Text

Suppl 2 to Application for CP & Early Site Review Containing Util Responses to NRC Questions Re Site Suitability Generated During Early Site Review
	ML19323D001
Person / Time
Site:	05000599, 05000600
Issue date:	05/13/1980
From:	Naughton W; COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	;
References
	NUDOCS 8005190515
	Download: ML19323D001 (127)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:; Commonwealth ECson 800'5190 515 * [ / Ono First Nitional PlJza, Chicigo Illinois p \\ 7 Addr:ss R ply to: Post Office Box 767 's \\ ,/ Chicago, Illinois 60690 May 13, 1980 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Carroll County Station Units 1 and 2 Revision No. 3, Supplement No. 2 to t' ; Site Suitability - Environmental Rep-et Portion of the Application for Construction Permit and Early Site Review NRC Docket Nos. S50-599 and S50-600 Reference (a): February 6, '980 letter from R. L. Ballard to D. L. Peop2es requesting additional information with regard to the Site Suitability Environmental Report (SSER) and the Site Suitability Site Safety Report (SSSSR)

Dear Mr. Denton:

The application for Construction Permits and Early Site Review for Carroll County Station Units 1 and 2, docketed April 10, 1979 in NRC Docket Nos. S50-599 and S50-600, is hereby amended pursuant to 10 CFR 2.101(a-1) by submittal of Revision No. 3, Supplement No. 2 to the Site Suitability - Environmental Report (SFER). This revision contains Commonwealth Edison Company's responses to questions generated by the NRC Staff during the evaluation of the early site review segment of the Carroll County Station construction permit application, specifically those questions contained in Enclosure 1 of Reference (a). In addition, Commonwealth Edison is including text revisions in the form of Figure 3.4-4 (Plan and Profile of the Blowdown Discharge Structure) and a revised aerial photograph of our LaSalle site which is contained in Appendix 9.2E. THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUAUTY PAGES,

r C::mmonwrith Edison Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director May 13, 1980 Page 2 Three (3) signed originals and thirty-eight (38) copies of these revisions and supplement are submitted for your review and approval. Very truly yours, William F. Naught Nuclear Licensing Administrator Pressurized Water Reactors SUBSCRIBE 0 and SWO j"go before me this day of 9/l/tf /. , 1980 ilUtil91{OAMCous [JNotary Public 3767A '. ( l e ,.g, ,es .ews +-~~~vv, <~ w = ' ~ " - ' " " * = ~ ^ " " ' " " * * * " * " ' ' * ' ' ' " ' * " '"

O O O r_-----_.---------_---___.---_-__________3 5 u____ (,--------------__-_______________. g p l 'l a t a it! PLAN E 10' _ _O 10' 20' SCALE N FEET EXIST. GAADE ELat9'1 % "p D :a N0fWAL POOL EL 582 45-EXISTWG RrVER BOTTOM ~ ~_ CROWN EL 573* i / I f O n RELIEF HOLES (TYP.) / v~ / 36"# m PM (TYR) y LL Ls 2 m O 4 3 880'+ m o 4 m ~ P E E E 2m o om m -4 0 2G F>c PROFILE m E 3d2 to' o 10' 20' 0 4 SB E g z -< SCALE IN FEET ga m 2 La S C Gm = mp idg a nm g*3 5" a >o n rpm m z o m m 3 ) m o bz Q

m n+f. men.ussrreir:.= .w ..~.... ,. a.. N v ...rb. A sf .g..%.n h;.. -7 seer ~.,.e. _ em%rp. c j ..;,y.g.. . 'A + .z.

ap/p.....

..gy, y

i i

g 3 7 -. g; '.. p ylg. ;,.. v,, {., y, .~.qca ng;c -v.. . - M... f.' v ',,. h, h, 4 ..-@()[g

- j

['1 E

Nh{T g'd. * %p @7. I 4t < ifm.-...y.. y: +.. .] g_ :._ y g<. p. ~.'.,. - _. -v, . ~.,

g,

~- m gf g = . :~ g.t- .e- ..g g. ~ ~. ,9 ~ m. 4 ->r

4 yfg* Y2;g h.Y
k. ' ~

,.2 w (r - r. ' _ y. N. ",I4, q%),. <. a =. $,g ^," {e. s i 4:.6 ~. ,) 4. ~.- r. " _ 7, A. U f. .~ Et 1:- .. M $, k-r. ~ ,' 4 cy%;.:.:,%. \\ e,, h c 4 4. .q ~ 7 gE l -:,$ P.y. 1.. ;, ; t.. : %. e ? ~ u + '- - I' g jE, -*- -.'hiO E -w. .y m. ..i mf A. n. apaan i

p. eQ,.

s,. +: n. lu - - @ft. ".; a 3 y ',, %. - 4' % +.; _ 5, mensneununun[e'p&'.. '; e m .~.l -~~ yhn.. was.. .. f .' Q.?.{& g:L $h7"*t; ff-IK 5 . ;..'. p; p. g c., y t ? ...pawd - ?. N i

.1., -

,,4. t., .ff .y h. 4 g.. -4 % S. . E *- { -v . : :,g:. e, ~.,.;..,. ..ss yp,. j %. qw f l# 4, f,..f f.. ).; Q% ~' ,2,

u. 9 -.

l \\ ~ .,. y J ' [ h. - - l -' Q1 t ._ m.... ,. v:: . g;. s . ;y. :. ..,+y ,,tw? e,...- 1;, t .. m.. e v. .. + < g,.,:. c . $. s,. r* w- ,~ _-.. p,, .. ;.,~. - - s

. 4..o

,. i A g.c_... c. ' %..? t )' ~ 'k-.. f,p v 3. Q__ 9 :.N,.- ., 2 y

l3

.. - +. gf,;. g. .g 3

g: #.7.

v .f 4,,-- 31 - .v

,yEr

.. L.: p. ,c p; ;.,,. ;; f ,;m.. ; - .;,a 4, m u u p _; l h@,$ h h K ' k k k " ~ #':' T.k [ N N b,. 1O -f. h; g ' 'e 47 f l.. 'Y k,~ c .4 I I i \\ l6 \\ i i a i ut r f i i ' l l SCALE REVISICN 3 5/80 i ! CARROLL CC'UNTY NLCLEAR GENE 9ATlNG KEY-ST AT iC N UN TS iS2 SI'E S uiT A 8 t Li T y - ENv,RONMEN TAL 9EPCRT I l PROBABLE EXCLUSION AREA AERIAL PhC73 GRAPH _. A SAGE SITE

7 --

i CCS-SS-ER O Question 301.1 Please supply comparative information on alternative cooling systems (including Mechanical Draf t Cooling Towers) to Natural Draf t Cooling Towers for the Carroll County Site. Comparative data should include site location, environmental impacts such as off-site fogging, icing, drif t impacts and roads, farms or other activites which might be ef-fected, costs, operating problems and visual impacts.

Response

The May,1979 revision of Section 10.1 contains the information re-quested in this question. The items that are not contained in Tables 10.1-1 through 10.1-5 are items that would not be significant in the decision as to what type of wet cooling towers should be utilized, i.e., natural or mechanical draft. Figure 10.1-2 shows the plan view of the orientation for the wet mechanical draf t cooling tower alter-native scheme. The attached Figure Q301,1-1 that shows the approximate location of where the mechanical towers might be installed, is in-cluded in this response to aid the reviewers. O O Revision 3 Q301.1-1 5/80

o. o Z

O. r4 o m o. w e m z m WN ./ z O El ~~ / o o / E C-e3 / 3 m-c _.;= H oo .---------------g'% us 4 a w u) E _ o v E.8

t--

gO g' = O ae I / I / $D E 9 O O c ) / , w e oo / / **. * - l 2 1 3 E.o / g I / o _^ as - c zl / z ~: m 3 e2 D / o <t .o cx o _s't / v F-- o cr e u).- <2 /*.- > l / l D /* > l / a v) / O a / we / T e / a'l / Of ,/ 5 l *h v / E l / ./ OVOU 1n0 l 018 HinOS l A A I o / R 5 o

W o

f ia O

O f

l g o' ; I t 3 Nil A183dOud o 4 g/ oo A/ ef ing 5 O al El a wi y I 1 Al w i i w; m o z I 1g y o o l g - GVOU AGHSV HinOS -.---,------------i -- g = g:,,.. <l a w OL / i r w O e m g w\\

i 'z g

Z x l t o \\ a o $ s ' 'c' % f . [ / k i l \\ g a i N~~-' i a c o a l \\ O a O p O g 1. O-A O \\ a l z j O g O f O w z 0 l 3 I t tt E

i

.E \\. ~. J ' e! f 7i a ( m 2:; g_, _ _jI e W Ago i w Mg cM 's 8 af I a a

~%.,

, l~,/ N,, % ~ \\< l ,O S g! g a;! I L ,#,lN30S HinO g O ef ef0 0 g Os i a / --- 'o1 / g o s yI s i a~1 / / 3 Nil A183dOud 1 9- / E. / 7 t .U; \\ 3 \\ a \\ O, s \\ g E w* w \\ \\ Es d 0 301.l-2 2l I a e

CCS-SS-ER Question 301.2 Was consideration given to cooling systems other than natural draf t towers at the alternate sites for Carroll County? If not, provide the rationale for not doing so. i

Response

The application of other cooling systems at alternate sites were considered but not used for comparison of site suitabilities. The following is~our rationale for this position: i Open Cycle Cooling - With the exception of Quad Cities and Erie South, all the alternative sites are too far from and too high above the cooling water source for once through cooling to be feasible. Quad Cities and Erie South have static head differentials of 33 feet and 60 feet, respectively. The site with the next l lowest differential is Carroll County Station with 137 feet of static head which would require pumping auxilliary power of about 2.5 percent of plant capacity. This cost plus the cost of the large diameter pipelines required effectively rules out further consideration of once through cooling at these alternate sites. Open cycle cooling at Erie South was eliminated because the 10 year, 7 day low flow of the Rock River is 1264 cfs and each of the 1100 MW units contemplated would be designed to circulate 1500 cfs of condensing water with a 260/[T/ Thus , a two unit plant would require 3000 cfs and result in recirculation of about 1736 cfs of water from the discharge to the intakes and would ratchet up the in-() take and discharge water temperatures to an intolerable level. As a result of a court approved agreement, Quad Cities Station is cur-rently being operated in a closed cycle mode utilizing a spray canal. The plant was designed for open cycle cooling and monitoring studies have clearly indicated that operation in the open cycle cooling mode is not detrimental to Mississippi River aquatic communities in the vicinity of the station. Until the present units cre allowed to resume open cycle operation we must assume that additional units a this site must be closed cycle. Closed Cy le Cooling With Ponds - Because of the terrain, soil and rock forma-tions, a perched cooling pond of sufficient size, approximately 2300 acres min-imum, could not be constructed at the Carroll County site. The Quad Cities site would not be feasible because of the high porosity of the soil. The LaSalle County site has excellent terrain and soi? conditions for expansion of the ex-isting cooling pond. However, during construction permit deliberations, an agreement was made with intervenors that the LaSalle County site cannot be ex-panded for 30 years for additional facilities. This rules out increasing the size of the cooling pond since there is not enough area available for expansion of the pond within the present site boundaries. The other eight alternative undeveloped sites are located on land which is pre-dominately prime farmland. A minimum size lake would be 2300 acres which would J require at least six times as much land being diverted from farming as would be with the natural draft cooling tower option. Revision 3 Q301.2-1 5/80-

CCS-SS-ER For the above reasons, cooling ponds were not considered viable for any of the alternative sites. Other Closed Cycle Cooling Systems - The natural draft cooling tower system was chosen for the Carroll County site for the reasons discussed in Section 10.1 of this CCS-SS-ER. With regard to all the alternative sites, the climate for the portions of region of interest that contain the candidate areas can be described as typically continental with cold winters and warm summers. Since these candi-date' areas and hence the alternative sites contained therein are not under the influence of large water bodies, such as Lake Michigan or extreme topographic relief such as mountains or valleys, the meteorology would be similar and the same factors would apply to the alternative sites that apply to the Carroll County site. Thus the same advantages would be realized with natural draft towers at the alternative sites as compared to wet mechanical draft cooling towers, dry cooling towers or spray canals. On the basis of the above, it was assumed that all the alternative sites would utilize natural draf t cooling towers. Revision 3 Q301.2-2 5/80

CCS-SS-ER Question 301.3 Please supply a complete set of parameters for the discharge structure for station blowdown, including: a) The angle between the river bottom and the discharge pipe. b) The number of ports (Figure 3.4.4 shows one, but page 5.1-6 says one or two).

Response

The discharge structure has not been designed in any detail. In order to do a parametric analysis of the effects of the discharge, it was necessary to assume a certain configuration. The thermal mapping of the blowdown discharge from Carroll County Station was based on the following parameters: a) The blowdown passes through a 36" diameter pipe and is discharged through a single port. b) The angle between the river bottom and the discharge is 15 degrees. c) The horizontal directional component is parallel to the river flow. d) The discharge structure will be oriented as shown on Figure Q301.5. e) The discharge point will be about 150 feet from the shoreline at or near the thalweg of the side channel. Upon analysis of the results of the study prepared by the Institute of Hy-draulic Research of the University of Iowa, which is discussed in response to Q301.5, it is apparent that the thermal plume surface area, even with the most adverse temperature differentials is minimal. An example would be with a 500dkT. The surface plume area with a 59dkT from river ambient temp-erature would occupy less than an eighth of an acre as compared to the State of Illinois water quality standard of 25 acres. It is, therefore, concluded that with the abr,ve mentioned parameters that the thermal plume effect is not significant. If the structure design, when developed results in any substantial deviation from the results of the para-metric work, appropriate studies will be performed to document the accept-a3111ty of the design. This will be discussed in the construction permit alplication. Revision 3 Q301.3-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER Question 301.4 O Justify the applicability of the analysis of Sayre's data from Quad Cities in view of the fact that the ports in the Quad Cities diffuser pipe face downstream whereas the port in Figure 3.4.4 is perpendicular to the river flow.

Response

The inconsistancy of direction of discharge from the diffuser pipe is being resolved by assuming the blowdown from the diffuser pipe will be discharged in the downstream direction. Figure 3.4-4 will be changed to reflect this deci-sion. If the design is changed, then the impacts of the design alternatives will be discussed, as noted in the response to Question 301.3. O f l i O Revision 3 Q301.4-1 5/80 l

CCS-SS-ER Question 301.5 Please furnish the results of studies at the Institute of Hydraulic Research of the University of Iowa that relate to optimization of the discharge structure with respect to the number and orientation of discharge ports and the rate of temperature reduction.

Response

The configuration and orientation of the discharge structure utilized for mapping the predicted thermal plume for the Carroll County Station is shown on Figure Q301.5-1. The predicted contour lines for excess temperature, thermal plumes, are shown on Figure Q301.5-1. The areas within the contour lines for excess temp-eratures are shown on Figure Q301.5-2. As stated in the response to Q301.2, the design of the cooling water structure has not been finalized so that these figures may change. If the changes result in significant increases in plume size, then the alternative designs will be reconsidered at the construction permit stage. O I l I O Revision 3' Q301.5-1 5/80

Distanco frem sh: reline (f t) 200 15 0 10 0 50 0 O i AT/AT 2 0.20 o 50 MG AT/AT 2 0.15 o AT/AT 2 0.10 o l I AT/AT 2 0.05 10 0 o O 5 E 15 0 = N 200 E 250 o i .eo - 300 350 Y REVISION 3 5/80 CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS I B 2 Site Suitability - Environmental Report O riou,e 0 30i.s-i Contour Lines for Excess Temperatures 0301.5-2 t

O 8 10 y F' 4 - 10 2 g g g g o E z E h10 3 O 5 gq 4 10* 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 TEMPERATURE DILUTION, AT, /AT afvistoN 3 5 /e0 CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS I 8 2 Site Suitability-Environmental Report O Figure 0 301.5-2 Area within Contour Lines 0 301.5-3 For Excess Temperatures-1 --.m-e

O CCS-SS-ER Question 301.6 Please provide the following information for each of the alternative sites: a. Groundwater table conditions b. Approximate excavation limit c. Detailed soil map d. Water uses and water rights e. Contamination of potable water supplies f. Thermal plume size and tempera-ture effect in the river Response to Part (a) i We do not have site specific data on the groundwater table conditions for every candidate site. The Illinois Geological Survey, the custodian of well.1,g data, also does not have a sufficient data base of the groundwater table for either the candidate areas or the candidate sites p\\.) to allow use of the groundwater table conditions as a screening or rating factor. The groundwater table conditions would have to be determined for each site during on-site investigations required to support a construction permit application for the preferred site. O Revision 3 Q301.6-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER ) Response to Part (b) s, The main excavations for plant structures can be assumed to fall within a 1600 foot diameter circle, which represents an area of about 46 acres, on the basis that the Carroll Conaty Station layout is typical of what would be done at the alternative sites. The layout of the main Carroll County Station structures are shown on the plot plan included in Section 9.2c of this CCS-SS-ER. The 1600 foot figure assumes that the excavated area would extend about 100 feet from the buildings. The extent and depth of the areas that would be excavated at each site would depend on site spec-ific soil and bedrock conditions and the resultant foundation designs. The actual designs and location of the excavated areas within each site would require extensive core drilling which, of course, is beyond the scope of reconnaissance level information. For the lack of more defini-tive data, the assumption used in the siting analysis that the excavation would be located at or near the center of the proposed site is reasonable. The excavated areas would, therefore, be at the center of the probable exclusion areas marked on the aerial photographs for each alternative site included in Section 9.2c. () l l i l 1 l O Revision 3 Q301.6-2 5/80 1

1 CCS-SSvER O Response to Part (C) Detailed si.il maps of all of the alternative sites are shown on Figure Q301.6-C-1 through Q301.6-C-10. Numerical soil taxonomy of Illinois soils is listed in Table Q301.6-C-1. The detailed soil map of the Carroll County Site was given in response to Question 301.1, Supplem ent 1, Revision 1, 5/79. i j 2 I i O t i i I 4 i l i O Revision 3 Q301.6-3 5/80

CCS-SS-ER TABLE Q301.6-C-1 The Soil Types of Illinois Ob 800 t n 11 gen. Soil t m soll ty,, o po. pene 30-8*** po. Bene Bo. Beam 2 Clone silt losa 87 Dickinson saMy luan 196 Elburn allt loam 29k Bynerton salt laan 3 Boyletoa sitt loam 88 Sprte loamy seed 199 Plano allt losa 295 mkena sut loss b Richview silt lose 89 Maumee fine saady loaa 200 Orio sandy losa 296 Waabtenaw silt loam 5 alair eilt lose 91 svysert silty elay lona' 201 Gilford fine sandy losa 297 Eingwoco allt loaa 6 Fishhook salt loose 92 Sarry sand 20h Ayr sandy loam 298 Beecher salt loaa 7 Atlas out losa' 93 Rodman graveny lona' 205 Meten sanay loaa 300 Westland elay loaa 8 Bickory loaa 97 Ava'. ton pest 206 Thorp salt lona 301 Grantsburg stat loane 12 Wynoose allt lona 98 Ale losay flee sand 20S Sextsa silt loaa 302 Ambraw elay loca 13 Blufore silt lona 100 falaa suck 210 Ina much 30k Landes fine sandy lona lh Ava silt leas' 102 Lanope loam 212 Thebes eilt loaa 3C$ Allison silty clay loaa 15 Parke allt loaa 103 Rousaten auck 21k Mosser silt loane 307 Iona o ut lona 16 Rushvine silt loam 104 Virgil sut losa 215 Wartrace silt loam 3c6 Alford o ut loam 17 deceah eilt losa 105 Batavia silt lema 218 bewberry silt losa 309 Kaytesvine e11t loes' 18 C11ston silt loaa 107 Sava111 silty clay loan 219 M111trock s11t lona 310 McHenry e11t loam 19 Sylvan out losa 108 Bonnie on t loam 221 Farr silt losa 3n 31tchey silt loaa' 21 Pecatomics silt losa 109 Pacoon sut loam 223 Varna allt 1com 312 Edwards suck 22 Westville silt Ican 112 Cowden silt loaa 224 Strewn sitt lona 31h Joliet silty clay lona 23 Blount s11t losa 113 Oconee silt Icea 227 Argyle sitt loam 315 Channahon slit loam

2h Dodas sut lona 116 Whitson silt loma 228 pappanee salt Acame 316 Receo s ut losa 25 Rennepin loane n 9 Eleo silt loam 229 Monee s11t loaa 317 Millsdale silty elay loan 26 Wagner slit loan 120 hey silt loaa 230 Powe s11ty elay 318 Terenzo loane g

J 27 Miaal e110 1ons 122 Colp silt Acas' 232 Ashkun enty clay loaa 320 FrarMort sitt loem' ,V 28 Jules out loss 125 Selma lota 233 31rkbeek salt Ican 321 DuPage silt loaa 29 Dubuque eilt loam 127 Marrison salt loaa 23h dunbury silt loem 322 Russe n o u t loaa 30 Eamburg s11t 12$ Douglas salt leaa 235 Bryce silty clay 323 Cameo silt lona' % Tallula ent lona 130 tittwood fine sar.ay loam 236 Sattaa salt Joea 32h Pipon out loem 35 Bole out loam 131 Alvin flee sandy lona 238 pantoul suty elay 325 Dresden allt loam 36 Tama salt loam 132 starts sus loaa 239 Dorchester s11t loam 326 Baner allt Icas 37 Worthen s ut icas 13k Camden salt leaa 2ko Flattville tilt Acas 327 Fox ont loam 40 Dodgertue silt loaa 136 3rooklyn silt lona 2k1 Chatsvorth silt loan' 329 Will 011ty clay leen kl hecatine silt loaa 137 Entoon #11t ican 2k2 Kendall oilt loam 330 Peotone silty eley loaa h2 Pepteenu fine santy lona 138 Shiloh e11ty clay loaa 2k3 St. Charles out loaa 331 Etynood eilt loan h3 Ipave silt loaa 141 Wesley fine sandy lona 2kk kartsburg silty elay loss 332 3111ett sandy loam b5 Denny eilt lona Ik2 Fatto 11ty clay losa 2k8 McFain silty clay 333 Wakeland out loma 46 Eerrick out losa Ak5 Saybrc - .t loaa 2k9 Edinburg anty elay loam 33h Birta salt loaa kT V1rden silt losa 1k6 EM1ott silt losa 250 Velas loam 335 Robbe eilt loam b8 Ebbert e11t losa 147 Clarence silty clay loan' 252 barvel enty elay losa 337 Creal silt loaa kg Wateena loaer fine samt ak8 Proctor silt lona 253 Stonington loane 338 Burst silt loam

50 Vireen silty clay loaa 149 Brenton silt losa 236 rana sitt loaa 339 We11ston sut loaa' 53 Bloomfiele fine sana 150 otarsa sandy loaa 257 Clarksaale sus loam 3ko lacesvtue sut loan' 54 Plainfielo sand 151 R1&gev111e flee sandy losa 259 Assarption ont lona 3k2 Matherton silt loes 55 Sidell s11t loam 152 Drummer esity elay toma 261 slota siis loam 3k3 kane eilt loss 56 Dans salt loaa 153 Pella e11ty elay loaa 262 Dearock ant losa 3kk karvard out loaa 57 lemtmorenet sitt toen 154 ytanaann o nt losa 264 u para sandy lona 3k6 Downstae ont lona 59 Lisboa silt loem 155 stockinna lona' 265 W a= lona 3kT Canisteo stat loes 60 LaRose allt lona 159 Fallot silt Icas 266 Disco sandy lona 3k8 Winaste salt toen 61 Atterberry salt loaa 162 Corban silty elay loam 268 Mt. Carron silt loam 353 Toronto silt loam 62 Berbert silt loes 16h Stoy o ut lona 271 Timula e11t loom 3% Bononegah loaar coarse can.

