Text

Suppl 1 to Environ Rept - OL Stage
	ML19351A075
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	06/30/1981
From:	; ILLINOIS POWER CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML19351A073	List: ML19351A072; ML19351A075; ML19351A077;
References
	ENVR-810630, NUDOCS 8106250206
	Download: ML19351A075 (200)
	v • d • e

.__

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 D,

INSTRUCTIONS FOR UPDATING YOUR ER To update your copy of the Clinton Power Station - Units 1 and 2 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage, please remove and destroy the following pages and figures and insert the Supplement 1 pages and figures as indicated.

REMOVE INSERT "OLUME 1 Pages 1-1/1-ii and 1-iii Pages 1-1/1-ii and 1-iil/1-iv Pages 1.1-1/1.1-2 through Pages 1.1-1/1.1-2 through 1.1-31' l.1-33 Figures 1.1-4 through 1.1-9 Figures 1.1-4 through 1.1-9 Pages 1.3-1/1.3-2 and 1.3-3 Pages 1.3-1/1.3-2 through 1.3-11 Figures 1.3-1 and 1.3-2 No Replacements Pages 2-xix/2-xx through Pages 2-xix/2-xx through 2-xxiii/2-xxiv 2-xxiii Pages 2.1-3/2.1-4 and Pages 2.1-3/2.1-4 and 2.1-5/2.1-6 2.1-5/2.1-6 Page 2.1-11/2.1-12 Pages 2.1-11/2.1-12 and 2.1-12a Pages 2.1-15/2.1-16 and Pages 2.1-15/2.1-16 and 2.1-17/2.1-18 2.1-17/2.1-18 Page 2.1-43 Page 2.1-43 Following Figure 2.1-15 Figure 2.1-15A (do not remove)

Page 2.4-7/2.4-8 Pages 2.4-7/2.4-8 and 2.4-Ea VOLUME 2 Page 3.4-3/3.4-4 Page 3.4-3/3.4-4 Page 5-v Page 5-v Pages 5.1-1/5.1-2 and Pages 5.1-1/5.1-2, 5.1-2a/

5.1-3/5.1-4 5.1-3, and 5.1-3a/5.1-4 Following Page 5.1-16 (do Figures 5.1-0A, 5.1-0B, and not remove) 5.1-0C Page 5.lA-1/5.lA-2 Page 5.lA-1/5.lA-2 Page 5.1A-5/5.1A-6 Page 5.1A-5/5.lA-6 Page 5.2-3/5.2-4 Pages 5.2-3/5.2-4 and 5.2-4a Pages 6.1-19/6.1-20 through Pages 6.1-19/6.1-20, 6.1-20a, 6.1-23/6.1-24 6.1-21/6.1-22, and 6.1-23/

6.1-24 Pages 6.1-43/6.1-44 and Pages 6.1-43/6.1-44 and 6.1-45/6.1-46 6.1-45/6.1-46 8106250206

s, OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1.

JUNE 1981 INSTRUCTIONS FOR UPDATING YOUR ER (Cont'd)

REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 2 (Cont'd)

Figure 6.1-7 Figure 6.1-7 Pages 8-i and 8-1 Pages 8-i/8-ii, 8.1-1/8.1-2, 8.1-3/8.1-4, 8.1-5/8.1-6, and 8.2-1 Page 13-1 Page 13-i Page 13.1-1 Page 13.1-1/13.1-2 Page 13.2 3/13.2-4 Pages 13.2-3/13.2-3a and 13.2-4 Page 13.5-1 Page 13.5-1/13.5-2 Following Page 13.7-1 (do Page 13.8-1 and Supplement 1 not remove) tab followed by Questions and Responses for Supple-ment 1

... _ _,....._ _... ~.. _.. _ -,.... _ _ _ _ _..... _ _... _ _... _ - _.. _.. _... _. _

