCULATIONAL APPROACH As mentioned in the text, the quantities of radioactive material that may be released annually from the Clinton Power Station are estimated on the basis of the description of the radwaste systems in the applicant's ER-OL and FSAR and by using the calculational model and parameters developed by the NRC staff (Refs. 1 and 4). These estimated effluent release values along with the appli-cant's site and environmental data in the ER-OL and in subsequent answers to NRC staff questions are used in the calculation of radiation doses and dose commitments.
The models and considerations for environmental pathways that lead to estimates of radiation doses and dose commitments to individual members of the public near the station and of cumulative doses and dose commitments to the entire population within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the station as a result of station operations are discussed in detail in Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Ref. 2). Use of these models with additional assumptions for environmental pathways that lead to exposure to the general population outside the 80-km radius are described in Appendix D of this statement.
The calculations performed by the staff for the releases to the atmosphere and hydrosphere provide total integrated dose commitments to the entire population within 80 km of the station based on the projected population distribution in the year 2000. The dose commitments represent the total dose that would be received over a SO-year period, following the intake of radioactivity for one year under the conditions existing 15 years after the station begins operation (i.e., the mid-point of station operation). For younger persons, changes in organ mass and metabolic parameters with age after the initial intake of radio-activity are accounted for.
C.2 DOSE COMMITMENTS FROM RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASES The NRC staff's estimates of the expected gaseous and particulate releases (listed in Table C.l) along with the site meteorological considerations (summarized in Table C.2) were used to estimate radiation doses and dose commit-ments for airborne effluents. Individual receptor locations and pathway loca-tions considered for the maximally exposed individual in these calculations are listed in Table C.3.
Two years of meteorological data were used in the calculation of concentrations of effluents. The data were collected onsite f.rom April 1972 to April 1974.
The long-term atmospheric dispersion estimates were made using the procedure described in Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1 (Ref. 3).
C-3 The NRC staff estim ates of the expected liquid relea ses (liste d in Table C.8),
along with the site hydrological consi derat ions (summsarized in Table C.9), were liquid relea ses.
used to estimate radia tion doses and dose commitment from c
C.2.1 Radiation Dose Commitments to Individual Members of the Publi As explained in the text, calcu lation s are made for a hypot hetical individual member of the public (i.e. , the maximally exposed indiv idual ) who would be all pathways that contr ibute .
expected to receiv e the highe st radia tion dose from assum This method tends to overestimate the doses since ptions are made that would be diffi cult for a real individual to fulfi ll.
The estimated dose commitments to the individual who relea is subje ct to maximum exposure at selec ted offsi te locat ions from airborne in Table ses of radioiodine and parti culat es, and waterborne relea ses are listed s C.4, C.5, and C.6.
The maximum annual total body and skin dose to a hypothetica l individual and presented in the maximum beta and gamma .air dose, at the site boundary, are Tables C.4, C.5, and C.6.
The maximally exposed individual is assumed to consum e well above average quan tities of the poten tially affec ted foods and toasspend more time at poten-tially affec ted locat ions than the average person indic ated in Tables E-4 and E-5 of Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Ref. 2).
C.2.2 Cumulative Dose Commitments to the General Population Annual radia tion dose commitments from airborne and water borne radio activ e relea ses from the Clinton Power Statio n are estimated for two populations in the year 2020: (1) all members of the general publi c within 80 km (50 mi) of population (Table C.7). Dose the statio n (Table C.5) and (2) the entir e U.S. ptions commitments beyond 80 km are based on the assum discussed in Appendix D.
the table s for For persp ectiv e, annual background radia tion doses are given in both populations.
References for Appendix C
1. F. P. Cardile and R. R. Bellamy (eds. ), "Calc ulatio n of Radioactive Mate-ri a1s in Gaseous and Liquid Efflu ents from Boi 1 i ng Water Reactors, 11 ry 1979.
NUREG-0016, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Janua
2. "Calc ulatio n of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Relea ses of Reactor Efflu ents for the Purpose of Evaluating Comp liance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revis 11 ion 1, U.S. Nucle ar Regulatory Commission, October 1977.
Dispersion of Gaseous
3. "Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and r React ors, 11 Regul atory Efflu ents in Routine Re 1eases from Light -Wate atory Comm ission, July 1977.
Guide 1.111, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regul Gaseous and Liquid
4. "Calc ulatio n of Release of Radioactive MaterialsALEin Code) , 11 U.S. Nuclear Efflu ents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-G Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0017, April 1976.
Table C.1. Calculated Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous Effluents from Clinton Power Station (Ci/yr per reactor)
Building Ventilation Mech. Vac.
Gland Air Pump Nuclide Containment Turbine Auxiliary Radwaste Seal Ejector (Periodic) Total Kr-83m a a a a a a a a Kr-85m 3 68 3 a a a a 74 Kr-85 a a a a a 240 a 240 Kr-87 3 130 3 a a a a 140 Kr-88 3 230 3 a a a a 240 Kr-89 a a a a a a a a Xe-131m a a a a a a a a Xe-133m a a a. a a a a a Xe-133 66 250 66 10 a a 2300 2700 Xe-135m 46 650 46 a a a a 740 ("")
Xe-135 34 630 34 45 a a 350 1100 I
.i:::,.
Xe-137 a a a a a a a a Xe-138 7 1400 7 a a a a 1400
. Total Noble Gases 6600 I-131 1. 7(-2)b 1. 9(-1) 1. 7(-1) 5.0(-2) a a 3.0(-2) .46 I-133 6.8(-2) 7.6(-1) 6.8(-1) 1. 8(-1) a a a 1.7 Cr-51 3.0(-6) 1. 3(-2) 3.0(-4) 9.0(-5) C C C 1. 3(-2)
Mn-54 3.0(-5) 6.0(-4) 3.0(-3) 3.0(-4) C C C 3.9(-3)
Fe-59 4.0(-6) 5.0(-4) 4.0(-4) 1.5(-4) C C C 1.1(-3)
Co-58 6.0(-6) 6.0(-4) 6.0(-4) 4.5(-5) C C C 1.3(-3)
Co-60 1.0(-4) 2.0(-3) 1. 0(-2) 9.0(-4) C C C 1.3(-2)
Zn-65 2.0(-5) 2.0(-4) 2.0(-3) 1.5(-5) C C C 2.2(-3)
Sr-89 9.0(-7) 6.0(-3) 9.0(-5) 4.5(-6) C C C 6.1(-3)
Sr-90 5.0(-8) 2.0(-5) 5.0(-6) 3.0(-6) C C C 2.8(-5)
Zr-95 4.0(-6) 1.0(-4) 4.0(-4) 5.0(-7) C C C 5.0(-4)
Sb-124 2.0(-6) 3.0(-4) 2.0(-4) 5.0(-7) C C C 5.0(-4)
. Table C.1. (Continued)
Mech. Vac.
Build ing Vent ilatio n Gland Air Pump Radwaste Seal Ejec tor (Peri odic) Total Nuclide Containment Turbine Auxi liary 4.0(- 3) 4.5(- 5) C C 3.0(- 6) 4.4(- 3)
Cs-134 4.0(- 5) 3.0(- 4) 2.0(- 6) 3.6(- 4)
Cs-136 3.0(- 6) 5.0(- 5) 3.0(- 4) .4.5( -6) C C 5.5(- 3) 9.0(- 5) C C 1. 0(-5) 6.3(- 3)
Cs-137 5.5(- 5) 6.0(- 4) 1.1(- 5) 1.1(- 2)
Ba-140 4.0(- 6) 1.1(- 2) 4.0(- 4) 1.0(- 6) C C 1.0(- 4) 2.6(- 5) C C C 7.3(- 4)
Ce-141 1. 0(-6) 6.0(- 4) 57.
H-3 a a 8.0 a 9.5 C-14 1.5 a a 25.
C C C C Ar-41 25. C C e.
aless than 1.0 Ci/yr for noble gas, 10- Ci/yr for iodin 4
2 bExponential notat ion; 1.7(- 2) = 1.7 x 10- * ("")
I cless than 1% of total for nucli de. u,
Table C.2. Summary of Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (x/Q) and Relative Deposition Values for Maximum Site Boundary and Receptor Locations near the Clinton Power Station*
Continuous Purge Relative Relative Location x/Q (sec/m3 ) Deposition (m-2) x/Q (sec/m3 ) Deposition (m- 2)
Site boundary (E 1. 2 km) 8.2 X 10- 7 6.6 X 10- 9 4.2 X 10- 6 3.3 X 10-8 Nearest** residence and garden (NW 1.1 km) 1.1 X 10- 6 6.4 X 10- 9 5.9 X 10- 6 3.3 X 10- 8 Nearest milk cow & milk goat (ESE 8.0 km) 5.8 X 10- 8 2.3 X 10-lO 3.1 X 10- 7 1. 3 X 10- 9 (""')
I Nearest meat animal °'
(N 1.6 km) 8.0 X 10- 7 5.5 X 10- 9 3.2 X 10- 6 2.2 X 10- 8
The values presented in this table are corrected for radioactive decay and cloud depletion from deposition, where appropriate, in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.111, Rev. 1, "Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light Water Reactors," July 1977.
"Nearest" refers to that type of location where the highest radiation dose is expected to occur from all appropriate pathways.
C-7 Table C.3. Nearest Pathway Locations Used for Maximum Individual Dose Commitments for the Clinton Power Station Location Sector Distance (km)
Site boundary* E 1. 2 Residence** and garden NW 1.1 Milk cow & milk goat ESE 8.0 Meat animal N 1. 6
Beta and gamma air doses, total body doses, and skin doses from noble gases are determined at site boundaries in .the sector where the maximum poten-tial value is likely to occur.