67 Barpater silty elay loaa 165 Weir out losa 272 Edgington o ut loam 361 E1Ader ont loam 68 Sable eilty elay loam 167 Lunta sitt loam 27h Seaton salt lona 363 Griewold loes 69 Milford silty siny loam 171 Catlin silt loam 275 Joy ellt losa 365 Artakiste sitt loss 70 Beaucoup snty elay loam 172 Boopeston sandy loaa 277 Port Dyron sut loam 369 Wauncon silt loam 71 Darwin silty elay 173 McCary ont leam' 278 strenshurst silt loam 370 Sayleertue out loes 72 Sharon silt lona 175 temons fine sandy loam 279 potetta silt loam 375 Rutland silt loss 73 Boss loaa 176 Marissa salt loaa 280 Fayette sitt loam 379 Daheta silt loss Th 'adfore out loan G 75 Drury allt ions ' 1f8 puart fine sandy loam 252 Chute fine send 380 yieleon loss 180 Dupo silt loam 20h Tice e nty elay loem 382 h11aap out loss ) 76 Otter salt loam 18h Roby fine sandy loaa 286 Carat Sandy Imam 386 Downs salt loem V 77 suatsville allt loss 187 Muroy sandy loaa 287 Chauncey stat team 387 Dekley e11t loan TO Aremav1Me oilt leen 188 Boardstown loea 288 Petrolla suty elay loma 388 Wenona silt loem ,,g:t,=,::g-a:-* 81 utuet ono a 189 Ma,u.t. eno.am 28,osa,a 10 ,e e 82 M1utagten loss 191 Emight silt loaa 290 Warsaw s ut loam 393 Marsegues, gray subse11e 83 Wahash only elay 192 Del Boy sitt.oen 291 lents allt toen 39h imaglota silt lose 84 Chas s11% laen 194 Morley silt leen 292 Wallklu ont leen 397 Bocee loesqr fine saade 85 Jacen elay 197 Trosel o ut losa 293 Andree o nt loes Q301.6-4 Revision 3 5/80

CCS-SS-ER TABLE 0301.6-C--1 (Continu:d) Boil tvme Be. Rams /\\ 513 Oranwy losse fine send 398 Wea o u t loen SM ym elay lose 600 Calco silty eley lose 52k tipp silty einy leam 402 Colo e11ty elay lee" 311 learkham silt leam 60h Titus silty elay 537 Beech. grey subsoll* 410 Woodbine stat 1eem Sk6 keltmer eilt team hu Ashdale allt loes 547 m ercy silt loem 612 Ogle eilt loem 549 neareetues atit loes* 413 Cale eilt lose 551 coeport silt toen* 41b 8trrtle allt loes $54 Earnen 'ilt loam 415 Ortes allt loem 555 shadeland leen 416 Durand salt leen 5% uigh Gap loes* 417 Dertada silt loe=* 560 st. Clair eilt leen* sail avam b18 sebapvule eilt loem' %1 sev clama silt loan so' ume 419 Flagg silt loss %2 Port Srren, sandy substratum h20 Ptopolis e11ty elay loem k22 Cape eilty elay loan %4 Waukegna silt loma 424 shoals siis loes 565 Ten salt loam 425 h skingum stony e11t loam * %7 F m a's silt loss 740 Darroch eilt loem 426 Earnak o uty eley $68 31ota, thtm A Th1 Oakville fine send 427 3 raaide stat loem 762 Diekiases, leeuw ouhetration 570 peartinsvine silt lose 763 Ridott silt lees 428 Coffees silt loes 572 terem tilt lo*a Tb5 Shu11sburg ollt lease k?9 Palsgrove elit loes $74 cale, allt leen substrate 630 Raddle eilt lo*s $76 twingle s11t loes 746 Calamine silt 1een 431 Genesee silt le*a 578 Dorebesser, eobbly subeo11 752 Casco stat loss b35 Streator silty elay loes 581 Tamaleo silt toes * ~ 753 senesbeen sitt loem 761 Eleva sandy loose kko Jasper stat loes $83 Pike allt leen 763 Jos11a silt loam 442 stundeleta silt loam 584 Walshv111e loan

kk3 Barrington silt toen 585 Besley loam 764 Coyne flee sandy loem 448 m aa silt loam 587 Terril loss 765 Trempealeau stat tous 45114wson sitt loem 768 nackbone laser send 589 k ware eilty elay 769 ram a sitt lomon h52 311ey a11ty elay loam 590 Cairo e11ty elaT 771 Enyfield loss 453 mrea sitt lo*a 594 Ped 11ek silty Clay Im*a 454 Iva silt loem 597 Armiesburg a11ty eley leen 772 learsham leen 456 Ware silt loam 598 medford oilt loam 77b gaude loam 457 aooker anty elay 776 Comfrey einy loan 599 marter eherty silt loom 777 Adriam mek

( 460 Cimat silt loes 600 Buntlaston o ut loem 779 Chelsea fine send 661 Wetabsch silt loes 603 Blackoar silt loam 462 sciotoville salt loam 6c5 Ursa silt loane 780 Cre11tos namey loam b63 helias out loam 606 Coes eberty salt loss 781 Frieslead sandy loan 465 Montgomery 51117 Clay 782 Juneau silt loam 609 Crane salt toes 783 Flagler semey loem 467 Markland salt loam

617 otterbeta s11t loes 786 Freedorf loem*

h69 meme suty elay loes 619 Partvlue eilty clay 470 Ea u er sitt loane 620 Darmstadt silt loes* 787 Emelle out loem h71 Bodine cherty eilt toene 62814x silt loam 791 het allt leen 471 Clarksville eberty out loes* 792 Devos silt lose 633 Traer allt loam 903lesskeso seek 472 Bay 11e silt loss 647 Lavier loam 940 Westamre eilt loem b74 Plass o ut lose 6% octagos e11t loss 475 Elsah eherty sitt lose 660 Coatsburg silt loane 955 Berka loes* 481 Raub silt loes 661 Atklason loes 9% areados out loam k82 Uniontown s11t loam 9% Saffel graveup out loeme 665 stone 11ek fine sandy loem 961 Berkhardt eeney loss %84 Barco silt loem 673 Daarga, reddish subsoil 977 sootoma stoor eilt loem b90 Odell eut lose 682 feedway silty slay leen 493 soofield loes 683 tavadale sitt lees 494 Eankakee fine sandy loam 684 Broadveu salt lean h95 Corvia aut loam 685 Middletown silt 1oem 496 Finess 4e o ut loes 691 seasley oilt 1mem 697 Menott stat lose 696 zurich out lees 501 Morocco time send 697 Waueceda silt loem 503 Boekten loes 698 Greys salt loam 504 sosa sus toes' 706 aoyer sandy leen SOS Dunbartes o ut loeme 723 Seesville silt 1een 506 Eltt out loam 727 Waukee loss 500 Selma lean, bedrott substrate 728 V1meebago au t lean 509 Whalan leen 933 p,,,,g,ggg 3,, 511 Dusberten eherty elle loem' Footnotear a Wheat, eats, hay, and timber yields are not gives (tedicated by sere) for some oo11e where these erope are not well edepte4 b Timber yield is given as enmual timber growth per eere. It le mot gives for stile with a baste management grale erop produettvity indes of $5 or greater. g i e Bumber of days that one aere of sized pasture will carry ese tow. O a Palme agricultural land elasses have high level -- _ t grata erop productivity ledamse l er 1b5-160 for Class A, 125-140 for Class 3, and 105-120 for Clase C. e Soils with unfavorable embeetla er other shallow laye,rs that have put== redustian la ' productivity for increastag slope and eteeton. Source: tLS.D.A., Soil Conservation Service,1978, Circular 1156, Soil Productivity [ in Illinois, 21 pp. Refision 3 Q301.6-5 5/80

O O O '1 I f i . r-t .e Y; 0 jl.'< C '. i 'N _.0 d. l ' fq ~.*! i j ~ Fij;: r. 3 3 't. r i -h ~, ~ g f m. J.f 1 Figure 0. 301.6-C I DETAILED SOIL MAP of the Commonwoolfh Edison Biggsville sete e ES.EA, Soil Wien Service) CARROLL COUNTT NUCLEAR Rangg STATION - UNITS 18 2 i =rs i E 'A 'A E I Site Suitobility-Environmentel Repo,, Q301.6 6

l 6 O O i )

E 5' 5 "'"

,.,s s s ,.. x1v 4 ~ d, \\ \\ l i 1 ,y ~l2 I A-tt - (l E ,f \\ 4 2, l 4 3 = (t il f d.i.'3 C Q 1 a~ L -o - g Jgg._ s+ % *.',9 i .. g 5 -s-% .,,2 r-- p e [- y I f,, %y- .m the j m wi.f4r av..... is r a' .iA i l Figure O. 301. G - C - 2 j DETAlLED Soll MAP of the l Commonwealth Edison l Concord Site enision s sn j (Source U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service) CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING scau STATION - UNITS I B 2 l Site Suitability-Environmental Report o' e' a' mas Q 301.6-7

O O O '34 Q$ M $ t3f}%N TUTG ' ' 3 } A_N If5 A Ln Y?) OPi djgg h<; ?ls(g@p % :c.cA 1 2 i 22g J&f %-: =.; Y a w k, j _e '0:~~ ( "LLMfQ Mjp~, E' Z w.* a t Y x[f. N.b.f_-"nh_ Y ~ i k.i ? j l k r=- ( i ~~ j j g m b t \\ ,, 3. ii r. s in ..., s,s st \\t Figure Q 301.6-C -3 DETAILED S0ll MAP of the Commonwealth Edison Erie South Site "E5' " 5" (Source U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service) CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS l 8 2 I'._ j l Site Suitability - Environmental Report o '4 %. z uius i Q 301.0-3

= Y s e n ~ 58 i fl E* ! ? a. r. E er s -e 5 f -s e g = is t ' u t *3 s ~E ye t. .e 1 ? a s -3 us M h b a w p ,( i hkIIlfShkhdN k my<._s mu ut a gga $mgggg: ?MGKMi$nn 6 ',W li O J N sBRE NSH$Fs %- Q wo y y$ )n.sNp y e %gypf3sggarg..tgc EMRi

. _ _ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' d,m

_ ME Nn mm __ ~eQ ~ u rgg.y,r, . \\ ':.bh' N h/[k' "h[)% \\ .,5 ):3 t . s. lll ? l... f!. (? ~ ~ x V , ~ f, ~s ,,,. = s N, -l..g. '%v,e i , ; ? ',% \\i n .q,..;. g \\_., id Yup 8,

'f *. '.. ',.

/ 4 ',,.:,;9.f.. 9;.',;~ i \\ <\\ 'd$ \\ l sN\\a,.. ~..-. -m j [ I N g Y-y % '. s 6 l

O o O ces.e. crtu:. solt u? rn0V!5!0ML - SUBJECT TO CW-E I

****ll-P' t^** * '1" 3111"* 18 10

? l 1 W::: L*M 5"

1. secatine-3atle estle 33,03? me.

i

2. varna- %tlan,Flenaren soile 17.Y.,'1 se.

au ,eea,e g - ga.,- c. m .. n.,. _.can n->._,. oil. 33.3 5 4 htler.4-Streater eetle 9.594 ee. [,,6 g

w

,I

g,,7, 5.

am-%ecettne-ontlin soile 44.521 ac. A. Catlin-mytret solle 14.347 se. l I %, d , J,

7. *a m-sbecettne oo11e y,y 1 me.

i= 2 5 .]~ ' 3_ Qgg e 8 wen s ren v lar.ta motle P2,r.20 me. 4 e o .,I'L 4 b

9. Payette-Mosetta vennepin solle AA.472 me, 2pJ

's rn 1 -w

10. Straneet i.tirley sotle

71. M1 me.

e ls . r. 4

u. nei-1. - t e iis

..ia a.. .b vt

17. la.eom-:.emill sollo y a05A ac.

( .e -t e ~-- NAVpun3I s yrf 3 t 1,,,, -p r. .-a.- f9 M, - qg f f.tk,f, .k. v..e..e a v

tg-t

. M g g_;-. ppyc ;.; c N: : v... J u W '+1 T 1 R' y . p; [ p'l W L = 'Yl;& H' 1Mf 'jg@.h].QQtj.' .w R ~ k. s , M b 4 M9 din4 -W1 1>; gf;y, i M V M y 1 7 o FA 4f-U)- t a, e f %fI d ; .s v. a:.;q y sfrM v c -- R J-W ,ug .,, p y W 9 .,.j gv.1 . c13 _,7 %, w M,,, y+w ..wnw. im Q,9d . s _4 [ J.,' O. ty h,L e "'f A.- - W.r 2 toc.. j

M,

.u.ao., yy ;p. p y b 'l' / tW 6-L. )., $'k Q +Y/: t I (-d i.' ~ ~ W /~ ' e...*r to ,, ': dQC \\ ~~ f a;W..: $ $

~

~ &, ; 7 ,4. t. i. u : ... e.;.. i. l Figure o 30s 6-c-S i I DETAILED SOIL MAP of the Commonwoolth Edtson Granville South Site e,v.s.ee : itse g I'"'C'} CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING 'C STAf t0N - UNITS I 6 2 e9, ;, ; ;,,, Site Suitabikty-Environmentet Report O 301.8 10

'^ l i l l .J i g b, i s.. .E k: s 'i Q)\\ t} n ? . S. { 3 \\ ~ s-I '* \\ [t j O

^ ?thn!

. 's ;.;M s. I .U (_ 1 ^ p j' j ~ ~ ,h;,ygcy,h'lcj"mJ".'l umu C m eoIh Ed lo

g: _,._.,

a

-l. _m s l

Om -, ...,. = I ~-" yu z,py.,: c_ _gy v j s, j p- -. m p - - + - , m - _ ~~~ s-a,, = MW h ( t 'j d 1 J y,. s-f$ y. 'm, 3 ,.;n j If, ) x_ ""' M'*,- y ,m ri 1 ^ ',i = a n - 7 N sig+ a. _01pl m 3'. a- ^., , f Ys

4:

p N i[ YRe ml e-m._ [?s{ 1 N kjrsk : ,..s' 7 e C l..g' 3 + s J .4 7 g~ ,a 3#' yy 2 %- - m 1 g_{y 'i;flgjfi5 ~ Q. Sm. rs3 3_. a;3w;3; ~ l G U55$. $b?N$S~ =bYWAWW$%"5'EL--> Q 30s s.tr O

O O O n TOTAL ACREAGE APPROXlsATELY SW.540 e.- _ _ m e.a s s 3 - g. e. ,2 - 11, .v., ...y.a e. .g. e i., s s. = m e.. V'- ( 3. . m. -p ~ e. .,.~ .e O e- - 2 ... y... ;. s .. =, .. w e .,. L O ,u s. . w.am - - -- -- - ~ ~ -. &, x-v;.1 - + a4 -- 1 .L m 1. e _ m. s p we ) _/- i

r... <.

=a,.a -n-. s ,w s sa.cany., e i..b) 1 wc' *. r. QQ W4 ,. g:;,c 7 s i . t1RP i,r[1, ? 4.-i ~ y m y .{.M TIi2 .g. hh,e3 G q L Q vf t,

s.
m.

F T T.f 1 -f,3 'I j i

Me.

.i n i-p' I f fia). n ~ i = =- : Q].,. n T. 4,:,f y*

..q s

.... t. .r = O CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR G[HERATIIIG y ^ p'1;... h.. 'll....\\ ./' 'T h e. g STATI0li-UillT5 18 2 s '"~"~ Site Setebildy-Eerve.mentel Roerl

==. .I

i..1

.I 3 I i j Fegere 0.30s.6 C-8 DETAILED Soll MAP of the i Commonwootth Edison Milton Site l (Searce U.S.D A Sol Conservation Service) 1 Q 301.4 13 i

g \\ s g i p i E i N ?,[:- tM 'ii

L1

.. M y: Y $:WT o i L D 't 3 ) 1.lc m ,.. +.. / ~ i p a y T' bi "k I N4~ ,,y f ~ ..._3 -x

-2g h.

w <..._,<=..,,,n 2 s1...c, _ e, x s, u i 5+ie Sotecla, - E nv rowea'ai Repor t i g

-- '"y113 l

v'l i F ,,,,,_c, DETAILED SolL MAP of the 1 t Commonweoit h Edison ~ ^ ~ "l (Sowce u s so, cons non serv,ce) O e ee.. l 1

O O O "~ i % 1 j {gF I r ~ ~' y my j j b- ~ .g 4 a W e \\ R l a E 4 e N l 7 e g.i u. 8 / r. a l h k-N .) f ^ umwe i sne CARROLL C0 TY NUC EA G NERATING D '- 7 E ~ { i Site Suitability-Environmental Reper1 _ m ek. leL( L Os [ t t in_ r DETAILED S0ll MAP of the i g j }) I Commonwealth Edison i p Rozetta Site }'0 j (Sewce U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Sernos) g }. b QfQ ha w..,,

CCS-SS-ER Response to Parts (d) and (c) We were unable to obtain clarification of what is meant by " water use" and " contamination of potable water supplies", therefore we can not pro-vide an adequate response to Parts (d) and (c) at this time. We will revise this response when the issues are clarified. In response to the water rights issues in Part (d), there are no such water rights issues in the State of Illinois. Response to Part (f) Each alternative site Nas investigated for maximum allowabic heat flux, flow times temperature 6 T, that would meet State of Illinois water quality. The parameters used to assess the potential for thermal assimilation for each of the alternative sites are enumerated on page 9.2-43. The flows used for the assessment were the 7-day, 10-year low flows. With closed cycle cooling systems, the maximum blowdown of 60 cfs would represent less than 5% of the river flow even for the site with the lowest flow, Eric South. Tharefore, the water resource at each site has adequate heat assimi-lation capacity and zone of passage for the fish. In order to determine thermal plume size and shape and map temperature effects, it would be necessary to conduct a rigid near field bathymetric /"') surveys at each of the alternative sites af ter selecting the optimum (/ location of discharge structures. The survey would have to include depth, velocity and temperature distrib1tions. This type of survey is considered to Ec beyond reconnaissance level data. These surveys were not considered necessary since the 7-day, 10-year low flows were sufficiently high so that suitable discharge structures could be designed to meet the State of Illinois water quality standards. 4 G Revision 3 Q301.6-16 5/80

CCS-SS-ER Question 301.7 Please provide specific data at Carroll County site about the potential for groundwater utilization, including water users and possible groundwater quality changes due to plant construction and operation.

Response

Section 2.4.2.4 Effects of On-Site Use and Dewatering and associated Tables and Figures discuss the probable impacts of station construction and operation on local water users. As stated therein, there will be no effects off-site associ-ated with dewatering the major excavations on-site during the construction phase. This is due to the topography and the remoteness of the closest wells. Construc-tion of the intake structure may interfere with water supplies of nearby resi-dences. The effects, if any, will be identified by a groundwater monitoring pro-gram and steps will be taken to assure adequate water supplies to the residences adversely affected. Any impacts identified are expected to be of short duration and reversible when dewatering is terminated. It is also anticipated that the 450 GPM pumpage that will occur during station operation should have little, if any, impact on the nearest wells that extract groundwater from the Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer. The nearest user is Savanna municipal well 6 located 4.3 miles to the northwest. Verification of the theoretical cone of influence will require an on-site aquifer pump test. If the results of the test or subsequent pumpage indicates unacceptable effects, the water withdrawal may be restricted and more of the station water needs may be supplied from the river. In summary, there is no anticipated effect on the quality of the groundinater from either the withdrawal of water for construction dewatering or for station use during operation. The water withdrawn during station operation will be utilized and discharged to the river via pipeline so that it will not be al-lowed to return to the local aquifers. Revision 3-Q301.7-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER i t Question 301.8 2 The Maquoketa Shale group of the Maquoketa aquitard is described in Volume 2 of the ER as having a low range of permeability. If available, please provide more specific values of permeabilities in the Maquoketa Shale group, the Ordovician-Age Galena group and the Alluvial-glaciofluvial aquif er in the vicinity of the Carroll County site.

Response

For more specific information, refer to Section 2.4.13 Groundwater Hydrology of l the Carroll County Station - Site Suitability - Site Safety Report (CCS-SS-SSR) which has a more indepth discussion of the aquitards and aquifers on the site and in the region. The information contained therein is all that is available at this time. O b O Revision 3 Q301.8-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER [ Question 301.9 Why was surface sampling for phytoplankton and zooplankton omitted in the Car-roll County surveillance study on the Mississippi River? Are data now available on the plankton in the surface waters in.the site area?

Response

Sampling for phytoplankton was limited to subsurface sampling (one meter depth) only within the photic zone during the surveillance study for the following The study a'rea is located in a side channel of Big Slough, Pool 14 of reasons. the Miselssippi River. At a normal river discharge of 40,000 cfs, about 10 per-cent of this discharge (4,000 cfs) passes through this side channel at velocities ranging from about 0.5 to' l.0 fps. At this discharge volume and flow velocities, there was probably adequate mixing between surf ace and subsurface waters to ensure collection of species that may occur at the waters surfacs as well as within the photic zone. Surface sampling for zocplankton was not omitted since the entire water column was sampled with a pump. This technique precluded the necessity of zone sampling. In response to the second.part of the question, no additional data have been gathered on the plankton in the surface waters in the site area. O 4 1 l k t bG Revision 3 Q301.9-1 5/80 O

CCS-SS-ER / Question 301.10 What aquatic ecology data, not in the ER, are available on the eight sites south of Carroll County visited by the staff in May, 19797

Response

Comonwealth Edison has conducted some additional studies and monitoring programs which are not referenced in the CCS-SS-ER. These studies include aquatic data that may be applicable to the Erie South (Rock River) site, which is one of the eight sites visited by the NRC staff in May,1979. The studies are: 1. Environmental Suitability Survey of the Erie South Site and Associated Corridor. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison by Espey, Huston and Associ-ates (December, 1976). 2. Erie North Site Preliminary Environmental Assessment. Prepared for l, Commonwealth Edison by Espey, Hustan and Associates (January, 1978). 3. Bathymetric Survey - Erie North Station Site. November-December, 1977. Report to Commonwealth Edison by Nalco Environmental Sciences (May 12, 1978). 4. Aquatic Ecology - Erie North Station Site Environmental Report. Pre-pared for Commonwealth Edison by Texas Instruments, Inc. (March, 1980). To the best of our knowledge, there are no other studies or aquatic data that exists which is specific to the eight sites. 4 1 O Revision 3 Q301.10-1 5/80 i

CCS-SS-ER ^ Question 301.11, What evidence exists for the likelihood of surface algal blooms (blooming blue-green) in the intake area during summer and fall periods? If blooms occur, what will be their probable durations, densities and impacts? If surface blooms occur, what corrective measures would likely be taken if treatment (management) becomes necessary?

Response

The likelihood of the occurrence of surface algae blooms (blue-green algae) is low. Abiotic factors such as temperature, light and turbulence which influence the structure of the phytoplankton community are such in the study area as to discourage blue-greeen algae development. No plans for treatment (management) have been made because of the extremely low proba-bility of any such bloom occurring. The Carroll County Station discharge will also meet state temperature standards and temperature is one of the most important in terms of the blue-green algae. Blue-green algae favor waters characterized by low turbidity and turbulence. The fact that this study area has been characterized as being turbid, (low light intensity) in conjunction with a constant flow through the side channel (4,000 cfs at a velocity of about 1/2 to 1 foot /sec), i:tdicates likelihood for an enhanced development of a blue-green algae populttion is low. s i i 0O Revision 3 1 l Q301.ll-1 5/80 i I

CCS-SS-ER guestion 301.12_ The abundance of plankton (including ichthyoplankton) in the near-shore channel h d outflow area around the proposed. intake is partially the result of an enric eIt appears that " co from the near-shore break in Spring Lake dike. d Scheme A measures" could be taken (to reduce planktonic density in the prop This would allow the contents of the dike and closing the near-shore break. Spring Lake to spill out into the middle of the river, and more of the p would miss the intake area. C were used, whereby intake water would be taken from the main channel (ER, pp. Please comment considering the response 10.2-3 and Figure 10.2-2, Revision 1). provided in the ER Volume 3, pp. Q301.33-1 and Q301.34-1.