CPS-ER(OLS) e-CHAPTER I PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED TRANSMISSION TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED TRANSMISSION 1.0-1 1.1' SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY 1.1-1 1.1.1 Load Characteristics 1.1-5 1.1.1.1 Load Analysis 1.1-5 1.1.1.1.1 Peak Demand and Energy Requirenents 1.1-5 1.1.1.1,2 Load Factor 1.1-5 1.1.1.2 Energy and De and Projections 1.1-5 1.1.1.3 Power Exchanges 1.1-9 1.1.2. System Capacity 1.1-10 1.1.3 Reserve Margins 1.1-10 1.1. 4 - External Supporting Studies 1.1-12 1.2 OTHER OBJECTIVES 1.2-1 1.3 CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY 1.5-1 i

l t

1-i

SUPPLEMENT 1 CPS-ER(OLS)

JUNE 1981 CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY AND lk ASSOCIA?SD TRANSMISSION LIST OF l' ABLES NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1.1-1 Illinois Power Company Electric Operat-ing Statistics 1.1-14 1.1-2 Past Annual Peak Load Demand Excluding.

Interruptibles 1.1-15 1.1-3 Future Projected Annual Peak Load Demand Excluding Interruptibles 1.1-16 1.1-4 Past Annual Energy Requirements:

Net to Load 1.1-17 1.1-5 Future Projected Annual Energy Requirements:

Net to Load 1.1-18 1.1-6 Comparisor, of Past Forecasts with Actual Demand 1.1-19 1.1-7 Historical IP Total System Monthly Integrated Peak Demand 1.1-20 1.1-8 Illinois Power Company 1981-1990 Monthly Peak Forecast 1.1-21 1.1-9 Historical IP Past Monthly Energy Requirements from 1966 to 1980 1.1-22 1.1-10 Historic IP, Capacity Entitlements and (g)

Commitments at Time of Summer Peak 1.1-23 1.1-11 Projected Capacity Entitlements and Commitments for MAIN, Ill-Mo, and IP 1.1-24 1.1-12 Illinois Power Company Accredited Unit Capability Effective, December 13, 1978 1.1-25 1.1-13 Illinois Power Company Unit Work Data for 1984 and 1995 1.1-26 1.1-14 Future Generation Installations from 1981 to 1999 for MAIN, Ill-Mo, and IP 1.1-27 1.1-15 Installed Generating Capacity during Summer, from 1970 to 1999 1.1-28 1.1-16 IP Load and Capability Summary for 1975 to 1980 1.1-29 1.1-17 IP Projected Capacity and Demand at System Peak 1.1-30 1.1-18 Future Projected Demand and Capt.bility Summary for MAIN, Ill-Mo, and IP from 1981 to 1999 1.1-31 1.3-1 Future Projected Load and Capability Summary without IP Clinton Unit 1 for MAIN, Ill-Mo, and IP from 1984 to 1987 1.3-4 1.3-2 Future Projected Load and Capability Summary without IP Clinton Unit 2 for MAIN, Ill-Mo, and IP from 1995 to 1998 1.3-5 1.3-3 Production Cost Analysis for Normal a

Load Growth W

l.3-6 1-ii I

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981

()

LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) f NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1.3-4 Variable Costs for Normal Load Growth 1.3-7 1.3-5 Replacement Energy for Normal Load Growth 1,3-8 1.3-6 Production Cost Analysis for No Load Growth 1.3-9 1.3-7 Variable Costs for No Load 1.3-10 Growth 1.3-8 Replacement Energy for No Load Growth' 1.3-11 I

A l

O l-iii

.,.. _, _ _. _ _ _.. _ _ _.,.... _, _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _, _ _., _. _.,, _ - ~ _,. _,. _

SUPPLEMENT 1 CPS-ER(OLS)

JUNE 1981 CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED TRANSMISSION ggg LIST OF FIGURES l