Dose pathways including inhalat ion of atmospheric radioa ctivity , exposure to deposited radion uclides ,
and submersion in gaseous radioa ctivity are evalu-ated at residences. This particu lar locatio n includes doses from vegetable consumption as well.
C-8 Table C.4. Annual Dose Commitments to a Maximally Exposed Individual near the Clinton Power Station Location Pathway Doses (mrem/yr per unit)
Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents Total Body Skin Gamma Air Dose Beta Air Dose (mrad/yr per (mrad/yr per unit) unit)
Nearest iite Direct radiation boundary from plume 0.42 0.90 0.65 0.70 (E 1.2 km)
Iodine and Particulates in Gaseous Effluentsb Total Body Organ Nearestc site Ground deposit 0.08 (T) 0.08 (C) (thyroid) boundary Inhalation 0.003 (T) 0.40 (C) (thyroid)
(E 1. 2 km)
Nearest garden Ground deposit 0.08 (C) 0.08 (C) (thyroid) and residence Inhalation 0.003 (C) 0.55 (C) (thyroid)
(NW 1.1 km) Vegetable consumption 0.27 (C) 3.2 (C) (thyroid)
Nearest mi~k Ground deposit 0.003 (C) 0.003 (I) (thyroid)
COW & goat Inhalation 0.0002 (C) 0.024 (I) (thyroid)
(ESE 8.0 km) Vegetable consumption 0.013 (C)
Goat milk consumption 0.009 (C) 2.63 (I) (thyroid)
Nearest meat Meat consumption 0.03 (C) 0.27 (C) (bone) animal (N 1.6 km)
Liquid Effluents (Adults)b Total Body Organ Discharge Water point ingestion 0.009 0.028 (thyroid)
Fish consumption 0.017 0.008 (thyroid) a11 Nearest 11 refers to that site boundary location where the highest radiation doses as a result of gaseous effluents have been estimated to occur.
bDoses are for the age group and organ that results in the highest cumulative dose for the location: T=teen, C=child, !=infant. Calculations were made for these age groups and for the following organs: GI-tract, bone, liver, kidney, thyroid, lung, and skin.
c11 Nearest 11 refers to the location where the highest radiation.dose to an individual from all applicable pathways has been estimated.
dDoses presented here are for goat milk consumption as they exceed those for cow milk consumption at this location.
C-9 Table C.5. Calculated Appendix I Dose Commnitmen ts to a Maximally Exposed Individual and to the Popu latio from Operation of Clinton Power Stat ion Annual Dose per Reactor Unit Individual Appendix I Calculatedb Design Objectivesa Doses Liquid efflu ents 3 mrem 0.026 mrem Dose to tota l body from all pathways 0.036 mrem Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 mrem (thy roid -
adul t)
Noble-gas efflu ents (at site boundary
1. 2 km E) mrad 10 mrad 0.65 Gamma dose in air 20 mrad 0.70 mrad Beta dose in air mrem 0.42 mrem Dose to tota l body of an indiv idua l 5 15 mrem 0.90 mrem Dose to skin of an indiv idua l Radioiodines and part icul ates c 15 mrem 3.8 mrem Dose to any organ from all pathways (thy roid -
child )
Population Within 80 km Total Body Thyroid (person-rem)
Natural~background radia tiond 94,500.
< 0.04 < 0.02 Liquid efflu ents 0.31 0.31 Noble-gas efflu ents 0.58 8.8 Radioiodine and part icul ates II.C , and II.D of Appendix I, aDesign Objectives from Sections II~A, II.B , expo 10 CFR Part 50 cons ider doses to maximally sed indiv idua l and to popu-latio n per reac tor unit .
bNumerical values in this column were obtained by summi~g appr opri ate values are repre sente d here.
in Table C.4. Locations resu lting in maximum doses ory.
cCarbon-14 and triti um have been added to this categ d11 Natural Radiation Exposure in the United Stat es, 11 U.S. Environmental Protec-ge back-ground dose for tion Agency, ORP-SID-72-1, June 1972; using thed avera lation of 1,112,000.
Illin ois of 85 mrem/yr, and year 2020 proj ecte popu
C-10 Table C.6.* Calculated RM-50-2 Dose Commitments to a MaximallyaExposed Individual from Operation of the Clinton Power Station Annual Dose per Site RM-50-2 Calculated Design Objectivesb Doses Liquid effluents:
Dose to total body or any organ from all pathways 5 mrem 0.036 mrem Activity-release estimate, excluding tritium (Ci) 10 0.2 Gaseous effluents:
Noble-gas effluents (at site boundary
1. 2 km E)
Gamma dose in air 10 mrad 0.65 mrad Beta dose in air 20 mrad 0.7 mrad Dose to total body of an individual 5 mrem 0.42 mrem Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem 0.9 mrem Radioiodine and particulate~c Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrem 3.8 mrem (thyroid)
I-131 activity release (Ci) 2 0.46 aAn optional method of demonstrating compliance with the cost-benefit Section (II.D) of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
bAnnex to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
cCarbon-14 and tritium have been added to this category.
c-11 Table C.7. Annual Total-Body Population Dose Commitments, Year 2000 U.S. Population Dose Commitment, Category person-rem/yr Natural background radiationa 26,000,000a Clinton Power Station operation Plant workers 740 General public:
Liquid effluentsb < 0.04 Gaseous effluents 27.
Transportation of fuel and waste 3 aUsing the average U.S. background dose (100 mrem/yr) and year 2000 projected U.S. population from "Population Estimates and Projections," Series II, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Series P-25, No. 541, February 1975.
baa-km (SO-mi) population dose.
C-12 Table C.8. Calculated Release of Radioactive Materials in Liquid Effluents from Clinton Power Station Nuclide Ci/yr/reactor Nuclide Ci/yr/reactor Corrosion and Activation Products Fission Products (cont'd)
Na-24 1. 3(-3)a,b Ru-103 3.0(-5)
P-32 1.4(-4) Rh-103m 3.0(-5)
Cr-51 6.1(-3) Tc-104 2.0(-5)
Mn-54 1. 7(-4) Ru-105 1.1(-4)
Mn-56 1.3(-3) Rh-105m 1.1(-4)
Fe-55 2.8(-3) Rh-105 4.0(-5)
Fe-59 1 5.0(-5) Ru-106 3.0(-5)
Co-58 4.4(-4) Te-129m 6.0(-5)
Co-60 1.2(-3) -Te-129 4.0(-5)
Cu-64 4.0(-3) Te-13lm 2.0(-5)
Zn-65 5.1(-4) I-131 1. 6(-1)
Zn-69m 2.8(-4) I-132 7.0(-4)
Zn-69 2.9(-4) I-133 5.8(-3)
Zr-95 1.0(-5) I-134 3.0(-4)
Nb-95 2.0(-5) Cs-134 2.4(-4)
W-187 5.0(-5) I-135 2.0(-3)
Np-239 1. 6(-3) Cs-136 5.0(-5)
Cs-137 5.1(-4)
Fission Products Ba-137m 2.5(-4)
Br-83 7.0(-5) Cs-138 1.3(-4)
Sr-89 1.8(-4) Ba-139 1.0(-4)
Sr-90 2.0(-5) Ba-140 2.5(-4)
Y-90 2.0(-5) La-140 1. 9(-4)
Sr-91 4.4(-4) La-141 4.0(-5)
Y-91m 2.8(-4) Ce-141 4.0(-5)
Y-91 1. 2(-4) La-142 7.0(-5)
Sr-92 2.9(-4) Pr-143 3.0(-5)
Y-92 6.3(-4) Ce-144 6.0(-5)
Y-93 4.6(-4) All Others 6.0(-5)
Zr-95 1.0(-5)
Nb-95 2.0(-5) Total (except Nb-98 2.0(-5) tritium) 2.0(-1)
Mo-99 4.8(-4) Tritium 19 Tc-99m 1.8(-3) aExponential notation; 1.3(-3) = 1.3 x 10- 3
bNuclides whose release rates are less than 10- 5 Ci/yr/
reactor are not listed individually but are included 11 in the category all11 others
C-13 Table C.9. Summary of* Hydrologic Transport and Disperaion for Liquid Releases from the Clinton Power Station Transi t Time Dilution Location (hours) Factor ALARA Calculations Sport fishing (discharge) 5.0 1. 0 Drinking water (discharge) 5.0 1. 0 Population Dose Calculations Sport fishing 5.0 1. 0 aSee Regulatory Guide 1.113, "Estimating Aquatic Disper-sion of Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reacto11r Re 1eases* for the Purpose of Imp 1ement i ng Appendix I, April 1977.
APPENDIX D. NEPA POPULATION-DOSE ASSESSMENT
/
D-1
D-2 APPENDIX D. NEPA POPULATION-DOSE ASSESSMENT Population-dose commitments are calculated for all individuals living within 80 km (50 mi) of the Clinton Power Station employing the same models used for individual doses [see Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev.11 1 (Ref. 1)] for the purpose
. of meeting the II as 1ow as reasonably achi evab 1e (ALARA) requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (Ref. 2). In addition, dose commitments to the population residing beyond the 80-km region, associated with the export of food crops produced within the 80-km region and with the atmospheric and hydrospheric transport of the more mobile effluent species, such as noble gases, tritium, and carbon-14, are taken into consideratio n for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This appendix describes the methods used to make these NEPA population-dose estimates.
D.1 IODINES AND PARTICULATES RELEASED TO THE ATMOSPHERE Effluent nuclides in this category deposit onto the ground as the effluent moves downwind; thus, the concentration of these nuclides remaining in the plume is continuously being reduced. Within 80 km (50 mi) of the facility, the deposition model in Regulatory Guide 1.111, Rev. 1 (Ref. 3) is used in conjunction with the dose models in Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 (Ref. 1).
Site-specif ic data concerning production and consumption of foods within 80 km of the plant are used. For estimates of population doses beyond 80 km it is assumed that excess food not consumed within the 80-km distance would be consumed by the population beyond 80 km. It is further assumed that none, or very few, of the particulate s released from the facility will be transported beyond the 80-km distance; thus, they will make no contributio n to the popu-lation dose outside 80-km region, except by export of food crops. This assum-ption was tested and found to be reasonable for the Clinton Power Station.