Response

As was stated in the response to Question 301.33 in Supplement 1 to the Carroll The near-County SS-ER, any impact of the intake / discharge will be minimal.At a maximum intake shore channel has a normal discharge rate of 4,000 cfs. ill rate of 74.2 cfs, approximately two percent of the near-shore cha As stated in response to be taken. the total river flow would be used by the station. Question 301.31 in Supplement 1 to the Carroll County SS-ER, the configuration ble and design of the station's intake structure utilizes some of the more desira features considered in the document entitled, "Levelopment Document for Best Technology Available for. Location, Design, Construction and Capacity of Cooling (USEPA, Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Im () 1976). ligible edge of the main channel, dif ferences in entrainment would probably be negFinally, regardless of where the break in the dike occurs.that Commonwealth Ediso k impound-it would ment and because this area is managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife S be dif ficult, if not Question 301.12. I e O Revision 3' 5/80 Q301.12-1 ll--MlWI

) CCS-SS-ER O Question 301.13 In Section 2.2.2.4.5 of the ER, the statement is made that the site is located near the borders of four of Illinois natural divisions and that relicts of pre-ice age flora can be found. Where are the borders of these four divisions in relations to'the site? What relict plants or plant communitica occur on or near the site?

Response

The four natural divisions mentioned above include the Wisconsin Driftless Division, Rock River Hill Country Division - Freeport Section, Upper, Mississippi River and Illinois River Bottomlands Division - Mississippi River Section, and Illinois River and Mississippi River Sand Area Division - Miss-issippi River Section. The geographic locations of these divisions are given on "ig. Q301.13-1. The division most germanely associated with possible relict vegetative populations is the Wisconsin Driftless Division. The division apparently escaped Pleistocene glaciation and is characterized by rugged forested terrain while maintaining the coldest climate in the state. For this reason the division contains several elements of a boreal flora and has some species that may represent relicts of the pre ice-age flora. The native vegetation of the Wisconsin Driftless Division wa. characterized as an upland hardwood forest dominated by black oak (Quercus velutina) and white oak (Quercus alba) on xeric sites,with little available moisture, and by sugar maple (Acer saccharum), basswood (Tilia americana), and red oak (Quercus rubra) on mesic sites, with moderate available moisture. Floodplain forests dominated by silver maple. (Acer sacciharinum), American elm (Ulmua americana), and green ash (Fraxinus lanceolata) occupy alluvial soils of the stream valleys. Cliffs and cool, northern slopes often support white pine (Pinus strobus), Canada yew (Taxus canadensis), and white birch (Betula papyrifera), The dry prairie on the rolling uplands contained such characteristic species as the plains buttercup (Ranunculus rhomboideus), pasque flower (Anemone ludoviciana), June grass (Koeleria cristata), and Wilcox's panic grass (Panicum wilcoxianum), along with the dominant little bluestem (Agropyron scoparius) and sideoats grama (Boutelo_ua curtipendula). Loess hill prairies dominated by little bluestem and sideoats grama occur on the steep southwest-facing bluffs above the Mississippi River floodplain. This natural division contains several unique plants considered relicts of preglacial or interglacial floras, such a jeweled shooting sb ' (Dodecatheon umathystinum), sullivantia (Sullivantia renifolia), and cliL goldenrod (Solidago sciaphila). Suitable habitat such as cool shaded ravines, cliffs, and river bluffs, provide habitat for relict populations of woodland 1 white violet (Viola incognita), bird's-eye primrose (Primula mistassinica), American stickseed (Hackelia americana), and moschatel (Adoxa moschatellina), Some of these unique plants are restricted to river bluffs of the Mississippi River valley, and others grow only in interior stream canyons. The baseline vegetative program (1974-1975) sampled the repre-sentative habitats: fallow grassland, pasture, early successional shrub, Revision 3 Q 301.13-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER upland oak s )ds, riparian grazed pasture and fallow field. None of the above estque plants we a observed. Subsequent studies (1978) exclusively designed to assess threatened and/or endangered flora and fauna on the Carroll County site far i to discover any of the above relict vegetative species. Personnal communication with Ms. Lydia Meyer of the Illinois Nature Preserve Commission has revealed the following: "There is a large relict plant community just west of Mt. Carroll in Sections 1 & 2 T24NI, R4 E, 4 PM, on the dolomite cliffs along carroll Creek. (Reference Figure Q. 301.13-2) This is area #411 on the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory. The relict species at this site are Pinus strobus (white pine), Taxus canadensis (Canada yew) and Sullivantia renifolia (Sullivantia). The latter is on the state threatened species list. It is possible there are driftless area relict plant species on the proposed Carroll County Station Site. The most likely one would be Solidano sciaphila (cliff goldenrcd)." None of the above species were observed or collected during the 1975 or 1978 studies by Dr. John Voigt, Professor of Botany, Sourhern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. It is therefore concluded that the presence of relict flora from the Wisconsin Driftless Division appears remote at the Carroll County Site. References for the above response include the following: Meyer, Lydia, Personnal communication, February 27th, 1980, Illinois Nature Preserves Commission. lilinois Nature Preserves Commission, Illinois Nature Preserves, Two Year Report, 1973-1974, May 1, 1975, 76 pp. Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, 1973, Comprehensive Plan for the Illinois Nature Preserves System, Part 2 - The Natural Divisions of Illinois, 32 pp. Ecology Consultants, Inc., 1975, Final Report Carroll County Station, Terres-trial Monitoring Program, July 1974 to May 1975. Voight, Dr. John, 1978, Carroll County Nuclear Station Study of Rare, Threatened and/or Endangered Species Status, Southern Illinois University on contract to Ecology Consultants, Inc. Sheviak, Charles J., 1978, Semi-final list of Endangered and Threatened Plants, Natural Land Institute, 28 pp. U.S.D.T., Carroll County General Highway Map Lineback, Jerry A., 1979, Quaternary Deposits of Illinois-Map, Illinois Geology Survey 0 Revision 3 Q 301.13-2 5/80

CCS-SS-ER C Illinois Nature Preserves Commission r0 SoWH THIRD STREET RoCKFORD. ILLINOIS 61108 815/964 e666 February 27, 1980 James D. Ludwig P.O. Box 767 Room 1700, Edison Building Chicago, Illinois 60690

Dear Mr. Ludwig:

I have marked the pertinent natural division borders as closely as possible on the County highway map. The Wisconsin Drif tless Division, Rock River Hill Country Division, Upper Mississippi Bottomlands Division and Mississippi River Sand Areas Division come together just southeast of Savanna. .3 d There is a large relict plant community just west of Mt. Carroll in Sections 1 & 2, T24N, R4E, 4 PM, on the dolomite cliffs and bluffs along Carroll Creek. This is area #411 on the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory. The relict species at this site are Pinus strobus (white pine), Taxus canadensis (Canada yew) and Sullivantia renifolia (Sull'vantia). The latter is on the state threatened species list. It is possible there are driftless area relict plant species on the proposed Carroll County Station Site. The most likely one would be Solidago sciaphila (cliff goldenrod). I hope the above information is helpful. Sincerely, 4A - Lydia Meyer Field Representative OV Revision 3 Q 301.13-3 5/80

l1 l Wisconsin Driftless Division / j 43b I 3d f l2 l Rock Rever Hi8 Country Division l 2a a Freeport Section ,'a I ,n b cr 5-

PLANT SITE i

i 2"b" i'*I' l3 l Northeassern Maranod Dmnean ob --t, 's a Morenal Section [ ,(

3c b Lake Michigan Dunes $ation

(,,,,.',.- '.3 c Chicago take PL a Sation 4d i, d Winneo Drift Section l4 l Grand Prairie Division a Grand Prairie $ction f ' - ~1 2 f j' b Springfield Sution I 4, c Western Section ) ) \\ _[ ~ N'! d Green River Lowland Section e Kankolie. Sand Area Section 6b ./ f c' ( (O q.- d j Upper Mississippi River and Illinois g.., ~4 e'- River Bottomionds Division { a lilinois River Section b Mississippi River Section So la da l6 l lilinois River and Mississippi c 3 q 6a River Sand Areas Division a illinois River Section j \\ b Mississippi River Section C i l7 l Western Forest-Prairie Divisien 4b J a Galesburg Section {) b Carlinville Section I J \\ b r l8 l Middle Mississippi Border Division l o Glaciated Section .) -h b Driftless Section lf ) 'w# b 8b l9 l Southern Till Plain Division b l {', a Effingham Plain Sution I ( b Mr Vernon Hill Country Section

8a 9a l 10 l Wabash Border Division 1[

---,,(,'"'t a Bottomlands Section 3.s b Southern Uplands Section 12a e Vermilion River Section ,/ l 11 l Ozark Division \\ / o Northern Section \\ l b Centrol Section la M/)i c Southern Section 9b

> t 4

) l 12 l Lower Mississippi River Bottomlands Division Ilb a Northern Section 6 DL l. b Southern Section Vii[ l13 l Shawnee Hills Division ) g L a Greater Shawnee Hihs Sution s

j.,

33, sf' /

y",,

b Lesser Shawnee Hills Section 13b. l 14 l Coastal Plain Division 1t ~Al' vi a Cretaceous Hills Sectica l',. /., b Bottomlands Section REVISION 3 5-80 CARR0LLCOUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS I B 2 O site suitabiiiir - Environ =eatoi aepori l Figure 0.3 01.13-1 The Naiural Divisions of Illinois I Q 301.13-4 l I

e .a r j f G T5 y afi) [ } 'f. [.X,,A l -t l Q ..& u,p,-g- -ggta7; +e %a- .i \\ .L -r n- \\ / ~ 1 ).u\\ - (;-, * ".q =l' g e

"e;"

,.a4

(;9E

" 'n "r W~em -s c < 4 p. oY.5.r g 5 'i"11"; d?!!~6 'W g B d" h!(!8X Q,[h, ^" [h [ ~-i k" gg:jp k:, hhIy45#"dh, jd %l pfyud.- 'A '.i.~.f.9 g L. v e. ..a .w .g j .e gg,pg i e %st.wU.o g J _., h

f.

, eVjhQQ. y &&gs). j\\ -Q a / ', s -.. n gu ~ d s \\ 7 d&) $g_ ;.: d'^ {l "% ~~ M 9^Q D' d;!' 'IT-3_ 9 MXG-O . " F,.'" I 6-": 9% ". ^ /m/ f $sw9.ag C- -:[ V;j:f7N. m-; yq qM n e .,. - n,g,, > v. ~ a n, s 1 i ,= ,e

a ~

na m r jl 9

O.

i; y m l a,.- y - yu- ,, = h . _ _. b. 2.1.' ' - li - - = I'. ~ \\-_ ? .1 Legend ,I 8'uaume Inferred limit of Glaciation r: g: Mississippi River Sand Area Division Mississippi River Section i N$$ Upper Mississippi River Bottom Lands Division o i 2 m. l Mississippi River Section Carroll County Site Boundary r CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 18 2 Q-Relict Plants Site Suitability - Environmental Report Figure 0.301.13-2 The Notural Divisions of Illinois 0 301:13-5 (Known relict p!cnt communities-so noted), t

CCS-SS-ER O i Question 301.14 Some areas near the site are being considered for restoration to native communi-

ties, e.g., sand prairies, for parks and for protected conservation areas. Please provide a list of these special conservation areas that already exist or will be created within 10 miles of the site. Also, please provide a description of the special features and biota at each of these sites.

Response

In Illinois within 10 miles of the site, 12 natural areas have been identified by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory. Some of these sites are on public land and are formally designated as natural areas and are thus afforded protection, others are on privately owned land and the intentions of the owners are unknown in re-gard to preservation status of the areas. The areas and the description of features and biota at each one follows:1 Area Description of Features Bluffville Outdoor Education Site Spring and perennial stream Mississippi Palisades Geological Area Outstanding exposure of the Silurian system 2 l Ayers Sand Prairie Natural Preserve Dry sand prairie, sand blowout, up-land sandpiper, Hudsonia tomentosa Mississippi Palisades State Park National Natural Landmark, loess hill prairie, dolomite cliffs, intermittent stream, backwater from Mississippi River, timber rattlesnake, Vida canaden-sis, Dodecatheon amethystinum, Hackelia americana, Cimicufuga racemose, Tril-lium erectum. Camp Benson Dolomite cliff, dolomite cliff commu-nity, perennial stream, unusual cave invertebrate fauna, Pinus strobus, , Taxus cenadensis, Sullivantia reni-l folia, Oryzopsis racemosa, Solidago sciaphila Thomson Cormorant Site Backwater of Mississippi River, double-crested cormorant l Savanna Geological Area Outstanding exposure of the Maquoketa j bryozoan fauna Wacker Geological Area Outstanding exposure of the Maquoketa bryozoan fauna Thomson-Fulton Sand Prairie Dry sand prairie, sand blowouts, back-Os water of the Mississippi River, western hog-nosed snake, Penstemon grandiflorus Revision 3 Q301.14-1 5/80-

CCS-SS-ER Area Description of Features O Three separate prairie areas along the right-of-way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroads Dry-mesic sand prairies There were no reported natural areas in Iowa within 10 miles of the site.2 j Sources 1. McClain, W.E., 1980, Natural Heritage Section, Illinois Department of Conservation 2.

Sheets, B., 1980 Iowa Conservation Commission 3

i I I I i Revision 3 Q301.14-2 5/80

CCS-SS-ER Queation 301.15 Please provide the following additional information (see Section 2.1.2.3 of the ER) about tourism in the Illinois Counties of Carroll, Jo Daviess and Whiteside and Iowa Counties of Jackson, Clinton and Scott. 1. Identify all major parks, recreational areas and boating facilities. 2. Provide attendance figures for these areas for the past five years. 3. Provide the number of tourists and second home residents living in these counties for 1970 and 1975, and estimatee for 1980, 1985 and 1990.

Response

The following is a listing of the major parks, recreational areas and boating facilities and the attendance figures for each facility by county: Attendance Illinois 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Jo Daviess County Apple River Canyon State Parkl 148,426 130,015 100,570 105,800 108,415 Old Market ilouse llistoric Sitel 60,165 46,028 39,831 36,671 37,549 U.S. Grant llome llistoric Sitel 150,512 156,619 141,579 135,261 118,499 Blanding landing (Boating)2 153,000 71,350 133,748 40,840 58,649 Carroll County Mississippi Palisades State Parkl 857,779 1,067,899 825,119 906,188 783,126 Big Slough (Boating)2 38,500 38,254 28,474 22,003 29,600 Thomson Causeway (Boating)2 81,500 165,069 159,589 83,810 118,022 Whiteside County Morrison-Rockwood State Park 2 238,278 290,445 335,077 345,014' 364,352 Prophetstown State Parkl 146,809 218,462 276,067 405,885 279,126 Lock and Dam 13 (Visitors and. Boating)2 92,000 111,014 229,698 154,172 123,535 Cattail Slough (Boating)2 53,500 26,130 37,409 26,433 12,803 Iowa Jackson County Bellevue State Park 3 243,030 242,645 257,375 254,005 280,162 Maequoketa Caves State Park 3 164,165 258,925 165,070' 131,331 111,913 Revision 3 -Q301.15-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER Attendance O v Iowa 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Jackson County (cont.) Pleasant Creek (Boating)2 62,500 101,169 98,370 50,421 57,891 Clinton County Bulger's Hollow (Boating)2 51,400 58,653 46,466 22,742 65,990 Scott County Lock and Dam 142 N.A. 54,250 96,995 87,068 21,400 An additional facility which has elements in all six of the counties is the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The refuge is administered by the I Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Department of Interior. The Savanna District refuge area is in Pools 12, 13 and 14 of the Mississippi River and includes land within Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin. The activities conducted on the refuge include hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, boating, environmental 1 education, hiking and wildife observation. There are numerous public and private boat launching facilities as well as commercial marinas along the river in the six county area which refuge users utilize as access points for the water related recreational activities. The data on attendance for the refuge was provided on an overall basie, rather than by county and includes areas outside the requested J six counties. The figures show a steep decline in attendance over the past five years:4 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1,002,312 1,362,466 870,853 656,829 607,700 i i Part C of the question deals with numbers of tourists and second home residents. Efforts to obtain this information have met with varying degrees of success. Ex-cept for the two Illinois Counties, Jo Daviess and Carroll, tourism is apparently figures notregardedasanactivityimportantenoughtothelocaleconomytokeegwithout on. Requests were made to many information sources in Illinois and Iowa i obtaining any tourism information in Whiteside County, Illinois or Jackson, Clin-ton and Scott Counties in Iowa. Reported and projected tourism figures were obtained for two Illinois Counties, ] Jo Daviess and Carroll. The figures for Jo Daviess County 6 are: l 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 400,000 300,000 350,000 425,000 550,000 7 The figures for Carroll County are: 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1,381,800 1,200,890 1,100,000 1,057,000 1,018,000 Revision 3 Q301.15-2 5/80

CCS-SS-ER Second home information (past, present and estimated) was available for one s ,I county, Jo Daviess. The information obtcined for Carroll, Jackson, Clinton and Scott Counties was for existing "scasonal" or second homes only. No estimates of future units were available. No information was available for either present or future units for Whiteside County. In every case, the information is of dwelling units only, no population figures are available. The Jo Daviess County information is as follows:6 Number of Second Homes 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 250 350 600 850 1000 The estimate of existing second homes in Carroll County is 225.7 The number of rural seasonal homes reported in Jackson County is 159, in Clinton County 100 and in Scott County 10.8 Sources 1. Bent, C.,1980, Bureau of Lands, Illinois Deppt tment of Conservation 2.

Pfiester, H.G., 1980, Chief, Operations Division, Rock Island District

() U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3. Scheffler, J.,1980, Division of Lands and Waters, Iowa Conservation Commission 4. Stenquist, S.M., 1980, Refuge Manager, Savanna District, Upper Missis-sippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge 5. Iowa Conservation Commission, Research Group Iowa Development Commission, Research Group East Central Iowa Intra-Covernment Association Scott County Plan and Zone Commission Davenport Chamber of Commerce Dubuque Chamber of Commerce Davenport Board of Realtors Maquoketa Chamber of Commerce Sterling Chamber of Commerce Rockfalls Chamber of Commerce Northwestern Illinois Council of Public Officials Blackhawk Hill Resource, Conservation and Development Project Recreation and Tourism Committee Division of Northern Illinois Tourism Council Illinois Office of Tourism Hennepin Canal District Whiteside County Health Department-fw Whiteside County Courthouse U i Revision 3 l Q301,15-3 5/80

CCS-SS-ER Sources (cont.) 6.

Muchow, H., 1980, Galena Area Chamber of Commerce 7.

Savanna Chamber of Commerce, Personal Communication to W. Dayton, Interstate Power Company 4 8. Bi-S:ste Metropolitan Planning Commission, Personal Communication to G. Cavanagh, Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company Clinton County Assessor's Office Jackson County Assessor's Office Scott County Assessor's Office f O i

O i

Revision 3 Q301.15-4 5/80 _,r--~--c

+- - - -

e-y r.

w-4 -<m-p .m-, y- -v- -w v-e a wmr - - ' +e-w w5"t'e--- DM-- e-v'-- B-'Me 977-'

CCS-SS-ER Question 301.16 Provide a copy of the Historical Reference on Carroll County.

Response

A volume of Carroll County, "A Goodly Heritage", with three updated supplements were provided for the Nuclear Regulatory Connaission's Carroll County Station Environmental Project Manager for review. l l t O f i i e Revision 3 Q301.16-1 5/80

I CCS-SS-ER Question 301.17 Provide a detailed description of the archeological field survey methods used during the 1974 study of the Plum Crove site in Savanna, Illinois.

Response

The field survey methods used during the archeological site survey conducted at the Plum Grove site, Savanna, Illinois in 1974, were as follows: i

1) The survey team consisted of three people.

2) The techniques used were a pedestrian survey and collector interviews.

3) The duration of the survey was six weeks.

O O I, Revision 3 Q301.17-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER Question 301.18 Please supply detailed information for all developed sites (Braidwood, Byron, LaSalle and Quad Cities) on all of the issues listed in Section 9.2.5.1.

Response

The issues listed in Section 9.2.5.1 include the following: A. Public acceptability B. Land use compatibility C. Population density D. Prime 7armland E. Designated scenic areas l F. Resident displacement G. Cultural features j 1. Braidwood Site A. Public acceptability - unknown for additional units, two units are presently being constructed on the site; there is interven-tion in the review for the operating license. Land has been acquired that would allow expansion of the cooling pond into Kankakee County, but this has previously met with local objec-tion. B. Land use compatibility - the land in Kankakee County consists primarily of former strip mined areas, a porrion of which is currently being used for recreational purposes. C. Population da.nsity - listed on Table Q301.18-1. D. Prime farmland - the prime farmland on-site is depicted on Figure Q301.18-1. E. Designated scenic areas - no designated scenic areas exist on or near the site. F. Resident displacement - the placement of additional generation facilities within current site boundaries would result in the displacement of no people. G. Cultural features - nearby cultural features include the fol-lowing: O Revision 3 Q301.18-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER O,

1) Des Plaines Wildlife Conservation Area - located 8.0 miles north of the site.

2) Goose Lake Prairie State Park - located 7.0 miles northwest of the site.

3) Mount olivet Cemetery - adjacent to site (northwest).

4) horth Essex Cemetery - located 1.0 mile southwest of the site.

5) South Essex Cemetery - located 2.0 miles southwest of the site.

6) Fossil hunting grounds on the southern portion of the site.

2. Byron Site A. Public acceptability - unknown for additional units, two units are presently being constructed on the site. There is interven-tion in the review for the operating license. B. Land use compatibility - the existing site is zoned M-1 neces-() sitating no further zoning changes. C. Population density - listed on Table Q301.18-2. D. Prime farmland - the prime farmland on-site is depicted on Figure Q301.18-2. E. Designated scenic areas - no designated scenic areas exist on or near the site. However, the Illinois State Route 2, a scenic highway, is located on the west bank of the Rock River, approximately 2.5 miles west of the existing site. ( F. Resident displacement - the placement of additional generation facilities within current site boundaries would result in the displacement of no people. G. Cultural features - nearby cultural features include the fol-lowing:

1) Lowden State Park - located 3.5 miles south of the site.

l

2) Ebenezer Church - located 1.0 mile southeast of the site.

O Revision 3 l Q301.18-2 5/80 l l

CCS-SS-ER

3) White Pines Forest State Park - located 11.0 miles southwest of the site.

4) Black Walnut Gristmill - located 2.0 miles east of the site.

5) Civil War Monument - located 3.0 miles northwest of the site - the first Civil War Monument in Illinois.

3. LaSalle County Site A. Public acceptability - public acceptability is unknown. Addi-tional land would have to be acquired to provide adequate noise buffer area. B. Tand use compatibility - no rezoning would be required. C. Popult.tios density - listed on the table on page 9.2E-7 of the report. D. Priae farmland - the primo farmland on-site is depicted on Figure Q301.18-3. E. Designated scenic areas - no designated scenic areas. exist on O or near the site. F. Resident displacement - the placement of additional generation facilities within current site boundsries would result in the displacement of no people. G. Cultural Features - nearby cultural features include the fol-j lowing:

1) Houlihan Cemetery - located 1.0 mile sooth of the site.