TITLE NUMBER National Electric Reliability Council Regions 1.1-1 Mid-America Interpool Network (MAIN) with Ill-Mo 1.1-2 Pool, January 1978 Electric Utilities In Illinois, 1978 1.1-3 Electric Transmission Lines and Substations of 1.1-4 Illinois Power Company, 1981 Typical IP Load Curve with 56% Load Factor 1.1-5 Illinois Power Company Comparison of Recent Forecasts 1.1-6 IP Flow Diagram of Peak Load Forecast Model for 1.1-7 1980-2000. Peak Load Forecast Illinois Power Company Actual and Forecasted Annual 1.1-8 Peak Load Demand, 1966-2000 Illinois Power Company Actual Jnd Forecasted Annual 1.1-9 Energy Requirements, 1966-2000 O

1-iv

i e

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Q

1.1 SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY i

The. Illinois Power (IP) system is part of Mid-America Interpool Network (MAIN), one of nine regional reliability councils that comprise-the National Electric Reliability Council (NERC).

Mcibership in MAIN is voluntary and informal.

Members of MAIN provide electric service to loads in' Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

There are 12 member systems in MAIN..

l l

The MAIN response to Federal' Power Commission (FPC) Order 383-3 (MAIN's Submittal on Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program to the l

Department of' Energy, Code ERA-411, April 1,.1981), therefore, includes resource data from its'12 member systems, and in addition, includes data from associate members made up of small municipalities, cooperatives, and other systems, each with 25 MW or more of generating capacity.

In all, 21' interconnected l

systems within.the' MAIN region are included in the response to FPC Order 383-3.

Figure 1.1-1 shows the region included within MAIN and its relationship to other NERC regions.

IP is'a participant in_an Interconnection Agreement-Between Central Illinois Public Service' Company (CIPS), Illinois Power j

i Company, and Union. Electric Company-(UE), February 18, 1972.

l This more formal arrangement is known as the Ill-Mo Pool.

The l

IlliMo Pool.through its member companies provides electric l

service to customers in portions of Illinois and Missouri.

nU Resource. data for the Ill-Mo Pool is listed in the MAIN response I

to FPC Order 383-3.

Figure 1.1-2 shows the region included within the Ill-Ho Pool.

~

f The IP service territory' comprises approximately 15,000 square miles in the southern two-thirds of Illinois, or approximately one-fourth of the state.

The largest cities served are Galesburg, Kewanee, LaSalle, Monmouth, and Ottawa in north central Illinois; Bloomington, Champaign, Danville, Decatur, Jacksonville, Normal, and Urbana in central Illinois; and Belleville, Centralia, Collinsville, Granite City, Mt. Vernon, and Wood River in southwest Illinois.

Figure 1.1-3 shows the other Illinois utilities and IP's relationship to them.

On January 1, 1981, IP furnished electric service to 522,166 customers in 422 communities.

The area served by IP has a population approaching 1,405,000.

Customers by service class i

include:

466,546 residential,.54,546 commercial and small power, 359 large power, and 715 others.

Additionally, IP provided electric service to ten municipalities, (two full requirement, eight partial requirement) nine electric cooperativ?s, and one i

privately owned distribution company.

Table 1.1-1 shows the breakdown of IP's customers for the years 1974 through 1980.

l

. C:)

i 1.1-1

{

__ _ _ _. _.. _. _ _ ~ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _.. _ _ _.

CPS-ER (OLS )

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 IP owns and operates electric generating facilities having a net ggg cummer capability of about 3,815 MW.

These facilities. include five steam generating stations with a net summer capability of 3,626 MW.

IP owns other generating facilities with an aggregate capability of.189 MW, including one hydro station and internal combustion and gas turbine peaking units at six locations.

In cddition, the company has 55 MW of capacity available under contract from Electric Energy Inc. (EEI).

EEI is a corporation owned by Union Electric Company (40% ownership), Illinois Powerand Company (20%), Central Illinois Public Service Company (20%),

K:ntucky Utilities Company (20%).

EEI operates the 1000 MW Joppa plant and supplies a portion of the Department of Energy (DOE) plant load near Paducah, Kentucky.

The generating stations owned and operated by IP are connected by an extensive transmission network to 775 substations.

As of January 1, 1981, there were 4,057 pole miles of transmission lines at all voltages, including 428 miles operating at 345 kV.

L In addition, IP is interconnected with neighboring electric systems.