D.2 NOBLE GASES, CARBON-14, AND TRITIUM RELEASED TO THE ATMOSPHERE For locations within 80 km (50 mi) of the reactor facility, exposures to these effluents are calculated with a constant mean wind-direct ion model according to the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.111, Rev. 1 (R~f. 3), and the dose models described in Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 (Ref. 1). For estima-ting the dose commitment from these radionuclides to the U.S. population residing beyond the 80-km region, two dispersion regimes are considered.
These are referred to as first-pass dispersion regime and the world-wide dispersion regime. The model for the first-pass-d ispersion regime estimates the dose commitment to the population from the radioactive plume as it leaves the facility and drifts across the continental United States toward the north-eastern corner of the United States. The model for the world-wide-dispersion regime estimates the dose commitment to the U.S. population after the released radionuclid es mix uniformly in the world's atmosphere or oceans.
D-3 D.2.1 First-P ass Dispersion For estima ting the dose commitment to the U.S. population residin g nts, beyond the 80-km (50-mi) region due to the first pass of radioa ctive polluta it is assumed that the polluta nts dispers e in the lateral and vertica l directi ons along the plume path. The directi on of movement of the plume is States. assumed to be from the facilit y toward the northe astern corner of the United The extent of vertica l dispers ion is assumed to be limited by the groundthe mixing plane and the stable atmospheric layer aloft, the height of which determines depth. The shape of such a plume geometry can be visuali zed as a right- assump-cylind rical wedge whose height is equal to the mixing depth. Under the with such tion of consta nt population density , the popula tion dose associa ted a plume geometry is independent of the extent of lateral dispers ion, and is only dependent upon the mixing depth and other nongeo metrica l related factors (Ref. 4). The mixing depth is estima ted to be 1000 m (3300 ft), and a uniform population density of 62 people/ km 2 (24 people/mi 2 ) is assumed along the plume path, with an average plume-transport velocit y of 2 m/s (4.5 mph).
The total-b ody population-dose commitment from the first pass of radioa ctive effluen ts is due princip ally to externa l exposu re from gamma -emittin g noble gases, and to interna l exposure from inhalat ion of air containing tritium and from ingesti on of food containing carbon-14 and tritium .
D.2.2 World-Wide Dispersion For estima ting the dose commitment to the U.S. population after the first with pass, world-wide dispers ion is assumed. Nondepositing radionu clides carbon- 14 half-li ves greate r than one year are conside red. Noble gases and (3.8 x 10 18 m3 ), and are assumed to mix uniformly in the world's atmosp here radioa ctive decay is taken *into cons i de rat ion. The wor 1d-wi15-yea de-di spers j on model estima tes the activit y of each nuclide at the end of a r release period (midpoint of reactor life) and estima tes the annual popula tion-do se commitment at that time, taking into consid eration radioa ctive decay and physical removal mechanisms (e.g., C-14 is gradua lly removed to the gases world's oceans). The total-b ody population-do se commitm ent from the noble is due mainly to externa l exposure from gamma -emittin g nuclide s, whereas from carbon-14 it is due mainly to interna l exposure from ingesti on of food contain -
ing carbon-14.
The population-dose commitment due to tritium re 1eases is estimated in a manner simila r to that for carbon-14, except that after the first pass, all the tritium is assumed to be immediately distrib uted in the world's circula ting water volume (2.7 x 10 m ), including the top 75 16 3 m (250 ft) of the seas and oceans, as well as the rivers and atmospheric moisture. The concenafter tration of tritium in the world's circula ting water is estimated at the time 15 years of release s have occurred, taking into consid eration radioa ctive decay; the population-dose-commitment estima tes are based on the incremental concen-tration at that time. The total-b ody population-dose commitm ent from tritium is due mainly to interna l exposure from the consumption of food.
D.3 LIQUID EFFLUENTS Population-dose commitments due to effluen ts in the rece1v1ng water within 80 km (50 mi) of the facilit y are calcula ted as described in Regula tory
D-4 Guide 1.109 (Ref. 1). It is assumed that no depletion by sedimentation of the nucl ides present in the receiving water occurs within 80 km. It is a1so assumed that aquatic biota concentrate radioactivi ty in the same manner as was assumeo for the ALARA -evaluation for the maximally exposed individual. However, food-consumption values appropriate for the average, rather than the maximum, individual are used. It is further assumed that all the sport and commercial fish and shellfish caught within 80 km are eaten by the U.S. population.
Beyond 80 km, it is assumed that al .1 the 1i quid-efflue nt nucl ides except tritium have deposited on the sediments so that they make no further contribu-tion to population exposures. The tritium is assumed to mix uniformly in the world's circulating water volume and to result in an exposure to the U.S.
population in the same manner as discussed for tritium in gaseous effluents.
References for Appendix D
1. 11 Calculation of Annual *Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix l, 11 Reg. Guide 1.109, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1977.
2. 11 Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, " Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, January 1981.
3. "Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Re 1eases from Light-Water-Reactors, 11 Regulatory Guide 1.111, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 1977.
4. K.F. Eckerman et al., 11 Users Guide to GASPAR Code, ... NUREG-0597, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1980.
APPENDIX E. REBASELINING OF THE RSS RESULTS FOR BOILING-WATER REACTORS E-1
E-2 APPENDIX E. REBASELINING OF THE RSS RESULTS FOR BOILING-WATER REACTORS The results of the Reactor Safety Study (RSS) have been updated. The update was done largely to incorporate results of research and development conducted after the October 1975 publication of the RSS and to provide a baseline against which the risk associated with various LWRs could be consistently compared.
Primarily, the rebaselined RSS results (Ref. 1) reflect use of advanced modeling of the processes involved in meltdown accidents, i.e., the MARCH computer code modeling for transient and LOCA-initiated sequences and the CORRAL code used for calculating magnitudes of release accompanying various accident sequences.
These codes* have 1ed to a capabi 1ity to predict the transient and small LOCA-initiated sequences that is considerably advanced beyond what existed at the time the Reactor Safety Study was completed. The advanced accident process models (MARCH and CORRAL) produced some changes in the staff estimates of the release magnitudes from various accident sequences in WASH-1400. These changes primarily involved release magnitudes for the iodine, cesium, and tellurium families of isotopes. In general, a decrease in the iodines was predicted for many of the dominant accident sequences, while some increases in the release magnitudes for the cesium and tellurium isotopes were predicted.
Entailed in this rebaselining effort was the evaluation of individual dominant accident sequences as we understand them to evolve rather than the technique of grouping large numbers of accident sequences into encompassing, but synthetic, release categories as was done in WASH-1400. The rebaselining of the RSS also eliminated the "smoothing technique" that was criticized in the report by the Risk Assessment Review Group (sometimes known as the Lewis Report, NUREG/
CR-0400).
In both of the RSS designs (PWR and BWR), the likelihood of an accident sequence leading to th~ occurrence of a steam explosion (CT) in the reactor vessel was decreased. This was done to reflect both experi menta 1 and ca lcul at i ona 1 indications that such explosions are unlikely to occur in those sequences involving small-size LOCAs and transients because of the high pressures and temperatures expected to exist within the reactor coolant system during these scenarios. Furthermore, if such an explosion were to occur, there are indica-tions that it would be unlikely to produce as much energy and the massive missile-caused breach of containment as was postulated in WASH-1400.
It should be noted that the MARCH code was used on a number of scenarios in connection with the TMI-2 recovery efforts and for post-TMI-2 investigations to explore possible alternative scenarios that TMI-2 could have experienced.
E-3 For rebaselin ing of the RSS BWR design, the sequence TCy (described later) 1 was explicitl y included into the rebaselin ing results. The accident processes associate d with the TC sequence had been erroneously calculate d in WASH-1400.