2) Church (Kinsman) - located 4.0 miles southeast of the rite.

3) St. Patrick's Cemetery - located 3.0 miles south of the site.

4) Allen Cemetery - located 3.5 miles south of the site.

5) St. Mary's Church - located 3.0 miles west of the site.

6) German Methodist Church - located 5.0 miles west of t?te site.

7) Brookfield Church - located at the west edge of the

> (::) it - Revision 3 Q301.18-3 5/80

CCS-SS-ER )

8) Four Churches (Seneca) - located 3.0 miles northeast l

of the site.

9) Maxton Cemetery - located 2.0 miles northeast of the site.

l 10) Mt. Calvary Cemetery - located 5.0 miles northeast of the site.

11) Parkview Church - located 5.0 miles northeast of the site.

12) Brick School District 111 (1848 - Seneca) - located 5.0 miles northeast of the site.

13) Commercial Building (1875 - Seneca) - located 5.0 miles northeast of the site.

4. Quad Cities Station A. Public acceptability - public acceptability is unknown for ad-ditional units. B. Land use compatibility - rezoning would be required on most of () the land additional facilities would be located on. C. Population density - listed on the table on page 9.2E-14 of the report. ] D. Prime farmland - the prime farmland on-site is depicted on Figure Q301.18-4. l 1 E. Designated scenic areas - Illinois State Route 84 which passes through the site and Iowa State Route 67 which is located ap-proximately 3.5 miles west of the site. F. Resident displacement - the placement of additional generation facilities within projected site boundaries would displace four households 03.13 persons / household - approximately 13 persons. G. Cultural features - nearby cultural features include the fol-lowing:

1) Rose Hill Cemetery (Iowa) - located 4.0 miles west of the site.

2) Two Cemeteries (Albany) - located 4.5 miles northeast of the site.

O Revision 3 Q301.18-4 5/80

CCS-SS-ER

3) Albany Mounds Site (NRHP/ archaeological) - loccted 4.0 miles northeast of the site.

4) Baker Cemetery - located 3.5 miles south of the site.

5) Oak Ridge Cemetery (Iowa) - located %.0 miles southwest of the site.

6) Nowlin Cemetery (Iowa) - located 2.0 miles west of the site.

7) Shaf ton Cemetery (Iowa) - located 2.3 miles northwest of the site.

8) Cemetery (Cordova) - located 2.5 miles south of the site.

9) Cordova Baptist Church (1858) - located 3.5 miles south of the site.

10) Cordova Lime Company - Kiln (1860's) - located 3.5 miles south of the site.

11) One Centennial Farm (Cordova) - located 3.5 miles south of the site.

References Used in the Response to Question 301.18 Commonwealth Edison Company,1978, Braidwood Station Environmental Report - Operating License Stage - Mini Review. Commonwealth Edison Company, 1978, Byron Station Environmental Report - Operating License Stage - Mini Review. Commonwealth Edison Company, 1979, Early Site Review, Carroll County Sta-tion, Site Suitability. Illinois Inventory of Historic Landmarks in Ogle, LaSalle, Rock Island and Will Counties, 1974, Illinois Historic Landmarks Survey. Rand McNally, State Highway Map of Illinois, 1980. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Rock Island County, Illinois, 1977, 140 pp. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of LaSalle County, Illinois, 1972, 140 pp.

1980, a

e Revision 3 Q301.18-5 5/80

l m E i CCS-SS-ER i i O U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Will County, Illinois, 1980, Atlas Sheets U.S.9.C.. Bureau of the Census, 1971, General Population Characteristics of 1111nois, pc(1)-B15. U.S.D.I., National Park Service,1976, The National Register of Historic Places, 961 pp. 3 2 l ) O 4 a l l 3 I i = } i 1 -i A O Revision 3 Q301.18-6 5/80 1 i w ---,,----.,a ,,..,,.,,7._,..,.

O O O TABLE Q301.18-1 1977 and Projected Population Distributions Within 30 Miles of the Braidwood Station 1977 1987 2030 Average Average Average Cumulative Density Cumulative Density Cumulative Density 2 2 2 Radial Total (persons /mi ) Total (persons /mi ) Total (persons /mi ) Interval Popula-to Outer in Radial Popula-to Outer in Radial Popula-to Outer in Radial (miles) tion Radius Region tion Radius Region tion Radius Region 0-1 457 457 146 565 454,240 161 880 880 280 { f3 1-2 1,670 2,127 169 2,156 2,721 216 3,531 4,411 351 o{ 2-3 1,979 4,106 145 2,473 5,194 184 3,909 8,320 294 03 m 3-4 2,514 6,620 132 3,622 8,816 175 4,694 13,014 259 4 {

=

4-5 4,602 11,222 143 5,537 14,353 183 8,428 21,442 273 5-10 15,208 26,430 84 19,128 33,481 106 30,419 51,861 165 10-20 84,723 111,153 88 98,188 131,669 105 157,088 208,949 166 20-30 287,666 398,819 141 322,571 454,240 161 527,494 736,443 260 4

v. ;i.
r E og w

O O O TABLE Q301.18-2 1977 and Projected Population Distributions within 30 Miles of the Byron Station 1977 1987 2030 Average Average Average Cumulative Density Cumulative Density Cumulative Density 2 2 2 Radial Total (persons /mi ) Total (persons /mi ) Total (persons /mi ) Interval Popula-to Outer in Radial Popula-to Outer in Radial Popula-to Outer in Radial (miles) tion Radius Region tion Radius Region tion Radius Renion 0-1 51 51 16 61 61 19 97 97 31 1-2 379 430 34 465 526 42 716 813 65 [] jj m { 2-3 580 1,010 36 711 1,237 44 1,101 1,914 68 f, m i* 3-4 1,469 2,479 49 1,646 2,883 57 2,589 4,503 90 4 00 m 4-5 4,406 6,885 88 4,831 7,714 98 7,282 11,785 150 5-10 13,936 20,821 66 15,290 23,004 73 23,056 34,841 111 10-20 252,983 273,804 218 279,917 302,921 241 428,139 462,980 368 20-30 225,746 499,550 177 252,140 555,061 196 389,164 852,144 301 e* v, OE a og w

l O l l FROBABLE EXCLUSION AREA FOR TWO I ADDITIONAL UNITS .s;; .a ga s sac [ ~.,, j g "a t t ,o \\',,' * .. 2o l* = 6. ~' o M) sse g..s l / l G a' 9 e,,, 30 2 9'- 2e en I s \\ e 9 DATE: 1965 4. nevisos s s/so l CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING

^ ' -

OTATION-UNITS I a 2 i SITE SUITABILITY -ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 32\\ u t. j i rigwe o 30s.18-1 PRIME FARMLANDS of the l l Commonweaii'n EJ::% Braidwood Site ML (Sowce U S.0 A. Sosi Conservation Service) l l 49 l $ lock shodeg mocotes prime farmiend consideration) O .) I b\\, 4 r-- .x .x i.. s Q 301.18 9 _ _ _. ~.. _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _,. _ _.. _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _.. _... _. _ _ _.....,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

O O O PROBABLE EXCLUSION AREA FOR TWO ADDITIONAL UNIT 8 t v ~ i ~ ~ ?' ,\\

15

/ .,u ,6 3 DATE: 1980 ce l l / *** REVISION 3 5/80 CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS I 8 2 SITE SUITABILITY-ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Figure Q.301.18-2 "g { PRIME FARMLANDS of the Tye ~ ~~ Commonwealth Edison Byron Site i (Source U.S.D. A, Soil Conservation Service) [ block shoding indicates prirne formland consideration] 8 i 5 s 4 k

.m Y1 Q 301.18-10 d

1 l l O M RE VISION 3 5/80 fCARROLLCOUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS I82 SITE SulTABILITY - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Figure Q. 30118-3 PRIME FARMLANDS of the Commonwealth Edison LaSalle County Site (Source U S D A, Soil Conservation Service) [tpack shading indicates prime formiond conssderation] C 's '4 '<e lens PROB A BL E EXCLUSION AREA FOR TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS = DATE: 1972 (' O Q 601.18-11

O

l.

0 r ] a 8 n n / G ita o 5 N T IT R r A O ie )e t e c d 3 P Sii R E v s N E R e s e o r n O N I t ieS c I h S E2 L i nd ki V G A t C f E aT o io n d a la R N t RI E 4 Sa v m A M r r E S N 8 Du e a O 1 N Qs f t. 3 L T n '} CI R 1 A o e I 0 nC NU N Msl ims U N V 3 L o u 4 I r e - E Q i io ps

E Rd Y N eA ES s i'

7e. kwrtgfw"4:'sh e j dp r. r e T Y u F t y: O h A. p NI TI ig a p; b iQm +"t%o :v.a.pg; I Po n L ic t c UT I F El D. d 3p 1 :. h pj U A a O T B M e S. j g I n ,]~ J,h,.*** l.U )t C S A u T RnwU i h' n cQ.e gy. g . yi l-6 L U ei 1 { 1 l' L S mc d p sI .c a r a s j. R T o O E muh ,[ gp \\ i~A ;fs. ,i.pg f 4,f fi

L s

Q, g9 .. ao. S e,. qzw'. c R I C (S 1 g,' k A a m o c g; C lb g ,:Op;g% . n/. m.y%,g.;;?yjhh[r.a,:; : 7 p % pyf+kc. - 9, ~ r y . g- [ ~

%,f: @Af_,i al a,; *

,e T l. t 3 r ., v + -,g j.' e4,g d T. i T

. s

,f .y- {i f ,e1 e# 2 Er mfg M(yL* j. Q g Mjf t 4A ; j 1 d7. [ 8 d q'u f ;;.uY ;gx l1g j' O f,"

w y. w A

.p;s ud p O s D ,. m [.ed m+yg } Y' M. 1 kC ~awrp'g., pyS 3t l . su g h,Q: .r 1 3 b ]; qt N 0 p L.~

, g t N.w K' n k o i q n. '.,',l,e ~~. c ~4 ~.a e n E' A,w 1

7 O 3 .+ p y t I 7 I S ic. J 9 gg S T Q i , fyw ? p:pg!, )< 2 .p W. ac. L N U I (, t v :3 r a ;w*nd' @ WhSkn%m r.- my h . Q! e.c. p T C O E T. f mar :'. g U _ f:- A XW i i ka.* s D ETL .= . 4,v,. $&h j v { '- ,.w : /. A W a ,r-E R N ?q f s w ~. v \\ r ..g% LO O p,z 6 T f. ~j r ~ B FI

,y mnj~

A AI gD- ,,' e y ~y 7 e T n_ yl}>:ix p

(

{ g 4 U f B .(- i ED h.. - .i [ O y _ (( k' R RD ) PAA M f,. ~ 1I ![k l gmpi*W,.gk ~' ^ ^ s. /.. ~ fl yf /

w i

q1 ,. nh 'ef, -, [. gtg f y e 3 f f e c.. N ! ^ ' r .j~ .a' u r

a. '

q j a W [8 6 a~ 1 b k O i' i< i ,!I e

CCS-SS-ER O Question 301.19 Please provide ranking tables for the developed candidate sites that follow as closely as possible the formats of Tables 9.2-6 and 9.2-7 for the unde-veloped candidate sites.

Response

Developed Candidate Sites Environmental Suitability Ratings Site Issue Braidwood Byron LaSalle Quad Cities Prime Farmland 1 1 1 1 Compatibility with Land Use Plans 1 1 1 1 Public Acceptability 2 2 2 2 Resident Displacement 1 1 1 1 ) Cultural Features 1 1 1 1 Designated Scenic Areas 1 2 1 2 Population Density 5 5 3 5 Terrestrial Ecology 5 2 2 2 Aquatic Ecology 5 5 2 3 Transmission 2 2 1 3 Development Costs In view of the undetermined status of water availability for additional units at Braidwood Station and Byron Station, these stations were deferred frem consideration for expansion at this time and no estimates of develop-ment costs were made for them. Estimated development costs for LaSalle and Quad Cities Stations are shown on page 9.2-64. () Revision 3 Q301.19-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER O Site Suitability in Terms of Weighted Environmental Rating Developed Candidate Sites W hting Issue Value Braidwood Byron LaSalle Quad Cities Transmission 2.77 5.54 5.54 2.77 8.31 Aquatic Ecology 1.65 8.25 8.25 3.30 4.95 Terrestrial Ecology 1.48 7.40 2.96 2.96 2.96 Public Acceptability 0.91 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 Land Use Compatibility 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Population Density 0.67 3.35 3.35 2.01 3.35 Prime Farmland 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 () Designated Scenic Areas 0.49 0.49 0.98 0.49 0.98 Resident Displacement 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Cultural Features 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 TOTAL 10.00 28.9 24.9 15.4 24.4 1 i O Revision 3 Q301.19-2 5/80

CCS-SS-ER O V Question 301.20 Please provide ranking tables for the final candidate sites (Carroll County, Granville South, LaSalle County and Quad Cities) that follow as closely as possible the formats of Tables 9.2-6 and 9.2-7, or, preferable, combine the ranking tables for all of the undeveloped and developed sites.

Response

The two following ranking tables combine the ranking tables for both the un-developed and the developed sites. As explained in the response to Q301.19, the development costs are not included because of the indeterminate status of the water supply at Braidwood and Byron Stations. Some of the values are different from those found in Tables 9.2-6 and 9.2-7 and the tables in the response to Q301.19. The reasons for this are that the inclusion of the additional sites enlarged the range of the resident displacement and population density issues and also more recent information regarding com-patibility with land use at C1 and public acceptability at G4 resulted in changes in the ratings of these issues at those two sites. These changes did not alter the rankings of the undeveloped sites relative to each other nor did f.t alter the rankings of the developed sites relative to each other. O Revision 3 Q301.20-1 5/80'

O O O TABLE Q301.20-1 Undeveloped and Developed Candidate Sites Environmental Suitability Ratings Candidate Sites LaSalle Quad Issue B1 Cl C3 E2 G2 G4 H1 M1 R1 Braidwood Byron County Cities Prime Farmland 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 Compatibility with Land Use Plans 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 g Public Acceptability 4 1 4 5 2 5 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 f3 Resident Displacement 4 4 3 4 3 5 5 4 4 1 1 1 1 S en {g S! Cultural Features 1 2 3 3 5 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 Designated Scenic E Areas 5 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 -Population Density 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 1 2 5 5 3 4 Terrestrial Ecology 1 5 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 5 2 2 2 Aquatic Ecology 4 3 2 4 4 2 3 3 4 5 5 2 3 Transmission 5 1 4 3 5 2 5 5 5 2 2 1 3 4 O u, ;i.

r E.

8 u s v

O O O TABLE Q301.20-2 Site Suitability in Terms of Weighted Environmental Ratings Candidate Sites LaSalle Quad Weighting Issue Value B1 C1 C3 E2 G2 G4 H1 M1 R1 Braidwood Byron County Citics Transmission 2.77 13.85 2.77 11.08 8.31 13.85 5.54 13.85 13.85 13.85 5.54 5.54 2.77 8.31 Aquatic Ecology 1.65 6.60 4.95 3.30 6.60 6.60 3.30 4.95 4.95 6.60 8.25 8.25 3.30 4.95 Terrestrial Ecology 1.48 1.48 7.40 2.96 2.96 5.92 1.48 1.48 2.96 1.48 7.40 2.96 2.96 2.96 Public Acceptability 0.91 3.64 0.91 3.64 4.55 1.82 4.55 3.64 3.64 3.64 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 o Land Use Compatibility 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 g w8 Population Density 0.67 1.34 2.01 1.34 2.68 1.34 2.01 1.34 0.67 1.34 3.35 3.35 2.01 2.68 y r.n Prime Farmland 0.61 3.05 0.61 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 0.05 0.05 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 ? N De.signated Scenic Areas 0.49 2.45 0.98 0.49 0.49 1.96 0.49 0.49 0.49 1.47 0.49 0.98 0.49 0.98 Resident Displacement 0.36 1.44 1.44 1.C8 1.44 1.08 1.80 1.44 1.44 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Cultural Features 0.28 0.28 0.56 0.84 0.84 1.40 0.56 0.28 0.56 0.56 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 TOTAL 10.0 34.9 22.4 28.6 31.7 37.8 23.6 31.7 32.4 34.2 28.9 24.9 15.4 24.4 E u,1 2% 8 m

CCS-SS-ER Question 301.21 The modified Delphi technique is primarily a technique for arriving at an informed concensus within a chosen group of individuals. Some of the is-sues are technical and can appropriately be decided by expert opinion; others are normative (value judgments) that should be an aggregate judg-ment of those affected by the construction and operation of the plant (in-cluding utility customers).or of society as a whole. The validity of the modified Delphi technique depends on whether the participating group is an appropriate sample of the larger population. Please justify the use of the Delphi technique in this respect. What are the grounds for expecting that the ranking of the issues would be the same, or that the weighting factors would be approximately the same, as those which one would obtain if one could determine the collective judgment of the larger population?

Response

The modified Delphi technique is a group dynamic process. As such, its value as applied in this case should be viewed in two ways: 1) is it an appropriate process to use; and 2) how valid are the results? The process is valid because it provides an effective format for discus-sion and assessment of siting issues in an environment that: 1) is C'%) structured to focus on the issues thereby affording some degree of con-fidence that the issues have been comprehensively examined; 2) provides a basis for common discussion of the issues; and 3) has a documented result. These requirements must be satisfied regardless of the cross-section of the participant group. The validity of the results is a function of the group selection (and what segment of the population it is designed to represent) and the application of the process. The composition of the group is dependent upon the nature of the issues to be discussed, and is intended to gather representatives and informed partic-ipants who are knowledgeable and conversant about at least one of the is-sues. Participants in the subject Delphi were scientists and engineers that had been working in their respective disciplines for a number of years and were well-acquainted with the major issues involved with the siting of a nuclear power plant. Thus, their exposure in their respective disciplines was judged to be representative of their field. Within reason, other bio-logists or other geologists having the same number of years of exposure in the environmental consulting field would be similarly suited for partici-pating in this decision process. Thus, a single representative from each relevant discipline was considered to be representative for the group as a whole. ( Revision 3 Q301.21-1 5/80

t i CCS-SS-ER i In sununary, the participant group was constituted to evaluate the siting issues from an informed technical perspective, in which all relevant dis-ciplines were considered, creating an evaluation reflective of this tech-nical perspective. It was not designed to be a representative demographic cross-section of the populace at large. i i l 1 l 1 l J i i 4 O Revision 3 Q301.21-2 5/.80 1 i l

CCS-SS-ER O Question 301.22 Please supply evidence, pro or con, on the question of the replicability of the results of the modified Delphi technique; i.e., if another parti-cipating group were assembled, would that group arrive at the same rank-ing and similar weighting factors?

Response

It is recognized that another group of Delphi participants may derive weightings for the issues that differ from those that were developed in this instance. Because of this fact, " sensitivity" test were made to determine the effect that the Delphi weightings would have on the site comparison results. This was done in the manner described on page 9.2-34 of this report. The premise for this sensitivity test was that a diff-erent group of participants would have differing opinions, but they would not be radically different from those of the participants in this Delphi. By exercising a set of sensitivity test cases, a confidence range for the original Delphi results can be established. It is reasonable to assume that a similar group of participants selected on the same basis as the first group would develop weights that fall within the reasonable confidence range as derived by the sensitivity analysis. J O~ Revision 3 Q301.22-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER O Question 301.23 If it cannot be established that the results of the modified Delphi tech-nique are replicable and a reasonable sampling of the population as a whole, please provide ranking results for the undeveloped and developed candidate sites using an appropriate alternative ranking procedure.

Response

The response to Questions 301.21 and 301.22 have illustrated that the results of the modified Delphi technique are replicable through the use of a group composed of members with adequate training and experience to evaluate the major issues involved in siting a nuclear power station. The replicability of results is a primary reason for utilization of the modified Delphi technique in the decision making process. The views of those af fected by construction are represented in the public acceptabil-ity ratings and were based on the judgement of cognizant company repre-sentatives who have had contact with the population and their govern-metnal representatives. In swnmary, the Applicant maintains that the results of the modified Delphi technique are replicable and representative and that an alter-() native ranking procedure is not necessary. ] Revision 3 {'/ s_ Q301.23-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER n v Question 301.24 Please provide numerical data (i.e., the weighted environmental ratings and the sums for each candidate site) for the different weighting values used in the sensitivity tests in order to support the statement in the next-to-the last paragraph in

p. 9.2-54 of the ER.

Response

The adjustments made to the weighting during the sensitivity test was accomplished through the use of a computer program developed for this specific purpose. The sensitivity test consisted of 8 iterations which assigned varying weights to the site suitability ratings for the 10 issues. Table Q301.24-1 presents the rank orders for each iteration and summarizes the overall rankings for all iterations. The first itera-tion used the weights assigned in the Delphi meeting, as reported on Table 9.2-7. The second iteration used equal weights for all issues (i.e. all received weights of 1.0) and showed the resulting change in rank order of the sites. Iterations 3 through 8 randomly assigned weights of a rea-sonable range of adjusted values equal to i 30% of the Delphi weights. The actual weights used in the sensitivity analysis are shown in Table Q301.24-2. These weights were then multiplied by the rating values found in Table 9.2-6 for iterations 3 through 8 to arrive at new weighted totals l shown on Table Q301.24-3. The results of these 6 iterations shows the degree of sensitivity in the site ranking based on random adjustments. 1 l l O Revision 3 Q301.24-1 5/80

O O .O-n E ~ TABLE Q301.24-1 RANKINGS OF SITE BY ITERATION ITERATION (RANK) AVERAGE FINAL SITE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL RANK RANK B1 7 6 6 8 8 8 1 7 57 7.125 7 6 i o C1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 9 1.125 1 n O

w C3 3

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 23 2.875 3 i h Q E2 5 8 4 6 6 6 5 4 44 5.500 5 E i se 4 G2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9-72 9.000 9 G4 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 16 2.000 2 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 5 33 4.125 4 H1 M1 6 3 8 5 5 5 6 6 44 5.500 5 R1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 57 7.125 7 Um E B w 4 .i 1 e

O O o TABLE Q301.24-2 ADJUSTED VALUES USED IN SENSITIVITY TEST ITERATIONS Delphi Sensitivity Range ITERATION Issue Weights (-30%) (+30%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 0.61 0.43 0.79 0.61 1.0 0.43 0.79 0.61 0.79 0.79 0.79 2 0.91 0.64 1.18 0.91 1.0 1.18 0.64 0.64 0.64 1.18 1.18 3 0.79 0.55 1.03 0.79 1.0 0.55 1.03 1.03 0.79 1.03 0.55 4 0.36 0.25 0.47 0.36 1.0 0.47 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 4 n o8 5 0.28 0.20 0.36 0.28 1.0 0.20 0.36 0.28 0.36 0.20 0.28 Q 1 i en 'Z 6 0.67 0.47 0.87 0.67 1.0 0.87 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.67 y 4 g 7 0.49 0.34 0.64 0.49 1.0 0.34 0.64 0.64 0.49 0.34 0.34 8 1.48 1.04 1.92 1.48 1.0 1.92 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.48 1.04 1 9 1.65 .15 2.15 1.65 1.0 1 15 2.15 1.65 2.15 1.65 2.15 10 2.77 1.94 3.60 2.77 1.0 3.60 1.94 1.94 1.94 2.77 3.60 Iteration 1 = using weights assigned in Delphi 2 = using equal weights (all 1.0) 3-8 = random assignment of weights, using a reasonable range of adjusted values equal to i 30% gh of Delphi weights. ' $oa 4.0 l

CCS-SS-ER O TABLE Q301.24-3 RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY TEST ITERATION (VALUES ARE WEIGHTED TOTALS OF 10 ISSUES) TOTAL OF OVERALL SITE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ALL ITERATIONS RANK B1 33.2 28.0 35.2 31.2 28.2 30.2 34.3 39.8 260.1 7 C1 22.9 23.0 24.5 21.2 19.4 20.5 22.4 22.3 176.2 1 C3 27.2 24.0 30.2 24.1 22.0 23.7 28.7 32.1 212.0 3 E2 31.7 31.0 34.1 29.3 26.1 28.9 32.5 36.9 250.5 6 G2 36.4 32.0 39.0 33.8 30.5 33.0 36.8 41.3 282.8 9 G4 23.3 27.0 25.4 21.3 19.2 20.9 23.9 26.6 187.6 2 ( )1 31.0 27.0 34.6 27.5 25.0 27.1 32.2 37.3 241.7 4 M1 32.0 27.0 35.7 28.4 25.8 28.0 33.4 38.1 248.4 5 R1 33.2 29.0 35.6 30.7 27.7 30.1 34.3 39.9 260.5 8 Iterations 1 = Using weights assigned in Delphi. 2 - Using equal weights (all 1.0) 3-8 = Random assignment of weights, using a reasonable range of adjusted values equal to + 30% of delphi weights ' O Revision 3 Q301.24-4 5/80

CCS-SS-ER O Question 301.25 Please provide justification for the claim on p. 9.2-54 of the ER that a change of 25 to 30 percent can be considered to be the bounds of reasonable divergence of opinions that could be expected among different groups of participants.