The major interconnections are with Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO), Central Illinois Public Service Company (CIPS), Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO), Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (IME), Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric. Company (IIG&E), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and Union Electric Company (UE).

Customer load is distributed via an extensive distribution system that includes 872 distribution feeders.

Figure 1.1-4 shows major IP generation, transmission, and substation facilities as they existed on January 1, 1981, along with the proposed Clinton Power, Station and its associated transmission ties.

Current IP expansion plans include the installation of two 95'O MWe nuclear units at the Clinton Power Station.

Clinton Station Ownership Participation Agreement, August 19, 1976, between IP, Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc. (Soyland), and Western Illinois Power Cooperative (WIPCO) provides that the Clinton Power Station Unit 1 shall be owned by the participants as tenants in common, on an undivided basis, with IP owning 80%, Soyland owning 10.5%,

and WIPCO owning 9.5%.

The ownership Agreement further stipulates that Soyland and WIPCO may participate in Clinton Power Station Unit 2 on an ident cal basis subject to the' availability of financing.

Effective with the in-service date of Clinton Unit 1, IP will no longer serve wholesale cooperative load except for about 15 MW of WIPCO load.

Soyland will purchase unit deferral capacity (UDC) from IP until 1988.

UDC will cover the needs of Soyland's member distribution cooperatives served from existing IP delivery points in excess of the amount served by Soyland's share of Clinton Unit 1.

In addition, UDC includes Soyland's reserve obligation for its share of Clinton Unit 1.

UDC will increase annually as a result of load growth until 1987, at which time it is scheduled 1.1-2

CPS-ER (OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 O

to decrease because of-capacity additions planned by Soyland.

IP has no obligation to provide UDC after May 31, 1988.

It is expected that by 1984 (the first year in which Clinton Power Station Unit 1 will be in commercial service during the peak load season} IP's annual' peak load will have increased 7.6%

since 1980, to 3.390 MW; its energy requirements will have increased 6.5%, to 16,537 GWh; and its net usable owned capacity will have increased 20%, to 4,575 MW.

After adjusting the projected demand for scheduled firm purchases and. sales, total capacity will exceed load responsibility by 1,104 MW in 1984.

IP's share of the 950 MW Clinton Unit 1 represents 100% of IP's capacity additions planned between 1981 and 1990 and 69% of its reserve capacity in 1984.

By 1984, it is anticipated that the net usable owned capability in the Ill-Mo Pool will have increased 21% since 1980 to 16,093

-MW; its annual peak de. mand will have increased 6%, to 11,843 MW; and its energy requirements,will have increased 7%, to 55,575 GWh.

After adjustments for scheduled imports and exports, total capability will exceed load responsibility by 3,770 MW in 1984.

Clinton Unit 1 represents 28% of the Ill-Mo Pool's projected capacity _ increase between 1981 and 1984 and 20% of its reserve margin at the time of the 1984 summer peak.

()

Similarly, by 1984 the annual peak demand for MAIN will have l

increased 13% since 1980, to 38,298 MW; its energy requirements will have increased 13%, to 187,253 GWh; and its net usable owned capacity will increase 8%, to 47,504 MW.

After adjustments total capability will exceed load responsibility by 9,238 MW in 1984.

Clinton Unit 1 will represent 12% of MAIN's capacity increase between 1981 and 1984 and 8% of its reserve margin at the time of the 1984 summer peak.

It is expected that by 1995, when the second unit of the Clinton Power Station is scheduled to begin operation, IP's annual peak load will have increased 65% since 1980, to 5,210 MW; its energy I

requirements will have increased 75%, to 27,247 GWh; and its net usable owned capacity will have increased 66% to 6,317 MW.

Total adjusted capacity will exceed load responsibility by 1,164 MW in 1995.

IP's share of the 950 MW Clinton Unit 2 represents 31% of IP's capacity additions planned between 1981 and 1995 and 65% of its reserve capacity in 1995.

Information for MAIN and L.C.

is not available for 1995.