In general, the rebaselin ed results led to slightly increased health impacts being predicted for the RSS BWR design. This is believed to be largely attributa ble to the inclusion of TCy 1 In summary, the rebaselin ing of the RSS results led to small overall differ-ences from the predictio ns in WASH-1400. It should be recognized that these small differenc es due to the rebaselin ing efforts are likely to be far out-weighed by the uncertain ties associate d with sue~ analyses.
The accident sequences identifie d in the rebaselin ing effort which are expected to dominate risk of the RSS-BWR design are briefly described below. These sequences are assumed to represent the approximate accident risks from the Clinton BWR design.
Each of the accident sequences is designated by a string of identific ation character s in t~e same manner as in the RSS. Each character represent s a failure in one or more of the important plant systems or features (see Table E.l for definitio ns of the character s). For example, in sequences having a y 1 at the end of the string, it means a particula r failure mode (overpressure) of the containment structure (and a rupture location) where a release of radio-activity takes place directly to the atmosphere from the primary containment.
In ~he sequence having a y at the end of the string, the containment failure mode is again by overpressure, but this time the rupture location is such that the release takes place into the reactor building (secondary containment) before discharging to the environment. In this latter (y) case, the overall magnitude of radioacti vity release is somewhat diminished by the deposition and plateout processes that take place within the reactor building.
TCy 1 and TCy These sequences involve a transient event requiring shutdown of the reactor while at full power, followed by a failure to make the reactor subcritic al (i.e., terminate power generation by the core). The containment is assumed to be isolated by these events; then, one or the other of the following chain of events is assumed to happen:
(a) High-pressure coolant-i njection system would succeed for some time in providing makeup water to the core in sufficien t quantity to cope with the rate of coolant loss through relief and safety valves to the suppres-sion pool of the containment. During this time, the core power level varies, but causes substanti al energy to be directed into the suppression pool; this energy is in excess of what the* containment and containment heat-removal systems are designed to cope with. Ultimately, in about 1-1/3 hours, the containment is estimated to fail by overpressure and it is assumed that this rather severe structura l failure of the. containment would disable the high-pressure coolant-makeup system. It is assumed that over a period of roughly 1-1/2 hours after breach of containment, the core would melt. This has been estimated to be one of the more dominant sequences in terms of accident risks to the public.
E-4 Table E.l. Key to BWR Accident Sequence Symbols A - Rupture of reactor coolant boundary with an equivalent diameter of greater than six inches.
C - Failure of the reactor protection system.
E - Failure of emergency core cooling injection.
Q - Failure of normal feedwater system to provide core makeup water.
51 - Small pipe break with an equivalent diameter of about 211 -6 11
Small pipe break with an equivalent diameter of about 1/2 11 -2
11 52 -
T - Transient event.
u - Failure of HPCI or RCIC to provide core makeup water.
V - Failure of low pressure ECCS to provide core makeup water.
w- Failure to remove residual core heat.
Ci - Containment failure due to stream explosion in vessel.
y - Containment failure due to overpressure - release through reactor building.
y' - Containment failure due to overpressure - release direct to atmo-sphere.
(b) A variant to the above sequence is one where the high-pressure coolant-injection system fails somewhat earlier and prior to containment over-pressure failure. In this case, the earlier me 1t could result in a reduced magnitude of release because some of the fission products dis-charged to the suppression pool, via the safety and relief valves, could be more effectively retained if the pool remained subcooled. The overall accident consequences would be somewhat reduced in this earlier melt sequence, but ultimately.the processes accompanying melt (e.g., noncondens-ibles, steam, and steam pressure pulses during reactor vessel melt-through) could cause overpressure failure (y or y') of the containment.
TWy' and TWy The TW sequence involves a transient where the reactor has been shut down and it and the containment have been isolated from their normal heat sink. In
this sequence, the failure to transfer decay heat from the core and containment to an ultimate sink could ultimately cause overpressure failure of containment.
Overpressure failure of containment would take many, many hours, allowing for repair or other emergency actions to be accomplished, but it is assumed that should.this sequence occur, the rather severe structural failure of containment would disable the systems (e.g., HPI, RCIC) providing coolant makeup to the reactor core. (In the RSS design, the service water system which conveys heat from the containment via RHR system to the ultimate sink was found to be the dominant failure contribution in the TW sequence.) After breach of containment, the core is assumed to melt.
E-5
[TQUVy 1 , AEy 1 , S,Ey 1 , S2 Ey'J and [TQUVy, AEy, S2 Ey, S2EY]
Each of the acciden t sequences shown grouped into the two bracketed categor ies above are estimate d to have quite similar consequence outcomes, and these would be somewhat smaller than the TCy , y and TWy sequences described above.
1 1 In essence, these sequences, which are characte rized as in the RSS, involve failure to deliver makeup coolant to the core after a LOCA or a shutdown transien t event requirin g such coolant makeup. The core is assumed to melt down and the melt processes ultimate ly cause overpressure failure of contain-ment (either y or y). The overall risk from these sequences is expected to 1
be dominated by the higher frequency initiati ng events (i.e., the small LOCA (5 2 ) and shutdown transien ts (T)).
References for Appendix E "Reactor Safety Study Methodology Applications Program, U.S. Nuclear 11 1.
Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1659, Vol. 1, April 1981.
APPENDIX F. CONSEQUENCE MODELING CONSIDERATIONS F-1
F-2 APPENDIX F. CONSEQUENCE MODELING CONSIDERATIONS F.1 EVACUATION MODEL 11 Evacuation 11 , used in *the context of offsite emergency response in the event of substantial amount of radioactivity release to the atmosphere in a reactor accident, denotes an early and expeditious movement of people to avoid exposure to the passing radioactive cloud and/or to acute ground contamination in the wake of the cloud passage. It should be distinguished from "relocation" which denotes a post-accident response to reduce exposure from long-term ground con-tamination. The Reactor Safety Study (RSS) (Ref. 1) consequence model con-tains provision for incorporating radiological consequence reduction benefits of public evacuation. The benefits of a properly planned and expeditiously carried out public evacuation would be well manifested in a reduction of early health effects associated with early exposure; namely, in the number of cases of early fatality (see Sec. F.2) and acute radiation sickness which would require hospitalization. The evacuation model originally used in the RSS con-sequence model is described in WASH-1400 (Ref. 1) as well as in NUREG-0340 (Ref.* 2). However, the evacuation model which has been used herein is a modified version (Ref. 3) of the RSS model and is, to a certain extent, site emergency planning oriented. The modified version is briefly outlined below:
The model utilizes a 'circular area with a specified radius (such as a 16-km (10-mi) plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)), with the reactor at the center. It is assumed that people living within portions of this area would evacuate if an accident should occur involving imminent or actual release of significant quantities of radioactivity to the atmosphere.
Significant atmospheric releases of radioactivity would in general be preceded by one or more hours of warning time (postulated as the time interval between the awareness of impending core melt and the beginning of the release of radio-activity from the containment building). For the purpose of calculation of radiological exposure, the model assumes that all people who live in a fan-shaped area (fanning out from the reactor), within the circular zone with the downwind direction as its median - i.e., those people who would potentially be under the radioactive cloud that would develop following the release - would leave their residences after lapse of a specified amount of delay time* and then evacuate. The delay time is reckoned from the beginning of the warning time and is recognized as the sum of the time required by the reactor operators to notify the responsible authorities, time required by the authorities to interpret the data, decide to evacuate, and direct the people to evacuate, and time required for the people to mobilize and get underway.