Response

The assertion that a change of 25 to 30 percent can be considered within the bounds of reasonable divergence of opinions that could be expected among different groups of participants is based on the following assump-tions: (1) alternate groups would also be multidisciplinery in makeup; (2) alternate groups would not be " loaded" to over represent any given faction or opinion; and (3) participants in alternate groups would all be knowledgeable in the area of nuclear power plant site selection, and would be exposed to the same data that our Delphi group was exposed to. In addition, the standard deviation for value assignments in the final round in no case was greater than 10 percent change in any issue weight. Therefore, 25 to 30 percent would represent a 2.5 to 3.0 times increase in variance from the original group. O Revision 3 Q301.25-1 5/80

i l CCS-SS-ER O 4 Question 301.26 In assigning site suitability ratings (SSR) for different issues, the dis-placement of 50 residents in 18 dwellings is given an SSR of 1 and the displacement of 73 persons in 25 dwellings is given an SSR of 5, so that an increment of 23 residents leads to an SSR increment of 4. A difference j between an unknown public acceptability and a public acceptability judged favorable is given an SSR increment of 4; a difference between an unknown and unfavorable acceptability an increment of 1. The SSR for transmission impact increases in a roughly linear relation with the new right-of-way requirements. These various scalings imply tradeoffs between incremental changes that cannot be compensated (over the entire SSR range) by subse-j quent weighting. Please provide justification for the scaling of all of l che issues and provide evidence to show that the final ranking is not sensitive to the scalings used.

Response

The range of site suitability rating (SSR) assignments (1 through 5) cor-respond to specific date values that span between the points that repre-sented most (Rating of 1) to the least (Rating of 5) suitable site condi-tions for a particular issue. The following incremental breakdown served as the basis for the SSR's assigned for each of the ten environmental is-O sues: 1. Prime Farmland Site Suitability i Acres Rating Sites Included 55-144 1 C1 145-233 2 None 234-322 3 None 3 1-411 4 None 411 500 5 All Other Sites 2. Public Acceptability SSR's fct this issine were assigned on the basis of the judgment of j cognizant applicant personnel. The rationale for each of the assign-ments is discussed on page 9.2-25 of this report. 3. Land Use Compatibilitt () The SSR's for this !.ssue were assigned on the basis of judgment Revision 3 Q301.26-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER O-regarding compatibility with existing and future land uses, as ex-plained on pages 9.2-36 and 9.2-27. 4. Resident Displacement Residents Sites Displaced SSR Includei 46-52 1 B1, C3, G2 53-59 2 E2 60-65 3 C1, M1, R1 66-72 4 None 73-78 5 G4, H1 5. Cultural Features The SSR's for this issue were assigned in accordance with the ra-tionale presented on pages 9.2-29 and 9.2-30. 6. Population Density Persons Per () Square Mile SSR Sites Included 54-89 1 B1,C3,G2,H1,M1,R1 90-123 2 None 1?4-158 3 C1 159-192 4 G4 193-227 5 E2 The incremental range used for this issue reflected the year 2030 values (54 to 227). With the exception of G2, the SSR's would have been the same had the 1977 or 1987 year values been used instead. In the case of G2, it is right at the incremental cutoff between an SSR of 2 and 1 in each of the three years. Thus, it was given the benefit of the doubt and assigned a rating of 1. 7. Designated Scenic Areas The SSR's for this issue were assigned on the basis of judgment re-garding the relative degree of impact upon designated scenic areas, as explained on page 9.2-34. 8. Terrestrial Ecology The SSR's for this issue were assigned on the basis of Revision 3 Q301.26-2 5/80

CCS-SS-ER regarding potential impact to terrestrial habitat and species, as explained te page 9.2-39. 9. Aquatic Ecology The SSR's for this issue were assigned on the basis of judgment re-garding the importance of sport and commercial fisheries in the area, the probability for endangered or threatened aquatic species occur-ring in the area, and the thermal assimilative capacity of the river at the point of discharge, as explained on pages 9.2-40 through 9.2-43. 10. Transmission R.O.W.-Acres SSR Sites Included 0-2538 1 C1 2539-5076 2 G4 5077-7614 3 E2 7615-10152 I C3 10153-12690 B1,G2,H1,M1,R1 (s'T The method of scaling the site suitability ratings involved both judg-mental decisions and numerical increments that provided for the range of extremes in conditions encountered at the 9 sites. The issues that have numerical increments used in the scalings are Prime Farmland (acres), Resident Displacement (persons), Population Density (persons /mi2) and Transmission Right-of-Way (acres). With the exception of the transmission R.O.W. issue, the numerical increments for the rating scales of the issues were determined by dividing the range between the maximum and minimum values encouatered at the sites into five equal intervals which result in the 5 i site suitability rating values. The minimum value found at any of the sites is generally the most reasonable value to use as a minimum. For example, it is not characteristic of central Illinois to find sites that do not con-tain some prime farmland, nor is it characteristic to find a site without a certain density of people within a 30-mile radius area. It was felt, however, that the minimum acreage for transmission right-of-way requirements at any one site was not necessarily representative of a 1 site area, as was the case for other siting issues previously discussed, and that a minimum of zero acreage could represent this extreme. For ex-ample, at a developed site, existing rights-of-way are present, or at an undeveloped site, rights-of-way for other transmission needs could be on or i adjacent to the site. For this reason, the increments for the scaling of transmission ratings used zero as a minimum value. O' Revision 3 Q301. 26-3 5/80 l

CCS-SS-ER i For issues involving judgmental decisions to determine scaling increments, the method followed was to assign the site with the highest impacts for a 4 particular issue the highest numerical rating and the site with the least impact, the lowest numerical rating. These subjective issues, by their nature, deal with the minimum and maximum impacts found at any of the sites. It is not possible to use a zero as a minimum value for these is-sues since a zero would mean no impact which is not probable for these issues. To test tl:e sensitivity of scalings, the rating scales for the Prime Farm-land, Population Density and Resident Displacement issues can be compared to the " perfect site" i.e., that there would be no one living on the site nor within 30 miles of the site, nor is there any prime farmland on the site, then the minimum value would be zero. Redoing the rating scales and rankings on this basis, the changes would be as follows: Changes in Environmental Ratings Sites Included Issue SSR Table 9.2-6 Adjusted Prime Farmland No Changes ( Resident 1 B1,C3,G2 Displacenent 2 E2 3 Cl,M1,R1 C3,G2 4 B1,E2,C1,M1,R1 5 G4,H1 G4,H1 Population 1 B1,C3,G2,H1,M1,R1 Density 2 B1,G2,H1,M1 3 C1 C1,C3,R1 4 G4 G4 5 E2 E2 This table shows that site suitability ratings for each site either re-mained the same or were increased due to adjustments. These adjusted l ratings were then multiplied by the weighting values given in Table 9.2-7 The results shown in Table Q301.26-1, indicate that there is no signi-ficant change in ranking the sites. As discussed'in the response to Q301.24, the sensitivity, of the scores to reasonable variations in weighting values for the scalings is also not significant. i ( Revision 3 Q301.26-4 5/80

O O O i. TABLE Q301.26-1 Net Change in Weighted Environmental Ratings Due to Change in Rating Scales Change in Weighted Environmental Ratings by Issue Weighted Ratings Order of Rank Prime Resident Population Table Table Sites Farmland Displacement Density Total 9.2-7 Adjusted 9.2-7 Adjusted B1 No Change 1.08 0.67 1.75 33.2 35.0 7/8 8 C1 No Change 0.36 0.36 22.9 23.2 1 1/2 C3 No Change 0.72 1.34 2.06 27.2 29.2 3 3 { 0.72 31.7 32.4 5 5 6 E2 No Change 0.72 o I G2 No Change 0.72 0.67 1.39 36.4 37.8 9 9 a 23.3 23.3 2 1/2 [ w i G4 No Change sc u H1 No Change 0.67 0.67 31.0 31.7 4 4 M1 No Change 0.36 0.67 1.03 32.0 33.0 6 6 R1 No Change 0.36 1.34

1. 70 33.2 34.9 7/8 7

4 1 oA NE 8 w a A

1 CCS-SS-ER 4 O Question 301.27 Please describe in detail the procedure by which potencial sites with the attributes listed on p. 9.2-12 were identified. ) i

Response

j 4 The identification and selection of potential sites having the attributes enumerated in Section 9.2.3.4.1 Selection of Potential Sites, page 9.2-12 of this CCS-SS-ER involved basically a two step procedure after the candi-date areas were defined. These steps were: s 1. A map search of the entire candidate area is made using (a) farm plat maps which show property lines, acreages, sub-divisions, ownerships, roads, railroads, streams, water bodies and in some cases zoning; (b) United States Geole-gical Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps which show topography, wooded areas and wetlands; (c) flood prone area maps where available; and (d) maps showing. existing transmission rights-of-way together with any available information with regard to future right-of way additions. These map searches have identified several sites within each candidate area that f -O appear to have the desired characteristics listed on page 9.2-12. i 4 2. The second step involved visits to the sites to verify in the field the information gleaned from the map searches. The parameters checked included: (a) type and extent of development on or near the site; (b) access routes for cooling water pipelines, rail spur extensions, transmis-sion R.O.W.'s, road access for construction workers and materials; and (c) any ecologically or socioculturally sensitive areas on-site or in the vicinity. Any features or developments on or near the site that might affect the decision to utilize the site were noted. The boundaries of the site may have been shifted cr the site eliminated because of information obtained from the site visit. Sites identified in step 1 and verified in step 2 have the desired characteristics listed on page 9.2-12.

O Revision 3 Q301.27-1 5/80 l-i

CCS-SS-ER O Question 301.28 How did the applicant ensure that other potential sites which might be preferable were not overlooked.

Response

A diligent effort was made in the map search and site visit stages, as discussed in the response to Q301.27, in order to locate all potential site areas within the candiate areas. The methodology used has resulted in identification of sites that are among the best that can reasonably be located. There is no methodology that will provide with absolute certainty that preferable sites were not overlooked, but if such sites exist and have remained unidentified through this screening, they will still be available-for future discovery and utilization. O O Revision 3 Q301.28-1 5/80

CCS-SS-ER O Question 301.29 In rating the undeveloped candidate sites on environmental issues, the largest weight factor was assigned to transmission line impacts. We find the data provided, however, is not adequate to assess the environ-mental impacts of transmission line impacts as an environmental factor in the NRC's alternate site assessment. So as to reach a general con-clusion regarding proposed finding No. 138, please respond to the fol-lowing: a. Provide a list of the number of acres of woodland, pasture, cultivated fields and marshland which lie within the new transmission line corridors for each of the candidate sites. b. To what extent (number of miles) will the transmission lines parallel other utility corridors? c. Please provide a list of the number of rivers, streams, high-ways, railroads, other transmission lines and pipelines crossed by the proposed new transmission line routes and the number of miles of new access roads for servici.g the transmission lines for each of the candidate sites.* Also in61cate the number of buildings within the proposed corridorr. and those within 4 () mile of the corridors. Include a list of all natural areas, wildlife refuges, state and county parks and recreation areas within 1 mile of the proposed corriders. The location of major river crossings and their proximity to resting areas for waterfowl (such as the Spring Lake region of the Upper Missis-sippi Wildlife and Fish Refuge) are of particular importance. d. Please provide maps, such as seven and one/ half minute topo-graphic maps, with the proposed corridors outlined. e. Please provide a characterization of the methodology to be used to determine if any federal or state listed endangered or threatened plants occur within the proposed transmission line R0W's in each of the candidate sites. l l

Including developed sites of Braidwood, Byron, LaSalle and Quad Cities.

Response

The transmission line corridors that are referred to in Section 9.2, which were used for comparisons of alternative sites, can not be selected at the early site review stage with the degree of finality required to provide ~ the specific data requested. The transmission line lengths associated with Revision 3 Q301.29-1 5/80~

CCS-SS-ER O (m / the undeveloped candidate sites and the developed alternative sites for CECO lines alone total over 3,150 miles. The procedure for selecting transmission line corridors and eventually specific ROW's include use of topographic and farm plat maps, aerial photographs of corridors, ground proofing and evaluation of alternative routes to minimize impacts to sensitive areas. Even after the extensive efforts outlined above, the routes would have to be tested by obtaining options on property and fil-ing for Certificates of Convenience and Necessity from the Illinois Com-merce Conaission (ICC). Each request for a Certificate would have to be accompanied by an environmental assessment of the proposed ROW versus al-ternative routes. This procedure cannot be fully implemented until two years before the start of transmission line construction since the Cer-tificate is only valid if construction starts within two years _of issuance. It is doubtful that the ICC would be willing to dissipate their manpower and financial resources on evaluations of thousands of miles of transmis- ~ sion R0W's knowing that only one alternative would be selected, and even for the site alternative selected, the route may have to be subjected to review and relocation before construction because of changing land use patterns. In this instance, the ROW's would have had to be selected in early 1978, in order for the data to be collectPd, evaluated and made a part of the ESR submittal in December, 1978. This would be more than 12 years before the first unit would be in operation. It should be noted that, at this time, none of the alternative sites are surrounded by sen-sitive areas which would preclude transmission ROW access. In the Site Suitability - Environmental Report, we did not submit detailed transmis-S .sion ROW data for the CECO, IIG&E and ISP lines because of the uncer-tainties mentioned above that are associated with premature R0W selection. Due to our inability to develop this data, a finding was not requested for the transmission lines that would be associated with the proposed Carroll County Station. (a) We analyzed 202 miles of transmission line R0W's originating at our three nuclear generating stations now under construction. The land use breakdown of three ROW's era listed in the follow-ing order: Land Use Acres Percent Woodland 326.9 6.2 Pasture (open woods) 377.6 7.2 Cultivated fields 4,373.8 83.6 Marshlands 55.2 1.1 Other 101.4 1.9 TOTAL 5,234.9 100.0 0 Revision 3 Q301.29-2 5/80

CCS-SS-ER ' O (b) The R.O.W.'s that are indicated on figures in response to (c) do not indicate any paralleling with utility corridors other than existing transmission line corridors. However, portions of the lines that would be constructed for the Granville South, Erie South and Quad Cities alternatives would parallel existing transmission corridors as indicated in Section 9.2 and Appendices 9.2C and 9.2E in this report. (c) Figures Q301.29C-1 through Q301.29C-ll show the preliminary uncer-tified routes that were considered in the comparison of alternative sites. Table Q301.29C-1 lists all rivers, interstate highways, rail-roads and transmission line croscings and enumerates crossing of creeks and U.S. and State highways for each segment of the R.O.W. There were no recreational areas of parks crossed by the preliminary R.O.W.'s. The number of. buildings on or adjacent to the R.O.W.'s and the specific points where rivers would be crossed were not in-cluded because of t. e degree of uncertainty involved in the route x selection. The crossings of pipelines are not because we are not aware of all pipeline locations and the small impact one has on the other. As to miles of access roads that would be constructed to service the transmission lines, it is not known at this time. How-ever, in Illinois there are not many areas that are not in proximity to roads and, therefore, it is contemplated that there would be minimal (if any) road construction required. () (d) Definitive R.O.W. 's cannot be provided on seven and one half minute I topographic maps at this time for the reasons stated in the general reference to this question, Preliminary uncertified routes are con-tained in Figures Q301.29C-1 through Q301.29C-ll. j (e) The determination of any federal or state listed endangered or i threatened plants that occur within the proposed transmission line R.O.W. 's for each of the candidate sites cannot be determined finitely for the reasons put forth in the general response to this question. The consideration of the probability of impacting listed endangered or threatened plants would be ripe when the R.O.W. for i i the preferred site is being finalized through evaluation of alterna- { tive routes. With the R.O.W. selection guidelines as stated on page i 3.9-1 of the CCS-SS-ER, "In selecting.the R.O.W.'s, existing property lines and natural boundaries between various types of land use will be followed to the greatest extent possible.", there is adequate flex-ibility to avoid most sensitive areas. O Revision 3 Q301.29-3 5/80 1 ~,, -. - - - -,. >., - + -

O O O Table Q301.29C-1 Table of Crossings for Tentative Transmission Corridors for Developed and Undeveloped Candidate Sites Transmission Interstate U. S. & State Other Tsm. Lines Recreation & Corridors Rivers Creeks Highways . Highways Railroads Co. Voltage Park Areas I (Carroll Co. Site) g i 3 1-U.S. B.N. C.E. l 138kV 1. CC-Quad Cities 1 C.E. I 2. CC-Eyron Rock 8 1-U.S. B.N.-2 138kV 3-fuate I.C.G. S Y 3. Byron-Charter So. Branch of 3 1-U.S. C.&N.W. C.E. ! 138kV E Grove Kishwaukee 1-State C.M.St.P.&P. /is l B.N. a l ---- 4. CC-Ia. Utilities Mississippi 10 F.A.I. 80 3-U.S. C.&N.W.-3 Wapsipinican 4-State C.M.St.P.&P.-4 Maqoketa l No. Fork of l Maquketa l e (Gladstone Site) 1. Gl.-LaSalle East Fk. Spoon 10 F.A.I. 74 5-U.S. B.N.-7 I.P. 69kV-ll No. Fk. Spoon 10-State A.T.S.F.-2 I.P. l 138kv-5 Illinois C.R.I.&P.-2 C.E. ! 138kV-3 vermillion C.&N.W. Spoon Conrail I.C.G. 2. Gl.-Plano Edwards 19 F.A.I. 80 5-U.S. B.N.-3 I.P. l 69kV-8 Green-2 F.A.I. 74 7-State C.R.I.&P.-2 I.P. l 138kV-3 Little Vermillion C.&N.W.-2 C.E. l 138kV-2 I.C.G. Revision 3 Q301.29C-4 5/80

O O O TABLE Q301.29C-1 (continued) Transmission Interstate U. S. & State Other Tsm. Lines Recreation g Corridors Rivers Creeks Highways Highways Railroads Co. Voltage Park Areas I (Gladstone Site-l Continued) l l 3. Aux. Pwr. from Mississippi 5 1-U.S. B.N. I.I.G.&E l161kV Iouisa 2-State C.R.I.&P. I.P. l69kV l l (tiqqsville site) l l 1. B-LaSalle: Same as Gladstone - LaSalle (See Gladstone Site) l I 2. 3-Plano : Same as Gladstone - Plano (See Gladstone Site) l Q s m 0 0 3. Aux. Pwr. from e Same as Gladstone aux. pwr. from Iouisa gSee Gladstone Site) l 4 Louisa M (Concord _ Site) l e i 2-State B. !:. C.I.P.S.l69kV 4 1. Concord-Site "M" B.& 0. ] l 1-U.S. C.&I.M. C.I.P.S. l138kV 1 2. Site "M"- Sangamon 4 Powerton 3-State I.C.G. l l 10 F.A.I. 55 1-U.S. B.&O. C.I.P.S.l69kV-3 3. Site "M"-Kincaid 3-State I.C.G.-3 C.I.P.S.l138kV-2 4 N.&W. l C.&N.W. l l l l Revision 3 Q301.29C-5 5/80

O O O TABLE 0301.29C-1 (continued) Transmission Interstate U. S. & State Other Tsm. Lines Recreation & Corridors Rivers Creeks Highways Highways Railroads Co. Voltage Park Areas l (Concord Site-i Continued) l 8 4. Concord-LaSalle Illinois-2 20 F.A.I. 74 6-U.S. B.N.-6 C.I.P.S. 138kV-6 Spoon-2 13-State T.P.&W. C.I.P.S. 69kV-4 E. Fk. Spoon A.T.&S.F. C.I.P.S.a345kV N. Fk. Spoon C.R.I.&P.-2 I.P. !138kV-3 Vermillion C.&N.W. I.P. ! 69kV-3 Conrail C.E. l138kV-4 I.C.G. 5. Aux. Pwr. from = 1 1-State C.I.P.S.l138kV g Meredosia y !S (Quad Cities Sta.) 1

1. (A) Q.C.-Carroll Co.

4 1-U.S. B.N. C.E. el38kV (B) Carroll Co.- l138kV-3 Charter Gr. Rock 9 2-U.S. B.N.-3 C.E. S.Br. Kishwaukee 4-State I.C.G. C.&N.W. C.M.St.P.&P. l l 2. Q.C.-Plano Rock 5 F.A.I. 80 5-U.S. B.N.-4 C.E. l138kV-3 Green-3 5-State C.&N.W.-2 l S.Br. Kishwaukee C.M.St.P.&P. I.C.G. l (Erie So. Site) E 1. Erie So.-Plano Green-3 4 5-U.S. C.&N.W.-2 C.E. '138kV-3 S.Br. Kishwaukee 5-State B.N.-3 C.M.St.P.&P. Revision 3 I.C.G. Q301.29C-6 5/80

O O O TABLE Q301.29C-1 (continued) Transmission Interstate U. S. & State Other Tsm. Lines Recreation & Corridors Rivers Creeks Highways Highways Pailroads Co. Voltage Par _k Areas e (Erie So Site Continued) l l 2 (A) Erie So.- Rock 1 F.A.I. 80 B.N. e Quad. Cities (B) Q.C.-Carroll Co. : Same as Quad Cities-Carroll Co. (See Quad Cities Site) (C) Carroll Co.-Byron: Same as Carroll Co.-Byron (See Carroll Co. Site) l (D) Byron-Charter Grove: Same as Byron-Charter Grove (See Carroll Co. Site) e a (Granville So. Site) O 1-U.S. I.C.G. I.P. 138kV M 1. Granville so.- Vermillion 2 {l38kV-2 h LaSalle 1-State B.N. C.E. I b 2. Granville So. - Illinois 10 F.A.I. 80 4-U.S. C.R.I.&P. I.P. il38kV-3 M Plano Little Vermillion 3-State I.C.G. C.&N.W.-2 l C.M.St.P.&P. I B.N.-3 e I '(Hillview Site) e i 2-U.S. I.C.G.-3 C.I.P.S.!69kV-4 1. Hillview-Site "M" 14 4-State B.N. C.I.P.S. l138kV W.I.P. COOP.l69kV B.&O. e ~ 2. Site "M"-Powerton: Same as Site "M"-Powerton (See Concord Site) 3. Site "M"-Kincaid: Same as Site "M"-Kincaid (See Concord Site) 4 Revision 3 5/80 Q301.29C-7

O o o TABLE Q301.29C-1 (continued) Transmission Interstate U. S. & State Other Tsm. Lines Recreation & Corridors Rivers Creeks Highways Highways Railroads Co. Voltage Park Areas I e l (Hillview Site Continued) I 4. Hillview-LaSalle: Illinois-3 27 F.A.I. 74 11 - U.S. I.C.G.-2 C.I.P.S. l 69kV-4 14 - State N.&W. C.I.P.S.jl38kV-7 Spoon-2 B.N - 8 C.I.P.S. p45kV E. Fk. Spoon T.P.&W. W.I.P. COOP.l 69kV-2 N. Fk. Spoon Vermillion A.T.&S.F. I.P. jl38kV-2 C.R.I.P. - 2 I.P. j69kV-2 C.&N.W. C.E. l138kV-2 Conrail l 2 - U.S. N.&W. C.I.P.S.l69kV-2 5. Aux. Pwr. from Illinois 6 1 - State I.C.G. W.I.P. COOP. 69kV Meredosia eI I, (Milton Site) I C.I.P.S.f69kV-4 2 - U.S. B.N. 1. Milton-Site "M" Illinois 10 3 - State I.C.G. - 2 W.I.P. COOP j 69kV B.&O. I.P. 69kV C.I.P.S. 130kV ll h 2. Site "M"-Powerton: Same as Site "M"-Powerton (See Concord Site) l 3. Site "M"-Kincaid Same as Site "M"-Kincaid (See Concord Site) l e 4. Milton-LaSalle Illinois - 3 24 F.A.I. 74 11 - U.S. N.&W. W.I.P. COOP.l 69kV-2 14 - State B.N. - 9 C.I.P.S.l 69kV-3 Spoon - 2 T.P.&W. C.I.P.S.jl38kV-6 E. Fk. Spoon A.T.&S.F. I.P. jl38kV-4 N. Fk. Spoon C.R.I.&P. - 2 I.P. l 69kV-3 Vermillion C.&N.W. C.E. j138kV-3 Conrail C.I.P.S.8345kV. I.C.G. Revision 3 Q301.29C-8 5/80

O. O O TABLE 0301.29C-1 (continued) Transmission Interstate U. S. & State other Tcm. Lines Recreation & Corridors Rivers Creeks Highways Highways Railroads Co. Voltage Park Areas a (Milton Site - I Continued) e . 5. Aux. Pwr. from Illinois 3 2 - U.S. N.&W. C.I.P.S. !69kV Merdosia 1 - State W.I.P. COOP !69kV s: e (Rozetta Site) 1. Rozetta-LaSalle Spoon 7 F.A.I. 74 4 - U.S. B.N. - 5 I.I.G.&E !161kV' E. Fk. Spoon 8 - State C.&N.W. I.P.