In the-area of encrgy conservation and load management, IP has embar

,d on a niunber of programs involving advertising campaigns, innov tive rate designs, load management techniques, and promotion of vaergy saving improvements.

The major objective of

(])

the load management effort is to shift demand to off-peak periods, which results in more efficient use of generating l

capacity, and hence, lower per unit energy costs te the consumer.

l 1.1-3

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 The energy conservation program is designed to reduce demand and lll consumption by eliminating waste.

This savings can be used to accommodate new customers and load growth without increasing IP's need for additional fuel and generating capacity.

IP has conducted " energy conservation audits" on the homes of residential customers requesting this service.

During thest audits customers' homes are checked for energy efficiency.

Evaluations are made on excess heat loss or gain, attic-ventilation, duct work insulation, and other factors.

During the audit IP representatives may recommend energy saving improvements such as caulking, weatherstripping, adding insulation, or adding storm doors and windows.

In August 1977, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) introduced a national program called " National Energy Watch." Under this program, IP's energy-use personnel made free inspections of homes' for energy efficiency and evaluate them according to guidelines approved by EEI.

Energy saving improvements are suggested to the customer.

Altogether, Illinois Power has conducted over 79,000 residential audits as of April ^1, 1981.

Part 1 of Title II of the National Energy Conservation Policy.Act mandated the Residential Conservation Services (RCS) Program.

In compliance with rules promulgated by the Department of Energy ggg (DOE) Illinois submitted a plan for RCS to DOE.

The Illinois Plan was approved by DOE on April 20, 1981.

Illinois Power Company helped develop the Illinois Plan, and IP is in compliance with the provisions of the plan.

IP advertises these services and other specific energy conservation information and suggestions for its residential customers.

The goal of these programs is to assist IP's customers to use energy wisely and efficiently and to personally contact all residential customers within 10 years.

Company representatives also perform " energy audits" to help commercial customers manage their electrical use more efficiently.

During these audits, the representative may recommend improvements such as load control devices, better ventilation, more efficient equipment, planned maintenance, different fuels, switching loads from on-peak to off-peak periods, or night setbacks for thermostats.

IP initiated an industrial load management program in 1975 to (1) improve system load factor and to control or direct the electric load on its system by voluntary and mutually beneficial customer actions and (2) to help industry utilize energy more efficiently.

IP representatives assist industrial customers to develop g

programs for more efficient energy utili7ation, conduct energy W

audits of industrial customers' plants, and introduce industrial 1.1-4

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 h/)

customers to energy efficient equipment and processes.

IP also sponsors courses on energy management and technical seminars on load management techniques.

Other forms of load management are being used or experimented with.

These include seasonal rates, solar water and space heating, direct control of domestic water heaters and l

cogeneration opportunities.

1.1.1 Load Characteristics 1.1.1.1 Load Analysis 1.1.1.1.1 Peak Demand and Energy Requirements The past annual peak load demands of IP, Ill-Mo Pool, and MAIN are shown on Table 1.1-2 for the period from 1966 through 1980.

Forecasted annual peak load demands are shown in Table 1.1-3 for 1981 through 2000.

The past annual enorgy requirements for IP, '2 A-Mo Pool, and MAIN are shown on Tat?2 1.1-4 for the period 196v through 1980.

Forecasted annual energy requirements are shown on Table 1.1-5 for the period 1981 through 2000.

()

1.1.1.1.2 Load Factor Figure 1.1-5 shows IP's 1980 Load Duration Curve.

This curve L

yields an annual load factor of 56%, which is representative of l

the load factor expected in the mid 1980's following the start of l

commercial operation of Clinton 1.

1.1.1.2 Energy and Demand Projections The model utilized for the current peak load forecast uses econometric techniques and disaggregated system peak into the 5 l

components shown below:

l l

1.1-5

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Large Industrial (customers with actual a

LI

=

W demands over 500 kW during the summer months);

RCOB =

Residential, Commercial, and Other Base load (other consists of lighting, municipal service, and wholesale municipal);

RCOWS = Residential, Commercial and Other Weather-Sensitive load; COOP

= Wholesale (WIPCO and SOYLAND only); and MUNI

= Interconnected municipalities Load (Particle Requirements Contracts).