Assumed to be of a constant value which would be the same for all evacuees.
F-3 The model assumes that each evacuee would move radially out in the downwind direction* with an average effective speed** (obtained by dividing the zone radius by the average time taken to clear the zone after the delay time) over
. a fixed distance** from the evacuee's starting point. This distance is selected to be 24 km (15 mi), which is 8 km (5 mi) more than the 16-km (10-mi) plume exposure pathway EPZ radius). After reaching the end of the travel distance the evacuee is assumed to receive no further radiation exposure.
The model incorporates a finite length of the radioactive cloud in the downwind direction which would be determined by the product of the duration over which the atmospheric release would take place and the average windspeed during the release. It is assumed that the front and the back of the cloud formed would move with an equal speed which would be the same as the prevailing windspeed; therefore, its length would remain constant at its initial value. At any time after the release, the concentration of radioactivi ty is assumed to be uniform over the length of the cloud. If the delay* time were less than the warning time, then all evacuees would have a head-start, i.e., the cloud would be trail-ing behind the evacuees initially. On the other hand, if the delay time were more than the warning time, then depending on initial locations of the evacuees there are possibiliti es that (a) an evacuee will still have a head start, or (b) the cloud would be already overhead when an evacuee starts to leave, or (c) an evacuee would be initially trailing behind the cloud. However, this initial picture of cloud-people disposition would change as the evacuees travel depending on the relative* speed and positions between the cloud and people.
The cloud and an evacuee might overtake one another zero, or one or more number of times before the evacuee would reach his or her destination . In the model, the radial position of an evacuating person, either stationary o.r in transit, is compared to the front and the back of the cloud as a function of time to determine a realistic period of exposure to airborne radionuclides. The model
.calculates the time periods during which people are exposed to radionuclides on the ground while they are stationary and *while they are evacuating. Because radionuclides would be deposited continually from the cloud as it passed a given location, a person who is under the cloud would be exposed to ground contamination less concentrated than if the cloud had completely passed. To account for this, at least in part, the revised model assumes that persons are (a) exposed to the total ground contamination concentration which is calculated to exist after complete passage of the cloud, after they are completely passed by the cloud; (b) exposed to one-half the calculated concentration when any-where under the cloud; and (c) not exposed.when they are in front of the cloud.
The model provides for use of different values of the shielding protection factors for exposure from airborne radioactivi ty and contaminated ground.
Results shown _in Section 5.9.4.1.4.2 for accidents involv1ng significant release of radioactivi ty to the atmosphere were based upon the assumption that all people within the 16-km (10-mi) plume exposure pathway EPZ would evacuate as per the evacuation scenario described above. It is not expected that detailed inclusion of any special facility near a specific plant site, where not all persons would be quickly evacuated, would significant ly alter the conclusions.
Sheltering in such cases can provide significant mitigation of consequences in
In the RSS consequence model, the radioactive cloud is assumed to travel radially outward only.
Assumed to be of a constant value which would be the same for all evacuees.
F-4 most instances. For the delay time before evacuation, a generic value of one hour, considered to be achievable by appropriate planning, was used. The staff estimated the effective speed of evacuation to be 0.78 m/s (1.75 mph) based upon the applicant's estimate or the time necessary to clear the 16-km (10-mi) zone. As an additional emergency measure for the Clinton site, it was also assumed that all people beyond the evacuation distance who would be exposed to the contaminated ground would be relocated after passage of the plume. For the people outside the evacuation zone and within 40 km (25 mi), a reasonable relocation time span of eight hours has been assumed, during which each person is assumed to receive additional exposure to the ground contamination. Beyond the 40-km (25-mi) distance the usual assumption of the RSS consequence model regarding the period of ground exposure was used--which is that if the calcula-ted ground dose to the total marrow over a seven-day period would exceed 200 rem, then this high dose rate would be detected by actual field measurements follow-ing the plume passage, and people from those regions would then be relocated immediately. For this situation the model limits the period of ground dose calculation to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months ; otherwise, the period of ground*exposure is limited to seven days for calculation of early dose.
It is also realistic to expect that authorities would evacuate persons at dis-tances from the site where exposures above the threshold for causing *arly fatalities could occur regardless of the plume exposure pathway EPZ distance.
Figure F-1 illustrates the reduction .in early fatalities that can occur by extending evacuation to a larger distance, such as 24 km (15 mi), from the Clinton site. Also illustrated in Figure F-1 is a pessimistic case for which no early evacuation is assumed and all persons are assumed to be exposed for the fir~t 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months following an accident and a~e then relocated.
The model has the same provision for calculation of the economic cost associated with implementation of evacuation as in the orginal RSS model. For this purpose, the model assumes that for atmospheric releases of durations three hours or less, all people living within a circular area of 8-km (5-mi) radius centered at the reactor plus all people within a 45° angular sector within the plume exposure pathway EPZ and centered on the downwind direction would evacuate and temporarily relocate. However, if the duration of release would exceed three hours, the cost of evacuation is based on the assumption that all people within the entire plume exposure pathway EPZ would evacuate and temporarily relocate.
For either of these situations, the cost of evacuation and relocation is assumed to be $125 (1980 dollars) per person, which includes cost of food and temporary sheltering for a period of one week.
F.2 EARLY HEALTH EFFECTS MODEL The medical advisors to the Reactor Safety Study (Ref. 1) proposed three alter-native dose-mortality relationships that can be used to estimate the number of early fatalities that might result in an exP.osed population. These alterna-tives characterize different degrees of post-exposure medical treatment from "minimal," to "supportive," to 11 heroic, 11 and are more fully described in NUREG-0340 (Ref. 2).
The calculational estimates of the early fatality risks presented in the t'exts of Section 5.9.4.1.4.3 and Section F.1 of this appendix used the dose-mortality relationship that is based upon the supportive treatment alternative. This
1 Hf 1d Hf HT lffi'o 0 -4
-4 LEGEND o = NO EVAC .--REL OCAT ION AFTER 1 DAY
>< o = EVACUA'l'ION TO 15 MILES
(/)
-~lo
b
~
1-- -4
_J c:::C
~
LI-
>-To
_J-4 0::::
c:::C LL.I LI-
0. ~
'o I
>-'b ~
(J'1
~-i 0:::
UJ a.
>- 'fo t:To ~
_J -4 t--4
~
i:Q 0
0::::
c.. _To To_ ~
icf 10*
~1cf 1d Hf X= EARLY FATALITIES Fatali ty to Evacuation Distance.
Figure F.1. Sensi tivity of Proba bility Distri bution of Early taintie NOTE: Please see Section 5.9.4. 1.4.7 for discus sion of uncer s in risk estima tes.
F-6 implies the availability of medical care facilities and services for those exposed in excess of about 200 rem. At the extreme low probability end of the spectrum, i.e., at the one chance in one-hundred-million per reactor-year level, the number of persons involved might exceed the capacity of facilities for such services, in which case the number of early fatalities might have been somewhat underestimated. To gain perspective on this element of uncertainty, the staff has also performed calculations using the most pessimistic dose-mortality relationship based upon minimal medical treatment and using identical assumptions regarding early evacuation and early relocation as made in Section 5.9.4.1.4.3.
This shows 5 early fatalities at the one chance in one-million per reactor-year level, an increase from 140 to 300 early fatalities at the one chance in one-hundred-million per reactor-year level (see Table 5.9), and an overall five-fold increase in annual risk of early fatalities (see Table 5.10). The major fraction of the increased risk of early fatality in the absence of supportive medical treatment would occur within 5 km (3 mi) and virtually all.would be contained within 60 km (40 mi) from the Clinton site.