69kV-6 W. Fk. Spoon C.R.I.&P.

I.P. 138kV-2 Q Illinois Conrail C.E. 138kV-3 m h Vermillion I.C.G. A 2. Rozetta-Plano Edwards 16 ?.A.I. 74 5 - U.S. B.N. - 3 I.I.G.EE.i 161kV

o Green --2 F.A.I. 80 7 - State C.R.I.&P.-2 C.E.

138kV-2 Little Vermillion C.sN.W.-2 I.C.G. 1 - State B.N. I.I.G.&E,!161kV 3. Aux. Pwr. From Mississippi 3 Inuisa C.R.I.&P. J (LaSalle Co. Sta.) l 1. LaSalle-Plano Illinois 2 F.A.I. 80 3 - U.S. C.R.I.&P. C.E. !138kV-3 Fox 1 - State B.N. - 2 (Byron Sta.) 1.. Byron-Charter Grove: Same as Byron - Charter Grove (See Carroll Co. Site) Revision 3 Q301.29C-9 5/80 t

O O O TABLE Q301.29C-1 (continued) Transmission Interstate U. S. & State Other Tsm. Lines Recreation & Corridors Rivers Creeks Highways Highways Railroads Co. Voltage Park Areas I (Byron Sta. - Continued) 2. Byron-Nelson-Kyle 9 F.A.I. 5 3 - U.S. B.N. - 3 C.E. !138kV-3 Plano Green 2 - State C.&N.W. -2 C.E. !345kV-2 S. Branch of I.C.G. Kishwaukee C.M.St.P.EP. (traidwood Sta.) l345kV 1. Braidwood-Kankakee 2 - State C.E. g Wilton Cntr. e m a 2. 'Braidwood-' Mazon-2 3 F.A.I. 55 3 - U.S. A.T.&S.F. C.E.!345kV-3 Y LaSalle-Plano Illinois F.A.I. 80 4 - State I.C.G. C.E. !138kV-5 E Fox C.R.I.&P. B.N. - 2 I Revision 3 5/80 Q301.29C-10

f 5

~ M

.a . E O y WW.PW M.*, .:..,*3vH%_ [

\\~,.,.b..

..sy....' j ] g _. (f - -J.. e

8

-Js- ,__. -, a j a, ,,,,t O.r - ' t.% ' ., i-t -3 ) 'I A I r ~~~ j: ; - l srw o.... h..._..,; M - D Pl h I ,c art 5" XPM ':a~ T .,ca m, C+,.., ' [...'.r' 7,4' 7 j k M s *%' .-J .U'4,,%~ --- ~ {'*e' -~.' 6 i

;." m y

i s, ..p %e. -4 e=e . A N. g .. r- ,1 _t g q - f.. g. w

r..,

g ~,, ] q.e ..-.m-d, y v.. y(\\- %-c% .,.i,.. .,3,.p. *T.,,g, i ..i. ~ .A ,,I .,_s i C, = /.-- t - f .E. y_ ..]i',, s-g- [ s_ + ( f__l.i --C-- 'j ,. M,..p..,,.l.. [.D~E,5 _. "_" L, _. jj. 'd

k. _ _ _

s .-,- -%y ;..' x,_,, c,_. s., f ~ a '.-}.- -. n{ ~3 _, ) .g., -h,fu-L -s en=***8 *** 'ag'3 _ s.. ,1 1.4 --y-- q _sen s [' .%.. k. J-r- ./p = m :. ~p;W:~~ 9- - w =}2 w_....=, y l. _g=.

.= y J.J L --

r.,... ..x 'g_._..-Wt p,,p.--

'A.

P'.'F,. t.- . Y-F ,-{f - q{ -- 1 -g } 4 y -- ~- < [ U.. f.l, f.' ~...g* {'.54 i ^ ** ~- &., :.k ,~ ". g~- /~."[. ~ 'g'" ..:~ f z l y i'~. m ,h j.. [- - 9 ' POwtAT'.pd [~ r ~ ~ -t _~/ ./_ r--. .... s x -u.

m. -

g=1 o r a.- 4 _:__._, x p w; m.s. h,-< 8 4 d c :..#4r,.;., + z' ~ I... -,v'~ .~

s,.s

,. -- 9 ma.- n y-.- - . - a,,. ~ y. fq-:(...t j-- _,,- g ,a ,t _i _...r 3 ,s. p sp ..i-, t ~_ g g.g. . ~. _ 7 i

- f-%

c--- ~~.e. - S '-~ - ~-- .~ hom"* hr. ~4 G ' ~...~ .~, y. ,-- M.,. A ~ ~. ' - n -

r. Nf

,.1.... ' ~ * "

L

? -l

c..f. c

+ .,/,- , N. b - l q. _ ;._. F.- . q- _._ s_ - s -.. j . =.9 . -m, J _ L-1 - - - -e .y 2 _ w- --g.a v_.. .?<p-:_ %;.- _ p. .g. \\.- =,.. _ :::G:.- %:=-;.1.4g-. = g.. .-q s... _ _, . - t3_(,.. N..- a L iL.,~...,-x -i u - A - - - : l. '. :.1 - ~ REVISION 3 5/80 SCALE CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING 80 S 0 80 20 30AHLES PCM=t;;;;>=q STATION - UNITS I 8 2 Site Suitability-Environmental Repori O Faure o30ueC-i OO DEVELOPED SITES Tentative Transmission Corridors for -t-UNDEVELOPED SITES Cilrroll County Site Q301.29C-11

L l.,j . 7..r m.....g. -,... p,. T.\\-1p g) 2 .. =.. - qg 'y U ha y a a l ..:x. .a .h . " l M_ 1 kNhr h*.' b. .W-a.t,.s.+. _.-ed c:"'.a=m-9.,y -. l" lr t., lv'. $.c .. a 4' q -.. r.,)-- $p.. s. - ~

f-[d ;.
= c. fIfhhh,. v-N. ~ I E f -I 3j) l l = . v -wL-1 h.a.;..wg' ~ d Qf. e,L. @hg y]... e i I ;. f. .h "I%~,C ) ,__1=.4+.+_.__.s._.2.=,-- wu e (._.:. M p.hi J q ..~ wk-~TY.N~ n> C [, J ~ T r he-6 p _ 2, i.- -- v .7-wrM r ft.W-.M="'tW'y. :a ?-..
.. $c,__, :.s.a
= ~., =- t c- ? g r.,_ L.-l..,J_.- .[-... s;..g T. '- w n,; _ m.y -h. .s u., .c 3[m : f- "t,t -q.-+:: *-t _. f. - ~. r ~ " ", " t; . 3- ] a - 1 3 ) . r--; =-
l. %..
w- .- ?.<,l *...;..t,_ u, _ = Y... 9.r,.~ p_4. v ,L = h .s _. M. .g /, 9,. x . j _. __ p .wo _ ..x 1. ~ h L___ W <.t; p-. p..k W,< w. w l2 _.T.- _v V,_._C -a v.., m, 4 r _. 1 n y-a J _ :- j - t j "5Fi)y gY$$g 1 -z :qN. l.2k* ..r... r-y. E .:=.l.h . p - P .v f l .j..x,}I+m... ?-- .5
d. f.
..._..,_ u_ g L.- gar > q - o< y 5 - -y.m. s.. -. i 4 yz .,Jr.2.y - jlz.-__;;.-.... f n, _, J - d _ -s -4 .m. .:=f . '~.- 'T. ,, c 3,.v-t.../.., m (v) _.y L __ :. x a:- I u .s _y .,e. ._ n,e e_-., .,.g-- w- =_= s... u._. 4.... %.-, ... e., q gm...y-.j_ . p 4_ ,m. W D % f-[ y T Q *. d,._
*. l T
L i-i . ;.-.2, -. -- f 3 a --y - i . _ f~E h. . y..5 -Y ~ -: _, / L. X>y-V. <-w .n -1., g
~
.= ) z -ye-a = pf, -. u - .m-,........ v. J 'N _ ( \\ [u..- ,/
[_v..
i , _ -...a .w - ,/ s y --)' y... ..=- - - t ). t @. - '3.m..-- - L Q l ' " _y,- n. ... v _.c. - mb._ c-Q-=_$-:~:[..:,g : r- .\\s -\\ - ~- - 7 z_ s. -).m - _. ~ .._._, -i e% 2 9; n ~.,,. _ _ y, -:,. ~.-Q.x %: e_ 4 : j._*,. -4 w.g. .= -- n-,- .4. 4 a. .= g.. -- ~. g,,g m
g...
i.-~., f.... s,. e. a,_.. +...- f_ ,.- ). , A,,, [._: _A.. .: _ ~ g.2 REVISION 3 5/80 SCALE CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING to 5 0 80 20 30 MILES PCp=mcp==t STATION - UNITS I 8 2 Site Suitability-Environmental Report O Figure 0 301.29 C-2 = OG DEVELOPED SITES Tentative Transrnission Comdors For -f-UNDEVELOPED SITES Gladstone B Biggsville Sites Q301.29C-12
$, C.. h, ~ M.-. h. ;..... Y,... N..._. m [, h C. @. k, W _ M a l,d s; W W_ C V R ? gL ~.' qg O fe a -{. _-,\\ .--- g. c ^ o 1 . orm, .,c-n%a a, .s- ~ I t. ,,,,,, J... _X. ,,, n.. .. R,. i'e =-~ g..... ~. Gc - g s v < cmc 9?s _...? .- --?.. y, N.r% t ~ l .t
.. r. y*s.. -
. _.- e- ~r p,,. n j x -.s, y ~..- .7 .) - 2 4 ..w,9%-~; x $... m.. c.: 7%h.4'r; eg,6 c (... gM3,. Spf,.. i .i 9 -t ~ .F 1 s
.A.i I
~ ik E h 7<.Q[.,(mM,__ r :y
-m i'3w-- w%we,.t l_ _-
. -a .i 't V ~ 7 u T a ~E ~.. .-.m % Sb - %._.) ti } = C.- '
4,
...... 2;s.#q - _ M-7 \\1.. >,y h.>c-E_.T, ' ">frg.- ~ .i. 4.f j.. - ; p-, ~ - ;4 J. p.Z' g.
.q.,
--L 2 7.. e. ;._- u. m r.: a ~ c.. %~._Q 7 "f" y.;.f=i : %.) Qg.,%'* u. y-l_~ )_q;_-..== w I -a s:- w :, , ~.. - p r.- y y1,g,. -.Y
4. - %.-.,
. -y,. - - m -._= A. 4 y I f7 L_b.!! f ~' T..M_ ':_. ~ 7 r_.Ai i l' p _ T. 9*.' .~JN - _ ~ _ I. y W ot -, - r',g- -- ( ' r ;.- ry,, [._[ ,xt-ht I -5 y _ n )rd. --r:. _. c j,. . l e -s -k. t<- (V~hs -u-t
==c .>,. r- .. W @g-g - ' ~ bg.~Q"" pr.E
'Q-{-s
,g-g -;W%L f 3 5 f,[p--.r{, _. .. _ J-J 1 -j -- "i -4 ; Q. - c R 3= M Q n [
_ N;._ g_~
'3 _rt,.-' L.. Q i IQh{ . J r-4 } . Q - M..,,. Q-,J ~ w=.WQa x-[~ fy:;-ej JO._ .A. ,u m u- _{ 1 m -f 4 s.e r 't ~. ~ 7.' T. t..- ...a _ l _ T- -. j c 4. ; .y .._. s, . < y_,< p-- @. -,. _ -.) _. r_._. e-.. - r. j j._. _t ~ ' <- -.a-j I -hc- . ;. v ,%gp., .. ~. -(- p. ~ _l - *.j .g s(_. '\\-:_SSa 'w . _ _.n - _\\ J_- m ~ . = ._ J 1.- __ 9, <-...jg \\ ~~ .r. l.. _
.. 44/. ;,i 2.
o g, c. _.y u ~ , _:.m -.n.- ..,... --c._ q , k.....f-J '.t 2.- 5. -._ c.7. - s-e 4.g t_- REVISION 3 5/80 SCALE CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING ,o 3 o ,o w 3o,,,us M;;>=ts;;;;>=4 STATION - UNITS I B 2 Site Suitability-Environmental Report O rigure 0 301.29 C-3 @ DEVELOPED SITES Tentative Transmission Corridors For -f-UNDEVELOPED SITES Concord Site Q301.29C-13
@. W.r.-., M..q.,,-. Q.. 9 (jT. M L W r q : C I' h-r ' :. y ~.:(} h_. g. e,..: w " V., -r $ g. s}...Q. f
3. +1 =r - -
gy i c .p# R= V i. d - $ ~ %. O >I J s-m e u .r%- I e csms. .,t+. n[ t . A,- y-.., p. g.... 3. 8 P.,...._. J g i 3,-}. ge_>- _s i-P- ../ ?I % hitbr,ge=&M.'?.O. qfY-hah k{ g . ~. Tyb.W #wc c ypA = -- 3 p; %......:. $, 7 _ 1 % s x. u.i s n. ~~ ym$+.y I -F. d y.t - ...# d J G-1."A_.c L -t w L ~.. - g-.1 ...; 4- ,..y.iT ^ _1 .s u-m. ,~ i ..a***'= 3.g.,.. .. s . -y mq=g p.,;._!;g. e : m._*.q_ c. .x .. i. %= - j,,: J. pe _ m. ,e r s.d 9 _,f.,.=, .r. - r~y, ay ~- n $. -3 g.. w.. eL > - g,. =,- x#* - . r. p c $._._,.a..w. .. ~ -. i - s.,,_ s, (j -n_ w., .rS._ s'-, -n f 7 -} & b..L { f 2h.5**~_. ~ (*" L. ' L..L ~[,~ .g
s
, $ $ 5-9> *g /- d " u - _ h., p w - f.. h1,' -,4-?._.'= M Y- 'h h { M S:: W W-O .L ,.%<, lb u.. M.gL. 1 'M. l = ', 2 h L- - - e V.. np.. -.4 _m. - X >.. /vx;::z.4m_;._,. J_,-t w .=- ~ .. w. -L; z e t_ q %.. m-- n> .5=; y g-1z .y. _..; p.r-e_x - ;.: v 3.6-1. -m >.i ,p&".. -A. y ,4 _.- - '_E '9* e-Q,., =~'; r, semen,1c_ s ) s \\. a -)f-s ,s -s ,..g, 7. i N. 1. .,,.. :..,,o.,.. p j. y.- /. a t \\. -,( ' g ang.e = i 4, ~ ~e ,5 r L.. \\ \\ ~.A~s. M., -f { n..,, - ~ \\ -d - ~ :,. /s. ~ ; ' - - l.. - -,h~*., ~ _j .h --<J. 4 ' C.._7 <..',slw-~~ !.~. 4$~~~ NJh,J , C.t. ~. -\\ ~~~ Nr.-j", -*.p r- .j 9 ->,pr .a g G.=. ..~.=[_.=.k,. ._ ~. ... -.e.. u.4 f.,, _~ g-. ', ' ~ ~,. - ^. .= W., W. l~. h, kE.-.f "- f [ C' -}- ~' .Q REVIS10N 3 5/80 SCALE CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING io 5 0 10 20 50 MILES STATION - UNITS I B 2 m Site Suitcbility-Environmental Repori Fi ure o 301.29C-4 O 9 OO DEVELOPE 0 SITES Tentative Transmission Corridors For -$- UNDEVELOPED SITES Ouad Cities 8 Erie South Sites j Q301.29C-14
3.n 3.. y .;I.c;ya, - L- + y= g.g.; w. ; ) m1 N s .-3x... a . 4'..y_. __ r._ 3,. ,. 3. c,._ ,lg .g g g ,rf.,.,.. p .j;f-r ..r - I-- 4,5 l m y n_;, _. O o 3 s :;n, _ -__..e,= -f 4 ~j ~ Ts:h _~a *T~ .- l l = . A -1,, ~ ..L.tw, . - -- ' M's- .~ o ,_ t i .. Y. - carTsa +. ,g,i 9 %_:c.- I t-l l ~ ~s~.. f -y y%
-- 7. 9
_.e ,,. %;{%.h L. - t ..- wl w m' ' - N.... i g g x, a-ou. y, -- y.: - 3 a, o n o W.p @ _~' N. --- ; - V = t 1. - g..., -).. (. !s. ) 6.&s m wy .. y &,f i .g. q%GQ= <f..i.; 4. y i. m...,- - ~.- n.. ~ y g -- -.?. N p_-dbs ~ E' $ p.W . _,/.-..l ... -,.<a .m ,m e p t,,- g --. . w _z. \\3.. -..; -. .r a}- .e, - . ~. -i_.,, m - ~ f-7. -+ *4 --f. - y-. ( ..- -.~g. n - 4 _- { R.- : 1.. ~- =J ---? - 3.,1,L. - '.;. ' _c-,; y %=q= L _g.. .-T'._
_ c r"; -
-....) B ! q. h ~~~ [,: p e 7, H -- J-gs a%_. - - c.w.... __ 3_y y j'- 4}- - - - _ -- <->JW -4 a =.m ~T
, m g.
+y- .v.- s. .k =,_.. -y-- -/~C e -s. , %.y- -'\\- t 1., m. m. _'iF t N ~ u.- 3 \\{f... g - m.- -c.,,,,,.- l _.-y#t ~ 4.,L 7.. - J_._ !l. c . P.-s ' -D._ = - \\ r.. - n ng~ = -. =- - ~ .\\, y.: - . e-- ; .a. t 8 L i- ~ y 1% - @j , ~. y=,., n _. g=--9=_. 7 g{ -y : .1. r ) 7y -=-. . a j. ..!= ~.p -T _{y,__, -- (_ >:.1.; s _ ._.pp%~_MW.M_ 4 y. Od -F - w w$ -i ,ce-n 9~ _Q.4t -;-. 0. ~. _; gat. x .-y
y. R ~ Q=.
e'J$,%-Q'- ?. &._."^ )^ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ .= Z~ -' D A Y. [J k[' [. v-- %.~.hd { -. * - r- . -.a. e (..q _ - - 1,. h: ~ , 'b '-_ S,,,,,1,.., -\\ - t - ; W ff', r- -. bn L. wo/~_t - r-s, - 1. (s .3 __ y_ ._.m.,._. d -, =. / - u. F _ -. d- \\. --. p... 2 e JL./.. A.\\.r., -r ~ j .,n j. -a p g. _ ; 3-g.y .~.:
c
-\\_e;.s.x / i--s _ , c.,o_ r L- . L. t.. j - _3 N '-. k Y~.-
t
~ '~ ~~ = b -- -:s --3 c e -.;-.y-a- 1.... - s g.... ; ~, , A,-t . f --? -.)* '~fyf., e-z s. s.. w.. w .,b f.. s- : ---s REVISION 3 5/80 S* CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING so 5 0 to 20 30 MILES l m STATION - UNITS I B 2 Site Suitability-Environmental Report Figure 0 301.29 C-5 0s e otvet0eco sites res,,,i,e 1,oosmissio, Co,,iao,s Fo, l f UNDEVELOPED SITES Granville South Site Q301.29C-15
g,,, _- p. ;. 4.. .y. 3...> g S ;,,~. 7 r. g-.... D,. -- 1 N _'N s _ g_. O b M eJ.: W; ;. 9_. yid,,W % 2 m. t d "c. M.' . ~...... J ri i . ar --.W7/ n + R _w. N,_Q-i 'yh. Jx y:.a q goanna 4 n., .. -mi r s-l 1 . @.. j_m . G_> -(. ~ ~7% y" - ; 'l yg'-
?,
r E ' $%.J _.l.:.,.f. f. ?. 'l~s'Y={k. :..}y -.ff.fc_G r-l ? %:N,W4C I 4.: =
't
--* r ..,,g-y 1-g 4.,} f--*-~ 7 - g_ pq! y r-' p g /c d e+--E r _c-l.,mml, VMi@tM@WKL ;M ';.N 9 i.L.t,. '; g. 2 L. _ '
- v-r
p. -
n_. y3.f ._(' - t .eF i _- ,y $ c'.e ,,,,,,,ggy$ h h , - : ; $. yp_ a g c ai -~~r,. -c 3,,y..- 4. 7 -- -.: T Ml- _ /., A . jT e &_~ - 5- _...,..c.g},' -j.;j -A p. _. v . fh.,_. .;p - j -,e_A n Qc_._ ' y; '7 - : c= - y.! ;;- i h.., -2 e ~7, l-
""7 q.p pr"c y t_
c,N_g = T'
f-r.
f 5' ) \\ - f n - s. - 1. u h h h}-5h-h$
f.
n-Jf \\ l W1- '% c - ; =g-t ) .. ^.b.M_- ? q,I 3 -13.{I(- _ --}.- g. 1 73gI . s.- .~ ~ .f T"~1-' ~$ k,".I ~~\\ .(- * -'- M N.rr Oi 5 M ~ [_ h '~'f-ki '- iN_7 b~~ -enb. _ N. f, FQ [ -.['..'~_h_--l\\[ s- .g p r~& 'V = =. ._. ~ f 7,.Q,m', ~ 4 <q.- e d k -[- I.s ~/ f E-7 ~.,g-h((~ h,. s-Q.-('W-dp pA 3 es +- l.i e'4 w-~e, b _3 =7 8=% ~ O) --4 ... - - 3_. d_c_-i g- - p. q-,, ; -w ;.r .z ,{ vy:"r'~- g.j,7. _Q -
j.-]7..,