Figure 1.1-7 contains a flow diagram of this forecasting model.

Power curves were adopted for LI, RCOB, and RCOWS models.

The COOI model is a growth rate applied to their historical load.

MUNI is projected to grow at the same rate as RCOB and RCOWS.

l Ordinary least-squares regression analysis was used to determine the historical relationships on which the future was forecast.

Figure'1.1-7 is a flow diagram depicting IP's econometric model used for the 1980-2000 peak load forecast.

9 The model for large industrial peak load LI is as follows:

Summer: LI = EXP (-35.4 -

0.215 in 1PE A 2.64 in.INC)

(2.03)

(24.08) i Winter: LI = EXP (-3 5. 5 -

0.160 in IPE + 2.65 in INC)

(1. 55)

(26.34) where:

LI =

Large Industrial peak load (MW);

l IPE

= Large Industrial Real Price of Electricity l

(c/kWh) ; and I

INC =

Total Personal Income (thousands of dollars).

1

{

l O

l 1.1-6

CPS-ER (OLS )

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 O

Statistics of Fit Item Value Summer Winter r2 0.980

.0.984 F-Statistic 298 348 Durbin-Watson 1.56 1.52 t-Statistic Residential, Commercial, and Other Base losd (RCOB) was modeled on a per residential customer basis.

Base load is then the product _of number of residential customers and base load per residential customer.

The model for Residential, Commercial, and Other Base load is as follows:

RCOB =

RC x BNC Summer: BNC =

-EXP L-8.70 - 0.310 In (RPE)]

(56.57)

PCI

(])

Winter: BNC =

EXP [-8.58 - 0.297 in (RPE)]

(9.02)

PCI where:

RCOB =

Residential, commercial, and Other Base load (MW) ;

RC

Number of Residential Customers; BNC

Base. Load per Residential Customer (MW/ customer); and RPE

= Residential Average Annual Real Electricity Price (c/kWh)

PCI =

Real Per Capita Income ($).

^O

~s

t-Statistic are shown in parentheses below the equation coefficients.

1.1-7

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Statistics of Fit lll Item Value Summer Winter r2 0.769 0.872 F-Statistic 43 81 Durbin-Watson 1.98 1.97 t-Statistic The model for summer weather-sensitive load is as follows:

RCOWS = AC x EXP (-4.76 - 0.811 in RSPE)

(5. 01)

AC =

ACSAT x RC ACSAT = C/

[1 + EXP (+ 0.872 - 0.175 x Year)]

(25.1) where:

RCOWS = Residential, Commercial, and Other Weather Sensitive load (MW);

AC =

Number of Air Conditioners (central equivalents);

ACSAT = Residential Air Conditioning Saturation (decimal form) (3 window units equals 1 central unit);

RSPE

= Residential Summer real electricity price (C/kWh) ;

C=

Ceiling of ACSAT central equivalents

(= 0. 7 5 )

Year =

1965 is Year 1.

Statistics of Fit Item Value r2 0.659 F-Statistic 25

t-Statistic are shown in parentheses below the equation llI coefficients.

1.1-8

CPS-ER (OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981

('}

Durbin-Watson 2.66 t-Statistic The model for winter weather-sensitive load is as follows:

RCOWS = REHE x EXP (-18.5 - 1.63 in PCI)

(6.21).

where:

RCOWS = Residential, Commercial and other winter weather-sensitive load RE!!E =

Number of Residential Electric Space Heat Equivalent Customers PCI Real Per Capital Income ($)

=

Statistics of Fit Item Value r2 0.763 F-Statistic 39 Durbin-Watson 1.74 b

'The model for system peak (SPEAK) is the sum of the three components shown above plus COOP and MUNI load.

SPEAK = RCOB + RCOWS + LI + COOP + MUNI where:

SPEAK = System Peak (MW) ; and I

COOP =

Wholesale (WIPCO and SOYLAND only) (?Cf).