References for Appendix F
1. "Reactor Safety Study, 11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014, October 1975.
2. "Overview of the Reactor Safety Study Consequences Model , 11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0340, October 1977.
3. 11 A Mode 1 of Pub 1ic Evacuation for Atmospheric Radio 1ogi ca 1 Re 1eases, 11 Sandia Laboratories, SAND 78-0092, June 1978.
APPENDIX G. IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE G-1
G-2 APPENDIX G. IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE The following assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle as related to the operation of the proposed project is based on the values given in Table S-3 (Sec. 5.10) and the staff's analysis of the radiological impact from radon releases. For the sake of consistency, the analysis of fuel-cycle impacts has been cast in terms of a model 1000-MWe light-water-cooled reactor (LWR) operating at an annual capacity factor of 80%. In the following review and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff's analysis and conclusions would not be altered if the analysis were to be based on the net electrical power output of the Clinton Power Station.
G.1 LAND USE The total annual land requirement for the fuel cycle supporting a model 1000-MWe LWR is about 46 ha (113 acres). About 5.3 ha (13 acres) are perma-nently committed, and 41 ha (100 acres) are temporarily committed. (A 11 tempo-rary11 land commitment is a commitment for the life of the specific fuel-cycle plant; e.g. mill, enrichment plant, or succeeding plants. On abandonment or decommissioning, such land can be used for any purpose. "Permanent" commit-ments represent land that may not be released for use after plant shutdown and/or decommissioning.) Of the 41 ha per year of temporarily committed land, 32 ha (79 acres) are undisturbed and 9 ha (22 acres) are disturbed. Consider-ing common classes of land use in the United States,* fuel-cycle land-use requirements to support the model 1000-MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact.
G.2 WATER USE The principal water-use requirement for the fuel cycle supporting a model 1000-MWe LWR is that required to remove waste heat from the power stations supplying electrical energy to the enrichment step of this cycle. Of the total annual requirement of 43 x 10 6 m3 (11.4 x 10 9 gal), about 42 x 10 6 m3 (11.1 x 10 9 gal) are required for this purpose, assuming that these plants use once-through cooling. Other water uses involve the discharge to air (e.g.,
evaporation losses in process cooling) of about 0.6 x 10 6 m3 (160 x 10 6 gal) per year and water discharged to ground (e.g. , mine drainage) of about 0.5 x 10 6 m3 (130 x 10 6 gal) per year.
On a thermal-effluent basis, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are about 4% of those from the model 1000-MWe LWR using once-through cooling. The consumptive water use of 0.6 x 10 6 m3/yr is about 2% of that from the model 1000-MWe LWR using cooling towers. The maximum consumptive water use (assuming
A coal-fired power plant of 1000-MWe capacity using strip-mined coal requires the disturbance of about 81 ha (200 acres) per year for fuel alone.
G-3 that all plants supplying electri cal energy to the nuclea r fuel cycle used cooling towers) would be about 6% of that of the model 1000-MW e LWR using cooling towers. Under this conditi on, thermal effluen ts would be neglig ible.
The staff finds that these combinations of thermal loadings and water consump -
tion are accepta ble relativ e to the water use and thermal dischar ges of the proposed projec t.
G.3 FOSSIL-FUEL CONSUMPTION Electri cal energy and process heat are require d during various by phases of the fuel-cy cle process . The electri cal energy is usually produced the combus-tion of fossil fuel at conventional power plants. Electri cal energy asso-ciated with the fuel cycle represe nts about 5% of the annual electri cal power production of the model 1000-MWe LWR. Process heat is generated primar ily by the combustion of natural gas. This gas consumption, if used to genera te electr icity, would be less than 0.3% of the electri cal output from the model plant. The staff finds that the direct and indirec t consumptions oftoelectri cal energy for fuel-cy cle operati ons are small and accepta ble relativ e the net power production of the propose d projec t.
G.4 CHEMICAL EFFLUENTS The quanti ties of chemical, gaseous, and particu late effluen ts associa ted with fuel-cy cle processes are given in Table S-3. The princip al species are sulfur oxides , nitroge n oxides , and particu lates. Judging from data in a Council on Environmental Quality report (Ref. 1), the staff finds that these emissio ns consti tute an extremely small additio nal atmospheric loading in comparisonn with these emissions from the station ary fuel-combustion and transpnationa ortatio sectors in the United States; that is, about 0.02% of the annual l re 1eases for each of these species . The staff be 1 i eves that such sma 11 increas es in release s of these polluta nts are accepta ble.
Liquid chemical effluen ts produced in fuel-cy cle processes are related to fuel-en richme nt, -fabric ation, and -reproc essing operati ons and may be release d to receivi ng waters. These effluen ts are usually presen t in dilute concen tra-tions such that only small amounts of dilutio n water are requireThe d to reach levels of concen tration that are within establi shed standar ds. flow of dilutio n water require d for specif ic constit uents is specifi ed in Table S-3.
Additi onally, all liquid dischar ges into the navigab le waters of the United States from plants associa ted with the fuel-cy cle operati ons will be subjec t to requirements and limitat ions set forth in the NPDES permit.
Tailing s solutio ns and solids are generated during the milling process. These solutio ns and solids are not release d in quanti ties suffici ent to have a signifi cant impact on the environment.
G.5 RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS Radioactive effluen ts estima ted to be release d to the environment from repro- fuel-cessing and waste-management activi ties and certain other phases of the calcu-cycle process are listed in Table S-3. Using these data, the staff has lated for one year of operati on of the model 1000-MWe LWR, the 100-year involun-tary environmental dose commitment* to the U.S. popula tion.
G-4 It is estimated from these calculations that the overall involuntary total-body gaseous dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle (excluding reactor releases and the dose commitment due to radon-222 and technetium-99) would be about 400 person-rems for each year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR (reference reactor year, or RRY). Based on Table S-3 values, the addi-tional involuntary total-body dose commitments to the U.S. population from radioactive liquid effluents (excluding technetium-99) due to all fuel-cycle operations other than reactor operation would be about 100 person-rems per year of operation. Thus, the estimated involuntary 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases due to these portions of the fuel cycle is about 500 person-rems (whole body) per RRY.
At this time, the radiological impacts associated with radon-222 and technetium-99 releases are not addressed in Table S-3. Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling operations and as emissions from mill tailings; whereas principal technetium-99 releases occur from gaseous diffusion enrich-ment facilities. The staff has determined that radon-222 releases per RRY from these operations are as given in Table G.1. The staff has calculated population-dose commitments for these sources of radon-222 using the RABGAD computer code described in Volume 3 of NUREG-0002, Appendix A, Chapter IV, Section J (Ref. 2). The results of these calculations for mining and milling activities prior to tailings stabilization are given in Table G.2.
When added to the 500 person-rems total-body dose commitment for the balance of the fuel cycle, the overall estimated total-body involuntary 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle for the model 1000-MWe LWR is about 640. person-rems. Over this period of time, this dose is equivalent to 0.00002% of the natural-background total-body dose of about 3 billion person-rems to the U.S. population.**
The staff has considered the health effects associated with the releases of radon-222, including both the short-term effects of mining, milling, and active tailings, and the potential long-term effects from unreclaimed open-pit mines and stabilized tailings. The staff has assumed that after completion of active mining, underground mines will be sealed, returning releases of radon-222 to background levels. For purposes of providing an upper-bound impact assess-ment, the staff has assumed that open-pit mines will be unreclaimed and has calculated that if all ore were produced from open-pit mines, releases from them would be 110 Ci per RRY. However, because the distribution of uranium-ore reserves available by conventional mining methods is 66% underground and