y 1-s-.
x % -,d __ -g.. t i L-1-_t - -r.,.% 1 1 1,_ v_, +,; -... l- .n., -2.4-s m M e_ w, y._ 2 I . 2,W-
y-t ha.--
n. *::-st'..q.. Mkj. _ ' : =:. =. y>; g'4"..- m.- .c 3 c,. _..,r t _4 7..-=-._m \\ .a a; y .-c .... - g...
m.,
rn _. s / s, REVISION 3 $/80 SCALE CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING ,,,,,,, 3,, y, N STATION - UNITS I 8 2 Site Suitability-Environmental Report KEY Figure 0 301.29 C-6 Dd @ DEVELOPED SITES
l. tative Transmission Corridors For en Hillview Site i UNDEVELOPED SITES.
l Q301.29C-1 i
i y.,] M.._.g-D F. e_-1. [3,,,. m.'T*(9kk W 4 m. 3=_. 0 ii
, e..~ ~c -(t..v~.. )..f r n_.,
-. k j., - . 7.... y l_ a.- e - :. 'g .j mW4 ' -g. . -.R .r o s t 5 ~~~ ... s.h. _ M. -- - Y%. _~.. or,os, o"""*-- E 'v (4 -r aa.ns l c.,..,.._,.-.7 t .u .. g - s, j j b'\\Mf 3 I 7 l i,z.. .. _ k 3 p} \\ 3... g ....... F-en ...z. .- r +. g._. ] 11%./ __. ~ It ~ $ - -b $i o ~~$ ';- O f.f.t,. 4..- p',,. W--.-. c- & c,y+ 1* .] T; s.. i Qs. ? wI~s ~ T~ .r:.4 ~ .5 f-. - c. "g 's i7 f., '. ',, . g"*., -y f pb * - O :- M t W 1-h.c-$. '.' i ' ~. _' '..i-.-g' 2.['1 T a _a w f"'- .-{u u,g 9.- jt.. e- . h. _) .....7 w m - 2 3 __ ;_- a s.., 4_ _ . ~,. .,.s ~- -r w. p 9 .. L..t _-~ g.Q.-.m_ _.e -- i. rL=,- =r_1, a, ,,!,) %a p q; :: R: __ '-.~ ~ 97. i.'~.5 - =,t g-dr . p L, -m-- p M_.'i g +.= & *= y% V- ..l -y ...l -w } 3- ~ f u,, ~ s-w 7j. s _,....- if.,w,_,,,r7, - - = j P. A. g-p --{._ 3 ~
,;. g. ke..-,
. 7' .; m-_ j_ pr - y..p-r ^-' " i: -f _- _. -a- , r_ . - [_. ( - {-. r.... _. W.. w:.. 'y.1 . - r-c \\ ' }y-m- t _. 1 -a t._ % ~ -s ~ ..t ..t" J. ** ' ( = _ =-f > . g? ~-. ~ - - ~ - g - f._, ~ ~.' ---~_ f 'f ~ _,__ - rr d' ~y -1 m,.- %;.j,,- j & m. - .-q.. .m:...,- -..y y%.._s r 1 _ - -.-f, -.. _s.m.-- -- g- -o r- , #_-{ - _ v _ 7 _ - t 3 __P. d _. tjg c-. g. e,i - 1 W,_* 1 ~..C T +-.~-$ s=! 4 Je m.. 4.. - Y-... ,3-w~ S.Ji F '-L -j. fy t-i %,,n i r u %y,.l.-.;..'= "- i > /s eQ _..I _ h = g /-- -- c -m s ct .e. . J .. wo,J - ). l ..--r. -a.a. s -~ ~ -my> {- 4... ... u 7 4 _- n _ e-- ,c i .w,--~._.., ,_m., .1.. r k ; P".1._-(_ 3_ e.,$ f d ~~,;. _ gm. t _..s. _ ;-. p- -- 4.,_.,.-- .-p t.- _- 5.%s -.
l _ W~V
~ . -y c V.- . a, . c.p .. -. -. 4., ;~/ - t- ,c -- -,. s-.-;_ q_c. '. 7_w _w \\ e =,_ r. ... _- sg. m._=Le ~ d, t.. -- =,y s - ~ _, .. -.. -.m. a _ A.~j.- p, _-.,. -._.. l._. - g.- ~~ )
w..
t s REVIS10N 3 5/80 SCALE CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING 6050 to 20 30 IsILES m STATION - UNITS I B 2 Site Suitability-Envirc. mental Report O Figure 0 301.29 C-7 OO DEVELOPED SITES Tentative Transr..sion Corridors For -t-UNDEVELOPED SITES Milton Site Q301.29C-17
N f.' f r 7 {,ig*~ ].f.. f,, M p T K f'-. M. , i.. -M " 3CQ s ~ jil g.- r .g -... s 'l ~%.s. - 3 3)w/. ' Q+. frw .f~ . ~ ~ _ t-O la V E 1 L- ~ ~g % ~ 4 o i. .t_ I QW-s<rd -- &m,Lt i n , ~'. T. ~v p% _gg%.yg Lg l 2 l-. 2*, .~ .x y-M=rS% h.'.d a I 1., f. h] g= / j 3 ~ S- {-- l g,.. -._ % g ; g @ C g: -Q ( h- ~ k,w w.,
g. pfl; t. c; v

.5 w.
r i g 22 b ~.:mp y47.$4%g,:= . s.n u m 4,_. ~1 - _ _ t ~~ w ... -.. _. a -- ~. =- > ;, - " = J......c ..;,~ - m &< P-h _, :.1 t - @m.,- . 4. g c= g % ). O - * * ~ - =:.%.*}. A .c - } ,. = ~\\ -4 T r .. Q-w _. m., . r - [. m_-=w -- T 7 ^ - -f A -1..,h.... o,,. -.+ "~_,_f, =h : %, + [. e - - => ^, r.,=.., .t L =.. ,. R. _':- c :r.,,_. ._ wn,p ;.==.
p. -
'1 m c l.~x;..,. \\m .=. p- ,l -- - . J -~ -= - aJ_.- '. s u pee.m, ..,..h,..... c.. ?. v-r~r.#.-+ C.
n... d._]..
~ { s ? h;.. z..Y-.. -Q - i
==.. g -.n
k. r_ 1
,s k.,;m,i. f..... W. -- _f 9n.an. u 1.~.- s- { n. c.. 1-- L.. / ._rd.., k-._ m. .= '._. l 4- < g. A d*. . L..G.- - I 2 " = , ' - 7 __~. ph, -_. g L 3 h ' x-Cs A :,R = 1- . c"yp. = tz y,_w g. -
h.7'. -
% 3 g .- g. , _- :-]._._.. _.f r -j _*.-l ~h- ' '.--. _- r'- _ & *. E,. T.. _.--t c- .. /.. .i c ~ Y.[. d % % g 9. [y ;.Q~. :N .h5 L _ d -L.b '~ s-s 3;- _..,, .5_%r 4 -), J A %==r: ; $ '~ : 5 h q. -r -= ) w .L:\\. , - m _. /._.
' '4'~g.?'Q3 $,%y>
-L_ : _'y*1f."-R.=L,;y. ./ r / y.g, r _... '. - ~. -- ./_-.. g.j _. _._-. Qjt p - % -. ; - gas *== i ~_,g,~_.*-..d "\\- o .-e .s. - ). _ -- - - - )Lm-s_ ~ v m < ~ --_" :. -=L, ...._,t .s. ~4. - y -s j \\.. c.xt. -p- .r a - = u-p = -g,\\ . \\ p.y. ~ ..m., f.y.- * . ~~~ 7 E,T.1.3. @. i. 2d.. 2
-g-.c 3
4 s -. 4Q; A r rr. c:.9 .h~f.w y.,_ /.
~~...
, L -- y p y. REVISIO N 3_____1/80__ SCALE CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING io 3 o ,o w 3a m, N STATION - UNITS l 8 2 Site Suitability-Environmental Repori KEY Figure 0 30'.29C-8 C)' @ DEVELOPED SITES Tentative Transmission Corr dors For i % UNDEVELOPED SITES Rozetta Site Q301.29C-18
~ m_'.""j i ) W~7 % I- ' 3 ,F. (V 4 i j~ . h.-_ r-g,a-p --=.y .M. :-gl. - e ( ___\\ c g ' l.R ~ < s~.~ ~ I s '. . y. } [1 a... sw* ; - ~ cam -99i . C.- cowena *
.4, -
- t . G~ j .-.~~- *% . - /. 's n I j~. ( y.. %. c pA -. 9... c,,,.. pfwes. _.. ' b;_.[ _=+27. A.&o-.y #.' A', - - i e A. -.t U. .._ N i 4 -. l ],g.- fi'j-f ; libc.:. .t "J-xv. -' A../.h_. (#. l ,{ \\... Tzgl,A-m y:s u;' M,m,s}.e& L1 =L-
, J ' g% s.. 'l -
Q i~% }- V-3 p@MA p e _ A,.,. . f a. j w-m .~ ..a , u --s= _.T~.._ a_ ...~9_Q .s 4-g. ';g _ i ~_. .d-v.a .e-J,- -.. 4,. e ,, eec _ .,,4. w.. - u g.-" ~_. 9. -.<p J-. r - ~ _ - -. =. _ _...ap,. 9 -, - }c r o -v + t-v. .:.. J. y.. - -..: - y i.- r Hr = ='# C 'T,, ' N) } C.g[..y ~ .: 81-p.y..:r.N. 6~5 __, y', t- - _~._.;,- =- r. r . _ 4_.. - pr- - f._ 9. , ~ e. ~ :. '1'L :. ~.Q_.)} - w-t =. r. ; ,- = ~ mm- . __, e +f. y: p. r-. f. ~~ ' h_ y, 9g, ', c%.. J _ -.- =. v -4 -<.I, .- (~ a- ... 1- .. a y 5...\\., - i= -.'~/_ ^ ~ T.i a-. l .-..-W-- r p, % %s i., -- 7 -g u n._ . ;. = s j.. . )7~, ~ ~ 1 ..- - y ..l - sf. - g - \\.- u t ~' Mt*7? _ . J - ~'. -( r. .ON.=& - = * -
w 4~7 'FS.
k. #..=-a n={~*~ _ } ;.:
'3
as.A-w-
+-. Q-b -.. / 2; 61.....,_.- : 3:. f_ A- "_a. n.. _.
- L,ALk cT-

9. e/g L..w... -.-
,y. .. =.-/ - e _ ' \\,r. _ p-w % p. p- . -v - / . _. b e
=- ro u q -
L_.mg - :=- -I g _r ,s .- 2 h y,,( ;h ,Z.-- d.~ #.-'5 ~ ._. g h d -, .~~h 2 - -y ;)w'gy'== A.He g,_.c.,a.. -p ._ ) L;_ L.. ( -- \\ a.. g. t 8- ~L {. - m.. . -% s 4 -m. (Z r 'J.-. ,E. - GS.. _e =- __1 _,N, i ' - [.., 7s. L - _.f. a ~ 1 6l.- = n. : '..= =,&ji.. lr ,.s gn 1. . N _, y..,. ?. w,.___n.f._ i-: ~ W ~ it * 'h + =-..:-7 -E c %_,= ~ l.... . e. ~%. I -: -y_ W,L ' 1 ' ~. <..- ,_ -) ~ m ~ c.- REVISION 3 5/80 SCALE CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATINC io 3 o ,o 2o sowus N STATION - UflTS 18 2 Site Suitability-Environmental Report KEY Figure 0 301.29 C-9 m (V @ DEVELOPED SITES Tentative Transmission Corridors For l -t UNDEVELOPE0 SITES LaSalle Site Q301.29C-19 1
......y = m. ,_,.,_,g.._..~.,.oG . L g.s.- -,.- T, _m,._ a O sgg t r-- --. =. a.-_ . p - - --..,
h.
J.-=- g r %,j__ N., w,_.,,. - g _--- - m _. _ _ r., I i
i.. -
o s.... g 2u.. ,~ .y
~ ~D
^ -- -M[ _.{7e-(yQ.. <= <c'_~~.r{t: M.3' MT - 4 4 -5^, e ~_ x s, s~ m c- .j -"-teQe,_y._,t% y sr i n$_c.'7~l, , Me ~
r. mor-4 i
o - )..f.. 3 p. -, ,,l --.- -.. N*&.;-l^%t. ,,.e5
s-W.
.m _ Q, 7 ^ =x ~ _ h ! h N k h. y.. N '.t [R p- .4:.1' -E -se, ;- gc -$ha - s g _--. l_N-,3 . ]m . -- e a _ . ~ }. _r im -1 ,,.,4 ,, T 4.u; L,..".;.;.,c .::.c s a + ~ _ m , e: - - k.-- 4 4, e'
f2- ~ 7;,'e _.
m I_- 7 '~ ':- ~Ti i _-=j' , y- .i4.L -b" =.J
pi '
.*1 WT .=::s-- [- 1 1', . 9 2!,, .P .-(. . l,,m S..- e-. - f.. ,t w..; ,1 r ~ 7 _, %._5 - - u,.n.. /_ x - ~ p~_ s-.. )=-- = g= q &fW w' 'C-b- _ -. c %. z,_. r. >.=- e- ~ -. - sa w-i: .. ~, _>s &g r I. ..Y s. -w c t. _ w __;__b.f,G L - r-g
-y"~i
'T y _A y~ - f M ~ g 2 a $ Z. j_ v_v:i,\\,_ 7.i._-~7[ g f _ -..w.: -- Y-m ..~ W ->. .c. _Y, 9 8 l.:- h - Q ..t T-k Q V j-i --ii=td-y$-$, ..-r - - t- _...
= q t
__t . ;._.t- .. e; g- ~w... e. .-l -, m.. .m 2 L. .., -/- g.r-mw . 4;.gw._,_ / _._> $- _+=,;-< J _ c -E_6 v- .- s _.% x y - s-c < =. E.y&_;w_fQ t
su.dh.
7 -p :- --t % -- l Ly-, - c.;r, ~~' )
Y ~~~f '- J & =-
v a.c
{- -
'c _.--s y " .. p, L3 3 m ~ s.. 'd ~;; ~1 -[. - h ;
q n. -
E Q/- 1 '=- =_n 5 1 w= m.,.l m =-? i-R = g- '- M y. -. = i '. _ ' - ' ~ = 4f.:' r= _-s.-,=' bs. L.1 -P r= 'L - % ~_.Y '-% '~.-: -. '~ REVISION 3 $/80 SCALE CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING ,o, o ,o w 3o,,,us N STATION - UNITS I 8 2 O Site Suitability-Environmental Report KEY Figure 0 301.29C-10 i @ DEVELOPED SITES Tentative Transmission Corridors For 1 t -t-UNDEVELOPED SITES Byron Site I f Q301.29C-20 [ 1
r -- k.. + i - y '. A. g' e.p-..- - o c g-L-42 1.W_. (_) ,Ij .-e M_a,,. 2.~ ' '....g".,.~' h- . a. l E g. .g_,.--._..q w 3 - Q,....1l-7.;- W.,[
- D ~ ~.,,,"" -
'I I o s,- ..'s.... - ---r==
. a en m a m-a,D~.r>,.
r _~ . ~..._ ,c e s..,4 w.,- i -S. i _# ;7 .m c_ ~-- t i ~ -t- ._r .e. i ~ { e s.g ,5 y.s., w f.-Q-{ ~.c g ~... '"/h... J Sl% = - - u q e ,(%.- -.._ y -,,; g >. y. 2_ ,+ 4w, v .p-c: c .n. .,. x . z 1-.,. _p_.,._ -. e.-. ,.- e,. :e 1~ =.: s - cena. v. &....~'r'.f %. ~ W[.$.g. $nR - ~._ - i = . - [p =.. ; + 1 _ ik
_r.;y; t I-
%. -f ~. . - - -sw a. o m s. .. y. --x 3 ~ q -., "* h b r. ~,% N Il ' "" I + -h.. ,."M
==h'Q, & ...,-.-. _[. f=g[,,.[ ~ .1 Ju ,; ~. >= _ p,. >= - ~ .,w. y _. . -., f" _ .s/-~b.-- u /~ 5 ~ - sioenvan. c' %- "'-
= r.
^- t. t q t. m , r-
y. e.
,4-.. ea o - s. e.e ~=.,a g-- .=* Q--P ~'. l: -= - \\ e g_ : .--,,- - h p_ g - -i_.T='._. ~ @,. ;. -f_. - J !. Si [., L '- [_3 D[7_, ~ .) ~ / ) j_- E f@
..f~,
.1[_b _ -i. = - N[g4. - ' - 5
m'
_ _Q y-- m g <- j4'Mg .. ~ ~ r ~.,,-- . p_- - p... _ gg y. i_ ..y_- _,1 ~ ~ ' " ' j -r .h '1.1 - , f "';*. [ --
ww
. - n.- ~ ~ u. l E.,' -], Y{ _ - [I ~~ i_ d-m '.=\\ ^K'* y.'_ g
p e,.-.,s.e..