The environmental dose commitment (EDC) is the integrated population dose for 100 years; i.e., it represents the sum of the annual population doses for a total of 100 years.
Based on an annual average natural-background individual dose commitment of 100 millirems and a stabilized U.S. population of 300 million.
G-5 Table G.1. Radon Releases from Mining and Milling Operations and Mill Tailing s for Each Year of Operation of the Model 1000-MWe LWR*
Radon source Quantity released Mining** 4060 Ci Milling and tailing s*** (during active mining) 780 Ci Inactiv e tailing s*** (before stabili zation ) 350 Ci Stabili zed tailing s*** (several hundred years) 1 to 10 Ci/year Stabili zed tailing s*** (after several hundred years) 110 Ci/yr
After three days of hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB) using the Perkins record in a "lead case" on the approach, the ASLAB issued a decision on May 13, 1981 (ALAB-640) radon-222 release source term for the uranium fuel cycle. The deci- on sion, among other matter s, produced new source term numbers based differ the record developed at the hearings. These new numbers did not signifi cantly from those in the Perkins record which are the values set forth in this table. Any health effects relativ e to radon-222 are still under consideration before the ASLAB. Because the source term numbers in ALAB-640 do not differ signifi cantly from those in the
_Perkins record, the staff continues to conclude that both the insign dose commitments and health effects of the uranium fuel cycle are ifi-cant when compared to dose commitments and potent ial health effects to the U.S. population resulti ng from all natural background sources .
Subsequent to ALAB-640, a second ASLAB decision (ALAB~654, issued September 11, 1981) permits intervenors a 60-day period to challenge the Perkins record on the potent ial health effects of radon-222 emissions.
R. Wilde, NRC transc ript of direct testimony given "In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nucle~ r Station ), 11 Docket No. 50-488, April 17, 1978.
P. Magno, NRC transc ript of direct testimony given 11 In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station ), Docket No.58-488, 11 April 17, 1978.
Table G.2. Estimated 100-Year Environmental Dose Commitment for Each Year of Operation of the Model 1000-MWe LWR Dosage {eerson-rems)
Radon-222 Radon Release Lung (bronchial Source (Ci) Total Body Bone epithelium)
Mining 4100 110 2800 2300 Milling and active 620 tailing s 1100 29 750 Total 140 3600 2900
G-6 34% open-pit (Ref. 3), the staff has further assumed that uranium to fuel LWRs will be produced by conventional mining methods in these proportions . This means that long-term releases from unreclaimed open-pit mines will be 37 Ci/yr (0.332 x 110) per RRY.
Based on these assumptions, the radon released from unreclaimed open-pit mines over 100- and 1000-year periods would be about 3700 Ci and 37,000 Ci per RRY, respectivel y. The total dose commitments for a 100- to 1000-year period would be as shown in Table G.3. These commitments represent a worst-case situation in that no mitigating circumstances are assumed. However, state and Federal laws currently require reclamation of strip and open-pit coal mines, and it is very probable that similar reclamation will be required for open-pit uranium mines. If so, long-term releases from such mines should approach background levels.
For long-term radon releases from stabilized tailings piles, the staff has assumed that the tailings would emit, per RRY, 1 Ci/yr for 100 years, 10 Ci/yr for the next 400 years, and 100 Ci/yr for periods beyond 500 years. With these assumptions, the cumulative radon-222 release from stabilized- tailings piles per RRY would be 100 Ci in 100 years, 4090 Ci in 500 years, and 53,800 Ci in 1000 years (Ref. 4). The total-body, bone, and bronchial-e pithelium dose commitments for these periods are as shown in Table G.4.
Using risk estimators of 135, 6.9, and 22 cancer deaths per million person-rems for total-body, bone, and lung exposures, respectivel y, the estimated risk of cancer mortality resulting from mining, milling, and active-taili ngs emissions of radon-222 is ~bout 0.11 cancer fatality per RRY. When risk from radon-222 emissions from stabilized tailings over a 100-year release period is added, the estimated risk of cancer mortality over a 100-year period is unchanged.
Similarly, a risk of about 1.2 cancer fatalities per RRY is estimated over a 1000-year release period. When potential radon releases from reclaimed and unreclaimed open-pit mines are included, the overall risks of radon-induced cancer fatalities per RRY range as follows:
0.11-0.19 fatality for*a 100-year period, 0.19-0.57 fatality for a 500-year period, and 1.2 -2.0 fatalities for a 1000-year period.
To illustrate: A single model 1000-MWe LWR operating at an 80% capacity factor for 30 years would be predicted to induce between 3.3 and 5.7 cancer fatalities in 100 years, 5.7 and 17 in 500 years, and 36 and 60 in 1000 years as a result of releases of radon-222.
These doses and predicted health effects have been compared with those that can be expected from natural-background emissions of radon-222. Using data from the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) (Ref. 5), the average radon-222 concentratio n in air in the contiguous United States is about 150 pCi/m 3 , which the NCRP estimates will result in an annual dose to the bronchial epithelium of 450 millirems. For a stabilized future U.S. population of 300 million, this represents a total lung-dose commitment of 135 million person-rems per year. Using the same risk estimator of 22 lung-cancer fatali-ties per million person-lung-rems used to predict cancer fatalities for the model 1000-MWe LWR, estimated lung-cancer fatalities alone from background
G-7 Table G.3. Population-Dose Commitments from Unreclaimed Open-Pit Mines for Each Year of Operation of the Model 1000-MWe LWR Time Radon-222 Poeulation-Dose Commitments (eerson-rems)
Period Release Lung (bronchial (yr) (Ci) Total Body Bone epithelium) 100 3,700 96 2,500 2,000 500 19,000 480 13,000 11,000 1,000 37,000 960 25,000 20,000 Table G.4. Population-Dose Commitments from Stabili zed-Ta ilings Piles for Each Year of Operation of the Model 1000-MWe LWR Poeulation-Dose Commitments (eerson-rems)
Time Radon-222 Period Release Lung (bronchial (yr) (C.i) Total Body Bone epithelium) 100 100 2.6 68 56 500 4,090 110 2,800 2,300 1,000 53,800 1,400 37,000 30,000
G-8 radon-222 in the air can be calculated to be about 3000 per year, or 300,000 to 3;000,000 lung-cancer deaths over periods*of 100 and 1000 years, respect-ively.
The staff is currently in the process of formulating a specific model for analyzing potential impact and health effects from release of technetium-99 during the fuel cycle. However, for the interim period until the model is completed, the staff has calculated that the potential 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the release of Tc-99 should not exceed 100 person-rems per RRY. These calculations are based on the gaseous and the hydrological pathway model systems described in Volume 3 of NUREG-0002, Chapter IV, Section J, Appendix A (Ref. 2). When added to the 640 person-rem total-body dose commitment for the balance of the fuel cycle, including radon-222, the overa 11 estimated tota 1-body involuntary 100-year envi ronmenta 1 dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle for the model 1000-MWe LWR is about 740 person-rems. Over this period of time, this dose is equivalent to O. 00002% of the natura 1-background tota 1-body dose of about 3 bi 11 ion person-rems to the U.S. population.*
The staff also considered the potential health effects associated with this release of technetium-99. Using the modeling systems described in NUREG-0002, the major risks from Tc-99 are from exposure of the GI tract and kidney, although there is a small risk from total-body exposure. Using organ-specific risk estimators, these individual organ risks can be converted to total-body risk equivalent doses. Then, by using the total-body risk estimator of 135 cancer deaths per million person-rems, the estimated risk of cancer mortality due to technetium-99 releases from the nuclear fuel cycle is about 0.01 cancer fatality per RRY over the subsequent 100 to 1000 years.
In addition to the radon- and technetium-related potential health effects from the fuel cycle, other*nuclides produced in the cycle, such as carbon-14, will contribute to population exposures. It is estimated that an additional 0.08 to 0.12 cancer death may occur per RRY (assuming that no cure for or preven-tion of cancer is ever developed) over the next 100 to 1000 years, respectively, from exposures to these other nuclides.