-
.- e_ _. - v ....-v < ~ %- - .u o ~. 3-. w.. r s. w
1.,_
j ~ _\\ ?",,j ( -m / .~ ' ~
= -
,~ r' - ~ ~ W 5..:.,. -m [. Mh.: --}r. ., _ t. _.. - a s-Q . v '(:- m REVISION 3 5/80 SCALE CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING to 5 0 10 20 30 MILES m STATION - UNITS I B 2 Site Suit bility-Environmental Report O C Figure 0 301.29 C-Il Oe DEVELOPED SITES Tentative Transmission Corridors For -4 UNDEVELOPED SITES Braidwood Site Q301.29C-21
CCS-SS-ER ( Question 301.30 In Section 3.9, the new transmission line requirements are given as 32,5 miles f rom Quad Cities to Carroll County, 39.5 miles from Carroll County to Byron and 119.5 miles from Carroll County to various locations in Iowa, a total of 191.5 miles. Figure 3.9-2, which uses a solid line for existing R.O.W. and a broken line for the proposed transmission R.O.W., indicates that this will all be new R.O.W. (some adjacent to the exist-ing R.O.W.). In Appendix 9.2C, the new transmission line requirements are given as 35 miles from Quad Cities to Carroll County, 44 miles from Carroll County to Byron and 34 miles from Byron to Charter Grove, with no data for *.he lines to Iowa. Using the data from Section 3.9 for the lines inco Iowa, the total is 232.5 miles. On p. 9.2-45, the new trans-missior. line mileage is given as 113 miles. Please explain these discrep-ancica.
Response
Section 3.9 of the CL3-SS-ER contains the latest available information on the proposed transmission lines and R.O.W.'s that would be associated with Carroll County Site; whereas the information contained in Appendix 9.2C is based on reconnaissance level information and is not as refined. 7s ( ) Section 3.9 included the lines that would be installed by IIG6E and ISP, '~' to connect to their existing systems. The terminations of the eastern bound lines from Carroll County Station were considered to be at Wemple-town Substation and Cherry Valley Substation. As shown on Figure Q302. 3-1, a line from Byron Station to Wempletown will be opened and recon-nected to two new 345 KV lines from Carroll County Station, thus forming two new lines. One of the new lines will terminate at Wempletown. The second new line will be connected to an existing Byron to Cherry Valley line at Byron and will terminate at Cherry Valley. The new lines from Carroll County Station to the existing line will be 39.5 miles long, as shown in Section 3.9, rather than 44 miles as shown in Appendix 9.2C. The 34 mile segment of the Byron to Charter Grove transmission line also shown on Figure Q302.3-1, was included in Appendix 9.2C to provide con-servative environmental and monetary cost estimates for the preferred site, Carroll County Station. This line was not included in Section 3.9 because the guideline for transmission lines is to consider only those facilities required to connect the proposed units to the Applicant's existing system. The Byron to Charter Grove line is not connected to the Carroll County Station. With regard to the proposed connection between Quad Cities and Carroll County Station, our Transmission Engineering Department has investigated alternative routes and has developed a preferred route that would be 32.5 miles in length, as shown in Section 3.9, rather than 35 miles as shown (~] in Appendix 9.2C. U Revision 3 Q301.30-1 5/80
CCS-SS-ER O The probable transmission requirements for IIG6E and ISP were incl ded in Section 3.9 to aid the reviewer in visual 11 zing how the power would be delivered to their existing systems. The transmission line requirements for connecting IIG&E and ISP were not considered on p. 9.2-45 because of the difficulty of developing alterna-tives f or each of the candidate sites and also, as discussed in the Res-ponse to Q302.5, the agreement between the participants only covers. the proposed development at the CCS site. The 113 mile figure is consistent with the reconnaissance level information for connecting CCS to the Ap-plicant's system as used in Appendix 9.2C. O O Revision 3 Q301.30-2 5/80
i CCS-SS-ER l O Question 301.31 On pp. 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 the line from Quad Cities to Carroll County is de-scribed as consisting of four sections. In Fig. 3.9-2 only three are shoun (AB, BC, and CD). Please explain.
Response
The verbal description contained on pages 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 covers four line segments, the first one of which is on station property. Figure 3.9-2 shows the general location of new transmission rights-of-way. The portion of transmission lines on station property are not considered to be on new transmission line R.O.W.'s and are not shown on Figure 3.9-2. J I O O Revision 3 Q301.31-1 5/80
~ CCS-SS-ER
O Question 301.32 Additional information is needed in order to resolve certain issues, noted below, that affect the choice of candidate sites. The staff believes that the criterion, "... areas that may require plant designs to withstand ground accelerations of greater than about 20 percent of gravity..."
l (ER,_p. 9.2-7) will be found to be unacceptable as a regional screening factor for the following reasons: - The use of ground acceleration threshold for screening translates primarily to a cost consideration which is not an acceptable criterion at the regional screening level. - There are operational nuclear power plants that have been hardened to withstand a ground acceleration greater than the chosen threshold. 1 - Acceptable candidate sites in the seismically excluded j zone have been identified in previous siting studies j (e.g., the environmental report for the Clinton site). } - Ground acceleration is not a function only of the dis-l tance from the epicenter of an earthquate. Depending I () on the underlying strata, a site closer to an active fault might be acceptable when a more distant site was not. Hence, seismicity is more appropriate for rating potential or candidate sites than for use as a re-gional screening factor. The staff is also concerned by the lack of diversity among the candidate sites. The undeveloped alternative sites that have been submitted for i comparison with Carroll County can be broadly characterized as being located on prime farmland. The State of Illinois has other land use areas l (e.g., abandoned strip mines) that are considered suitable for siting a nuclear power plant. We request, therefore, that the slate of candidate sites be expanded to i include one or more sites in Southern Illinois below the current seismic threshold line, and that an attempt be made to find other sites, either north or south of the seimic threshold line, which will provide more -diversity to the proposed alternative site list. These sites may include strip-mined land within Illinois that has adequate water supply for a nuclear power station. 4 i a O Revision 3 Q301.32-1 5/80 l ~.
CCS-SS-ER
O
Response
l The regional screening factor that eliminated "... areas that may require plant designs to withstand ground acceleration of greater than about 20 percent of gravity..." was not primarily based on ecst con-siderations. The rationale for this factor, as stated in Section 9.2.3.3.2 of this CCS-SS-ER, is based on information presented in the Marb :.e Hill PSAR and the review of this information by the NRC staff presente* fu the Marble Hill SER. In view of the number of sites and variety of water i sources included in the Commonwealth site searches, there is no compelling reason to select a potential site in a higher risk seismic area that will l impose costly engineered safeguards and would also impose large transmis-sion line costs in terms of environmental impact and money. The closest water resource in the Region of Interest in the area excluded for seismic reasons is the Wabash River near Hutsor ille, Illinois as indicated on i Figure 9.2-4. A site in this area woul2 be within a few miles of the area within which a New Madrid type event is postulated to occur. This will s require costly engineered safeguards to compensate for selecting a site in a relatively high seismic area. The only other adequate water resource in the excluded zone and not in the New Madrid area is the Mississippi River below its confluence with the Illinois River. Sites along this river reach would impose even higher transmission line environmental in-pacts and money costs than any of the candidate sites identified in Sec-j tion 9.2. When other considerations associated with transmission lines emanating from this remote area are evaluated such as line losses, expo-i sure to meteorological events, and system reliability, it is readily apparent that sites identified in this area would not be obviously superior to the Carroll County site. The State of Illinois does have areas outside of the zone excluded by the seismic screen that has abandoned strip mines or are not prime farmland. l The search for sites has identified such land. Our Quad Cities Station is located on land that is less thaa prime farmland. Our Byron and LaSalle County Station sites were only partially prime farmland and our Braidwood site was predominately strip mined land. Our recent site searches have not revealed any additional potential sites in our candidate areas that are not primarily prime farmland other than the Carroll County site. The primary reason for this lack of diversity is the character of Illinois topography. In the vicinity of the major-rivers such as the Illinois and Mississippi there is a flood plain adjoining the river, then a bluff area, which typically has a widespread area of high topographic relief that is rich in terrestrial biological habitat. Our site search and selection procedures take into account the necessity of avoiding these bluff and flood plain areas. Further removed from the river the land is generally gently rolling. prime farmland and there are basically no other areas in which to search for sites. O Revision 3 Q301.32-2 5/80 I
CCS-SS-ER O Site scarches-in our candidate areas have not identified any sites with more diverse characteristics than those on our candidate site list. Ex-pansion of the candidate areas to the vicinity of the area within which a New Madrid type event is postulated which would require an engineering fix by hardening the plant. We do not believe searching for additional sites will lead to identification of a site that is obviously superior to any of our alternative sites. In addition, we believe our site selection procedare has identified sites that are among the best that can reason-ably be found as indicated by our response to Q301.28, and therefore is in compliance with NEPA. O J O Revision 3 Q301.32-3 5/80
~ CCS-SS-ER Question 301.33 Have any steps been taken to ascertain whether permission could be secured for increased water withdrawal at the Braidwood or Byron sites. If so, what has been done in order to remove the uncertainty regarding increased water with-drawal.
Response
No actions have been taken toward requesting consideration of increased water withdrawal at either the Braidwood or Byron sites. The concerns expressed by the Illinois Department of Conservation staff regarding the effects of consup-tive withdrawal of water during low flow periods on both the Kankakee and Rock Rivers for the units now under construction led to agreed upon limitations for each station. These agreements include requirements for operational impact assessment monitoring to provide data on withdrawal effects.. Both sites are considered to have the potential for additional units, however, it is premature to make any request for increased water withdrawal until the units presently being constructed at Braidwood and Byron are operational and the aquatic impacts, if any, are assessed. O O l Revision 3 -Q301.33-1 5/80 m
CCS-SS-ER Question 301.34 Please provide the information needed to treat the Langham site as an alterna-tive site and compare it with the Carroll County site. Information on the cost of hardening this site against the blast overpressure from an explosion at the nearby fertilizer facility should be included.
Response
It is our position that sites that are not licenseable, because other sites are obviously superior, should not be included in the candidate site list and be analyzed as bonafide alternate sites. As indicated in Section 9.2.3.4.3 of l this CCS-SS-ER, this site was deferred because the adjacent industrial facility represents a significant safety hazard not found at any other alternative site. The explosive hazard would require an engineering fix by hardening the plant which is inconsistant with Recommendation 6, Section 3.2.6 of NUREG 0625, which states ". . select sites so that there are no unfavorable characteristics requiring unique or unusual design to compensate for site inadequacies.". This hazard would also be in conflict with Recommendation 2, Section 3.2.2 of NUREG 0625, which states, " Revise Part 100 to require consideration of the potential hazards posed by man-made activities and natural characteristics of sitor by establishing minimum standoff distances for: 5 large quantities of ex-plosive or toxic materials, .". The NRC's Siting Policy Task Force had the opinion that such distance for this category should be no closer than five miles. The distance in this case would be only 1.4 miles. As also stated in s,) Section 9.2.3.4.3 of this CCS-SS-ER, ". . if a fire occurred at the DuPont facility, toxic gaseous fumes of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide would be produced and could require evacuation of personnel from the nuclear facility". The prospect of forced evacuation of a nuclear facility if located on this site is also a compelling reason for deferring development to other sites that do not have such hazards. n v l t I l Revision 3 Q301.34-1 5/80
CCS-SS-ER C-Question 301.35 If available, provide the results of the detailed analysis mentioned on p. 9.2-16 of the ER regarding the probability of additive effects of multiple boxcar explo-sions of TNT. Res ponse The detailed analysis referred to in this question has not been done for the al-ternative sites. As inferred on p. 9.2-15, all of the candidate sites considered can be developed so that the reactors and other safety related facilities can be at sufficient distance from the nearest railroad track so that single boxcar ex-plosions with 66 tons of TNT can be absorbed without any engineering modifications. The Carroll County site was compared to the provisions of NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.91 and it was determined that the 1.3 mile distance from the safety related structures to the closest railroad did not pose a hazard to the plant. Each of the other alternative sites could be developed so that the stand-off distance could be equal to or exceed this 1.3 mile distance. The detailed analysis mentioned on p. 9.2-16 of this CCS-SS-ER would have to be made if the standof f distances were reduced to the point that such calculations would be required for final site qualification. Without further site specific data, it is not known whether one or more of the alternative sites may fall into this category. O 1 l l C:) Revision 3 Q301.35-1 5/80 L
CCS-SS-ER Question 302.1 Develop a bulk power transmission plan for delivery of 2200 MW from two nuclear generating units meeting the Commonwealth Edison and MAIN regional planning, loading and stability criteria.for each of the following possibJe sites: a. Carroll County site b. Braidwood site c. LaSalle site d. Byron site e. Biggsville site f. Concord site g. Southeastern site (near Hutsonville) This plan should include all facilities required to integrate the station output into the regional power network. Identify any existing facilities which must be improved due to the development of a nuclear generating station at that location.
Response
A bulk power transmission plan has been developed for all sites listed above ex-cept the " Southeastern site (near Hutsonv111e)". The Hutsonville site is not l considered viable because of the reasons set forth in the response to Q301.32. N The methodology used to develop the transmission line connections were in ac-cordance with the Commonwealtn Edison Company's and Mid-America Interpool Net-work's (MAIN) planning criteria. Each plan includes the transmission facilities necessary to deliver the output of two 1100 MW genercting units to the Appli-cant's system. Any transmission facilities that would be added which were con-sidered to be system reinforcement, were not charged to any specific alternative. Also, these types of additions were assumed to be common to all plans. The res-ponse to Q302.3 includes details of the connections that would be developed at each alternative site, Detailed stability studies were not made for each of the alternative sites. How-ever, by utilizing previous studies, each site was judged to have adequate trans-mission to assure stable operation. In some cases it was considered necessary to add series compensation to achieve satisfactory margins. In other cases, shunt compensation would be required for voltage control. Power flows were made for each alternative with all lines in service and with at least one critical line out of ' service. No system elements were overloaded with the added facilities indicated and discussed in response to Q320.2, Q320.3 and Q320.4. No probability studies were made to assess the reliability of the off-site power supply for each of the alternative sites. I OU Revision 3 l Q302.1-1 5/80
CCS-SS-ER Question 302.2 Discuss the transmission plan for each of the sites discussed in 302.1 with de-tails of all the known constraints associated with each site.
Response
The following is a discussion of the specific transmission system additions that were considered for each of the alternative sites discussed in Q302.3. Carroll County Site - This plan provides for six 345 kV lines on three a. R.).W.'s to distribute power from the station. The two lines that go to Iowa would assure a re. liable supply for interstate Power Company's (ISP) and Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company's (IIG&E) portion of the out-put of the station. No other alternative plan provides for additional transmission to the Iowa companies. This plan provides an additional west to east transmission corridor which enhances the reliability of the bulk power system. It also increases the reliability of the supply to Rockford, the second largest city in Illinois. Only the cost of CECO facilities were included in the response to Q302.6. b. Braidwood Site - This transmission plan utilizes 765 kV for the addi-tional units at Braidwood. This is in keeping with CECO's general plan for installing the third and fourth units at a site on the 765 kV system. I~ ) The site is close-in so no series compensation is required. Shcat com-pensatim. is included. As discussed in Sections 9.2.5.3.1 and 9.2.5.3.2 \\- of the Site Suitability - Environmental Report, two important reliability considerations are the geographic distribution of generating sites and the concentration of generating capacity at one site. The installation of two additional units at Braidwood would conflict with both of these significant considerations. LaSalle County Site - As shown in the connection diagram in the response c. to Q302.3, this site has only one 765 kV line plus two transformers to the 345 kV system. Although this system is adequate, it is probably not as reliable as any of the other alternatives. The timing of the system reinforcement at the Plano TSS would probably be advanced several years with the addition of two additional units at the LaSalle County Site. Shunt compensation is included in the cost estimate but no series com-pensation is required to assure stable operation. ILe significant reliabil-ity considerations mentioned in the Braidwood discussion would also apply to LaSalle County. d. Byron Site - This plan utilizes 765 kV for the two additional units. It provides additional east-west ties and is part of the planned future 765 kV system development. No series compensation is necessary to assure stable operation but shunt compensation is required. The installation at Byron would violate the consideration of the concentration of genera-ting capacity at one site. OV Revision 3 Q302.2-1 5/80
CCS-SS-ER e. Biggsville Site - This site is remote from the load center and, therefore, the voltage selected is 765 kV. In order to provide satisfactory stability margins, series compensation is necessary. Due to length of the lines, the exposure is very high and, therefore, the reliability is not as good as with the closer-in sites, f. Concord Site - The connection from Concord is planned to be at 765 kV due to its remote location with respect to the bulk power transmission system. Series compensation is required and the exposure is considered to be high. Since the Concord unite would be connected to the system via LaSalle County, Powerton and Kincaid, it would not provide good geographic distribution of transmission corridors. l O Revision 3 Q302.2-2 5/80
CCS-SS-ER
O Question 302.3 Provide a single line diagram with circuit breaker arrangement for each of the possible sites.
Response
Single line diagrams which indicate circuit breaker arrangements for each of the six sites discussed in Q302.1 are shown on Figures Q302.3-1 through Q302.3-6. i i i i O i l {- j O i Revision 3 Q302.3 5/80 2
WfMPLCTb>/// [>/fRff YALLFY c$$t $) '5$Y v$EY (0lYt ca) '$'[' "50e# 'A's" do O- -O--o--c o- "J S E/ 343K/ 4 = c -a m IS8LW ($6k/ f3SkV N "* WS 15J5 WochETDdd \\ [Aflf*1)LL DalA/TV 3gy MK hilst' SA L U (rS P(.a) h (TSP (o) h gfL50/ h e=I I-aa -o--o c) e = m su a -m m- ,,,-C C mr 2 Q AuA AUA ewe m r-m <r, cac c.- -c 8 44 McLK3 36 MILf 3 (D&.(c7(on.sr) g w (jggg SUB 91 34 HILL 5 " f r S P) nWSYW (E16 lE f*) L46 r -o l o l a-s -o--a n-m 34s=/ w -yg uy ~ @ cr$Weln") N'a 'N!n a 5o8?a 0 [] Quaa Cmes -O--O- .ss s av t/Avas WAvus -- 765 KV LINE SINGLE CIRCUlT STEEL TOWERS g,, 345 KV LINE-DOUBLE CIRCUIT SINGLE SHAFT STRUCTURES CIRCUlT BREAKER /\\/\\ TRANSFORMER Rtvision s s/so < I CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING O GENERATOR UNIT STATION - UNITS I a 2 EQUIPMENT. ADDITIONS Site Suitability-Envircnmental ReporI /W G (,) Figure 0302.3-1 345 KV Transmission Connections 0 302.3-2 l Carroll County Units I 8 2
coums I l ['s OS ' E O ~l 7L wces / 4"'^""*' rilbO'as 3g 1 l M ao Lieusx Ja r. Ettcmc M 3 +s c/ -c o- -o--o-l Lasasst lasste laseen caosrv Co m rY m t m m 745 A e/ Pl. A NO 1500 MvA AA M a n,owoon Daws LASALtE Lcsous Aus Avt-I C;ow rY Gawrv srenvercer M *C I C U l g g= s+su c, o- -c o = $0s 2",.,E'****' 0 RR YA.s I O I co w us 35:a i=I -c w.aucz t-togogn3a,, o-YcrY M Eaams saove - __ ___ 765 KV LINE /bande " d SINGLE CIRCUlT STEEL TOWERS -C a-O-345 KV LINE-D0UBLE CIRCUlT U-c + SINGLE SHAFT STRUCTURES CIRCUlT BREAKER gh'o""' /\\/\\ TRANSFORMER W,r_ rod [rurtE O GENERATOR UNIT REVIS10N 3 5/80 CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING g EQUIPMENT ADDITIONS STATION - UNITS l 8 2 N\\# Site Suitability-Environmental Report Q Figure 0302.3-2 765 KV Transmission Connections l Braidwood Units 384 l 0 302.3-3 ( Alternative to Carroll County Units 182)
vuao r ~c,Qqr~G coeisur. l -c o ' u-I O u,a _m,._g.=_;,-c 4 o-I l nao aaw.,c u awm,r -c l O C l o-C 345M/ -c o- -c o-l 2" c2F "" l ss .s ~' O f~ ^*
~n usa
-u--uq y y isoom a run C.< A% wcocol% %.s I -c e o a o a--m-n V -o a u- -c o o- @ ousam 0 PLAWO LASDLLE 0uNTY __ __ 765 KV LINE SINGLE CIRCUlT STEEL TOWERS 345 KV LINE-DOUBLE CIRCUIT SINGLE SHAFT STRUCTURES CIRCUlT BREAKER M TRANSFORMER nEvtsion s s/so O GENERATOR UNIT CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS I 8 2 EQUIPMENT ADDITIONS Site Suitability-Environmental Report /WG Figure 0 30? 3-3 765 KV Transmission Connections ] LaSalle Counfy Units 3 84 0 302.3-4 ( Alternative to Carroll County units 182)
y - _ S'"M2 _ _ _ _ sssc/ 0 / A ( .no .m,,,, m carrte w v,e o = l o_ C;4ove lco gf e lE -O - sisa W- -E usa WAYNC (f oO,uA ~Mr ~% c,ae m a ~ l }- ~I \\ v u, < c.- -3 5 E-C [] O -C D O us" O-E E- -C y io, un.c3 Nl.s
" & W,% a'l6, N
\\ EVr:OrJ CaLLws $$a 14s t/ a-O ~..- - u.=, -a, 4 L OMBA*O Estcitri 17 ELocrt< 3 C -C O O O D-3,, y -C D- -C D-N'N' M'N "~'** I puxo j _ __ 765 KV LINE SINGLE CIRCulT STEEL TOWERS 345 KV LINE-DOUBLE CIRCULI SINGLE SHAFT STRUCTURES O CIRCulT BREAKER 5/80 l REVISION 3 /\\/\\ TRANSFORMER CARROLL COUNTY NULLEAR GENERATING O GENERATOR UNIT STATION - UNIT:, I 8 2 Site Suitability-Environmental Report g EQUIPMENT ADDITIONS Fi ure oso2.3-4 O /vs* 9 765 KV Transmission Connections Byron Units 304 0 302.3-5 ( Alternative to Carroll County Units 182)
i 194 s,1,1s -] 4;macrr, a-o c.a.., V / _ o_1_ _ / -c D- / *"' *~**/l*$*?L ~ q h ( wo,,, ,mru u emru ar O ""~L 9 -c l o I o o D- -u I-m I -c lD-m- -c D-ru - -m & a, m- .m, w,a wo, o t_ _ _ a --v co.~rr , - ~, N sur rwa PLANO -u a a N _g g %sssu.ucs Aux 4"n{ N ~ (o$"'20c.,c) I aissswitt nsu g ll /4 MA..oo ~4 O PLAuo y*,, ym RE,., m--a l >[] [] c c 34sx< -c m- -C D-Q runo u w.a m U SALLE [eudTV __ _ 765 KV LINE SINGLE CIRCU'T STEEL TOWERS 345 KV LINE-DOUBLE CIRCUlT SINGLE SHAFT STRUCTURES CIRCUlT BREAKER /\\/\\ TRANSFORMER O GENERATOR UNIT REVISION 3 5/80 CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING 5 EQUIPMENT ADDITIONS STATION - UNITS I 8 2 N\\# Site Suitability-Environmental Report A Figure 0302.3-5 765 KV Transmission Connections Biggsville Units I 8 2 0 302.3-6 (Alternative to Carroll County Units 182)
zoo aus.es

_____q r

i usa gg gg '*" ~G, naa m tr sr l _.-E E E -- '""_g Ann 4?l1 e uma 9%, g g_ ~ g usu O-O --m - -c D-m
W4 b
b" _g g_ l ~E E W l LAS A LLE f.DuNTY l .sa si,a., iey r sem A sor r.s e
fGDOSIA{~'
(a cco) L 7ns &cwccriser/ CoxcoRD s 30 MILCS r -- -- - ~ ~ g _mg 1 -C O C C D--C D-g gg -C O-E -- E O $5" mond i pr p $%.s kir. [lll,T" U -E E E-usu -E-E- on e rt~ar> l . s -.r. s n -as .SYA M Lusur u m. usecaer "a $ !wY.I Sa u -C C C W- __ __ 765 kV LINE --C O g_ SINGLE CIRCUIT STEEL TOWERS Ie"'2 /[Is~$) (EEE.$ 345 KV LINE-D0UBLE CIRCUlT SINGLE SHAFT STRUCTURES KtWCAID CIRCUlT BREAKER ntVISl0N 3 5/80 M TRANSFORMER CARROLL C0l>NTY NUCLEAR GENERATING O GENERATOR UNIT stall 0N - UNITS I8 2 g Site Suitability-Enybnmental Report E00lPMENT ADDITIONS /WG Figure 0 302.3-6 gV 765KV 8 345KV TransmissionConnectons Concord Units 182 0 302.3-7 (Alternative to Carroll County Units 18 2 )
CCS-SS-ER g-s Question 302.4 Provide a system single line of the currently planned 1988 transmission system. This diagram should include the bulk power transmission facilities in the region served by the Commonwealth Edison, the Interstate Power and the Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Companies.
Response
Figure Q302.4-1 is a diagram of the bulk power transmission facilities which are currently planned for 1994. The year 1994 was chosen because it is anticipated that both additional units being considered in this early site review would be in operation no later than 1994. The bulk power system includes the addition of these units at the Carroll County Site but does not show any of the additional facilities that would be installed at the alternative sites. However, all the remote terminals shown on the single line diagrams shown in res-ponse to Q302.3 are shown on Figure 302.4-1 and all the alternative sites are shown. 1 O i j ( 1 Revision 3 f Q302.4-1 5/80
I O O O \\ " **'y + ) 's 1.- I' 's \\ MIN N 1994 SYSTEM .T'a*== 1** * \\ . N '_'C--'. ~ #2.3*.__..-J...~.'. i \\/ / MIDWEST REGION -~'- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i t e r,t =o M - a --- msaw o r.chtmati%c. statio=, s \\.' l .... soon, . suestito. ~ r=x - 3 f** m., ~~~ k /... S.DAK.
== .z 'N wI S' 1#. MICH l 6( - n .g s 5 ..p g,, _7... ~~- N g b =b /._ -- _h. __.A T '.-'- 1 q s i,, . q_N l -~ [ "C" x --,g, ( "-- l U _"" ~-4 %-f. m i s .-o T \\__. } j._._..- .q j [ -l .i ~ ~ 3
c::>-
) s g g 5 .::. /_ - - - - ~ - '
SEE DETAIL At g
's j 4 i ~~'" j $'.6 ~ (7 2 i .s 3., j g, . ~ (,,,,,V.s' II'"," t 10WA t g 4 },_ .g,, -- ;t,, \\ lND. t i I i...- e, -1 t t i _._. _ '~1 '\\ . ;.t s 1 l DETAIL A .~ i\\---7 K. .re, -\\ ..e. 7 + l l l l -s -~ c l 1 < ~, [T g, il j \\ ..) As i .,4} 4 j> :"N m -~ 1 i ett. =. " ~ ~ ~ ~ l

y

-~ ~ i j l - -.%~ .j-2 i 3 8 m, ) f \\ j i k ~~- f f ~ N .pN, .T; Y/$wi8 (g.... i ^ k-2 k<i.-- O er visie. s s teo r, g CARROLL COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING i .=.r; l STATION - UNITS 18 2 g4 / 'l - _ Site Suitability-Environmental Report .= ,f,. ~M op._.. s i o..- i =.---( ik I g j,[ l Figure 0 302.4 l , EU*M M-i I'**.2N 1994 MIDWEST REGION BULK Q f .[h- , --'03024-2 l j \\ N i
CCS-SS-ER O Question 302.5 Would the ptasent ownership agreement for the Carroll County Station be impacted by locating the station at any of the proposed alternate sites? If so, describe such impacts.
Response
The present ownership and operating agreements with Interstate Power Com-pany (ISP) and Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company (IIG&E) apply to the Carroll County site only. Therefore any changes in the location of the site would necessitate new agreements. This is not to imply that the other companies would not be amenable to sharing generation at a different site. However, without reinforcing the transmission system interface between CECO and the other companies, the concentration of generating capa-city at. one site would be more than would be prudent from their viewpoint. For example, the goal of most utilities is to limit the capacity of any single generating station, transmission substation or transmission right-of way to approximately 15 percent of total system capacity. For IIG&E, the concentration would be particularly high since they presently own 25 percent of the two units at Quad Cities which would mean that their allo-() cation from both Quad Cities and the alternative to Carroll County would be supplied through the bus at Quad Cities. In the real world, generating stations supply the load that is closest to them. Therefore, even though the IIG&E's ownership might be in amore remote station, the electrical ef fect would be the same as if the percentage of tha ownership in Quad Cities were increased. i l (%-) Revision 3 Q302.5-1 5/80 f l
CCS-SS-ER Question 302.6 Provide an estimate of the transmission and sub-station facility costs associated with each site. The transmission costs should be separated by line and by gen-eral supporting structure design type. Land and site development costs should be listed separately.
Response
The estimated facility costs for each site are shown on Table Q302.6-1. These costs were developed using 1980 estimates escalated at 7.5% per year to 1991, the assumed year of installation of the transmission. The right-of-way costs were escalated to 1988. Indirect costs of 25% were added to the transmission costs but not the the right-of-way estimates. The type of supporting structure is noted on the single line diagrams included in the rcsponse to Q302.3. O t ) Revision 3 Q302.6-1 5/80 t
O O O TABLE Q302.6-1 Su= mary of Estimated Costs for Various Station Sites Based on Two-1100 MW Units (Dollars in Millions) ROW ( Transmission ( S_ubstation( Compensation ( Total Station Carroll County 14.1 116.8 28.2 0.0 159.1 Braidwood 9.7 176.7 146.0 6.1 338.5 LaSalle County 9.7 72.3 102.8 2.8 187.6 Byron 29.6 220.0 141.9 7.5 399.0 Biggsville 81.4 612.6 150.9 49.3 894.2 a og Concord 69.6 527.5 170.2 44.0 811.3 g En T T !D (1)1988 Dollars - Includes 7.5% escalation per year ( 1991 Dollars - Includes 7.5% escalation per year and 25% for indirect costs. ?! wS sa 8 u}}

ML19323D001

Text

Subject:

Dear Mr. Denton:

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Dear Mr. Ludwig:

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Navigation menu

Search