The latter exposures also can be compared with those from naturally occurring terrestri a1 and cosmic-ray sources. These average about 100 mi 11 i rems.
Therefore, for a stable future population of 300 million persons, the whole-body dose commitment would be about 30 million person-rems per year, or 3 bil-lion person-rems and 30 billion person-rems for periods of 100 and 1000 years, respectively. These natural-background dose commitments could produce about 400,000 and 4,000,000 cancer deaths during the same time periods. From the above analysis, the staff concludes that both the dose commitments and health effects of the uranium fuel cycle are insignificant when compared with dose commitments and potential health effects to the U.S. population resulting from all natural-background sources.
Based on an annual average natural-background individual dose commitment of 100 millirems an a stabilized U.S. population of 300 million.
G-9 G.6 RADIOACTIVE WASTES The quanti ties of buried radioa ctive waste material (low-le vel, high-le vel, and transur anic wastes) associa ted with the uranium fuel cycle are specifi ed in Table S-3. For low-level waste disposa l at land-b urial facilit ies, the Commission notes in Table S-3 that there will be no signifi cant radioa ctive re 1eases to the environment. The Cammi ss ion notes that hi gh-1 eve l and transur anic wastes are to be buried at a Federa1 reposit ory, andis that no release to the environment is associa ted with such dispos al. It indicat ed in NUREG-0116 (Ref. 6), in which are provide d backgro und and contex t for the high-level and transur anic Table 5-3 values establi shed by the Commi ssion, that these high-level and transur anic wastes will be buried and will not be release d to the biosphere. No radiolo gical environ mental impact is expecte d from such dispos al.
G.7 OCCUPATIONAL DOSE The annual occupational -dose attribu table to all phases of the fuel cycle for the model 1000-MWe LWR is about 200 person- rems. The staff conclud es that this occupational dose wi 11 not have a s i gni fi cant environmental impact.
G.8 TRANSPORTATION The transp ortatio n dose to workers and the public is specifi ed in Table 5-3.
This dose is small in comparison with the natural-background dose.
G.9 FUEL CYCLE The staff's analys is of the uranium fuel cycle did not depend on the selecte d fuel cycle (no recycle or uranium-only recycl e), because the data provide d in Table S-3 include maximum recycle -option impact for each elemen t of the fuel cycle. Thus, the staff's conclusions as to accept ability of the cycle environmental impacts of the fuel cycle are not affecte d by the specif ic fuel selecte d.
References for Appendix G
1. "The Seventh Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality ," ,
Figures 11-27 and 11-28, pp. 238-239, Council on Environmental Quality September 1976.
2. "Final Generic Environmental Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutoni um in Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," NUREG -0002, U.S. Nuclea r Regulatory Commission, August 1976.
3. "Stati stical Data of the Uranium Industr y," GJ0-100(8-78), U.S. Depart-ment of Energy, January 1, 1978.
4. Testimony of R. Gotchy from: "In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station )," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No. 50-488 ,
filed April 17, 1978.
G-10
5. Natural Background Radiation in the Uriited States, Publication No. 45, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, November 1975.
6. "Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to WASH-1248), U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1976.
APPENDIX H. LETTER FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, CONCERNING ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE CLINTON POWER STATION H-1
H-2
$0 -+s 1/s S-United States Department of the Interior '1'~ I FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 'I(,,~
2701 Rockcreek Parkway, Suite 106 North Kansas City, Missouri 6'4116 KANSAS CITY AREA OFFICE ECOLOGICAL SER YICES 816/374-6166 816/314-S9Jl June 8, 1981 Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington O.C. 20.5.5.5
Dear Mr. Youngblood:
This is in response to your letter of May 4, 1981, regarding the Byron and Clinton nuclear power plant sites in Ogle and DeWitt Counties, Illinois.
In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, we have reviewed the project information and our Endangered Species distribution information and we have determined that the following listed species may occur in both project areas.
Listed Species Bald eagle (H aliaeetus leucocephalus)
Indiana bat CM yot1s sodahs)
The bald eagle is a winter resident. Wintering eagles are commonly encountered along streams, rivers and reservoirs where open water and a plentiful food supply exists.
A single bald eagle was sited 1.5 miles SW of the Byron site this past winter. Additional eagle sightings have been made in the. Clinton Lake area.
The Indiana bat is a summer resident throughout Illinois. They utilize riparian timber areas for establishing small nursery colonies. The areas indicated on your maps contain good bat habitat.
It is the Nuclear. Regulatory Commission's responsibility to review the project and evaluate the possible effects on federally listed species. The determination to be made on each project is whether the proposed action "may affect or will not affect" listed threatened or endangered species. If it is determined the project "will not affect" an endangered species, no further action is necessary, and the procedure is terminated. If, however, your determination is the project "may affect," you should request formal consultation. The Area Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kansas City, Missouri, has the prerogative to request your agency to formally consult on any project if deemed necessary. If there are any questions regarding the biological assessment or how i~ applies to the consultation process, please contact Mr. Larry Visscher, Endangered Species Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2701 Rockcreek Parkway, Suite 106, North Kansas City, Missouri (816/374-6166).
Sincerely yours,
../ / *-.
Tom A. Saunders Area Manager
"'1J.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1982 361-297/2160 1-3
NRC FORM 335 1. REPORT NUMBER {Assigned by DDC)
(7-77)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0854
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE (Add Volume No., if appropriate) 2. (Leave blank)
Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION N0.
7. AUTHOR (S) 5. DATE REPORT COMPLETED MONTH I YEAR Mav 1982
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIO N NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Include Zip Code} DATE REPORT ISSUED MONTH I YEAR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation M~ ,, 100?
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6. (Leave blank J Washington, D. C. 20555 8. (Leave blank}
12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATIO N NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Include Zip Code}
10. PROJECT/TAS K/WORK UNIT NO.
Same as 9, above. 11. CONTRACT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT INovember 1974 - May 1982 PERIOD COVE RED (Inclusive dates}
15. SUPPLEMENT ARY NOTES 14. (Leave blank)
Docket No. 50-461
16. ABSTRACT (200 words or less}
This Final Environmental Statement contains the second assessment of the environmental impact associate d with operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, pursuant t~ the Natio~al Environmental Policy Act*of 1969 (NEPA) and 10 CFR Part 51, ai amended, of the NRC's regulatio ns. This statement examines: the purpose and need for the Clinton pro-ject; the affected environment, environmental consequences and mitigatin g actions, and environmental and economic benefits and costs. The action called for is the issuance of an operating license for Unit 1 of the Clinton Power Station.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 17a. DESCRIPTORS 17b. IDENTIFIERS/ OPEN,ENDED TEAMS
19. SECURITY CLASS (This report/ 21. NO. OF PAGES
18. AVAILABILIT Y STATEMENT UNCLASSIFIED 20, S~~U~ITY CLASS (This page/ 22. PRICE UNLIMITED UNCLASSIFIED s NRC FORM 335 (7*77)
UNITED STATES FIRST CLASS MAIL NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION POST AGE & FEES PAIO
USNRC WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055? WASH :> C PERMIT N o ~
OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300

ML19079A225

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Miller:

Dear Mr. Miller:

Dear Mr. Miller:

Dear Mr. Miller:

Dear Sirs:

Dear Mr. Williams:

Dear Sir:

Dear Mr. Miller:

Dear Mr. Williams:

Dear Mr. Williams:

Dear Mr. Miller :

Dear Mr. Williams:

Dear Mr. Idleman:

Dear Mr. Youngblood:

Navigation menu

ML19079A225

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Miller:

Dear Mr. Miller:

Dear Mr. Miller:

Dear Mr. Miller:

Dear Sirs:

Dear Mr. Williams:

Dear Sir:

Dear Mr. Miller:

Dear Mr. Williams:

Dear Mr. Williams:

Dear Mr. Miller :

Dear Mr. Williams:

Dear Mr. Idleman:

Dear Mr. Youngblood:

Navigation menu

Search