The COOP load is forecast using growth rates supplied by each I

cooperative.

i l

Forecasts of the exogenous variables used in the peak load forecast are as follows:

l IPE =

Increase at a rate of 3% per year 1981-1984; 2%

l per year 1985-1989; 1% per year 1990-1994; and 0.0% per year 1995-2000.

()

t-Statistic are shown in parentheses below the equation coefficients.

l 1.1-9 l

I

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 INC =

Increase 2.0% per year 1981-1984; 2.2% per lll year 1985-1989; 2.3% per year 1990-1994; and 2.2% per year 1995-2000.

Increase 2.0% per year 1981-1984; and at a RC

=

declining rate from 1985 down to 0.9% per year in 2000.

PCI =

Increase 1.7% per year 1981-2000.

0.75 C

=

RPE =

Increase 1.5% per year 1981-1984; 1.0% per year 1985-1989; 0.0% per year 1990-1994; and -1.0%

per year 1995-2000.

This econometric methodology is an extension of previous forecasting methodologies.

Table 1.1-6 compares earlier forecasts with the actual loads experienced on the IP system.

Figure 1.1-6 provides a graphic comparison between earlier peak load forecasts and the current forecast.

Table 1.1-3 contains a tabulation of the peak load forecast using the econometric model.

It is anticipated that peak load growth rates will not return to lll their previous rates.

For the period from 1980 through 1995 IP's peak load, excluding cooperative load, is expected to increase at approximately 3.9% per year.

The forecast for the 1995-2000 period is approximately 4.8%.

The peak load growth rate experienced between 1966 and 1973 was 8.8%.

Figures 1.1-8 and 1.1-9 are plots that describe these demand and energy growth rates from 1966 through 2000.

Historical IP monthly peak demands for the period from 1966 through 1980 are shown on Table 1.1-7.

Forecasted monthly peak demands are shown on Table 1.1-8.

The historical relationship of monthly to annual peaks was used to establish forecasted monthly peaks.

Monthly data showing actual IP energy consumption energy requirements are tabulated in Table 1.1-9.

1.1.1.3 Power Exchanges Historical IP capacity entitlements and commitments at the time l

of the annual system peak demand are shown on Table 1.1-10.

Economy and emergency transactions are not included.

Historical data show that, since 1966, the IP system power exchange has resulted in sizeable imports and exports.

The forecasted power exchanges show that a substantial net export is i

expected in future years, ggg 1.1-10

=

i CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981

[]}

Table 1.1-11 shows the projected capacity entitlements and commitments for Ill-Mo Pool, MAIN, and IP during the period 1981-1999.

l 1.1.2 System Capacity a

Generation system expaneion planning at IP is affected through detailed analyses of environmental and social considerations, economics, technical uncertainties, and operating characteristics.

These-analyses are then merged to yield the optimized or most desirable expansion plan that satisfies the desired capacity and reserve margin.

IP is bound by the Ill-Mo Pool agreement to maintain sufficient capacity for its own load plus a reserve of at least 15% of its adjusted demand or 50% of the capacity of its largest generating source, whichever.is greater.

These minimum reserve requirements may be modified from time.to time by mutual agreement of the parties to the agreement.

Analyses by the MAIN Guideo66 Working Group have indicated that an adequate reserve level for the member companies in the early l

1980's is about 15%.

Because of the characteristics of new units to be installed in the future.and the greater magnitude of load forecast uncertainty, the IP Planning Department utilizes a 15%

1

-reserve margin'until Clinton Unit 1 is installed and a 17%

i reserve thereafter.

The aforementioned " optimized" justification of expansion units is based solely on.IP load growth.

However, depending on the factors involved, IP.may arrange.for capacity transactions with its neighbors during the years for which it expects to have either a surplus or deficiency of reserve capacity to adjust the timing of a new unit installation.

Although IP may be able to obtain periodic short-term capacity from other electric utilities, none of these utilities plans to be an exporter of power on a long-term basis.

Therefore, power cannot be purchased indefinitely as an alternative to installing new electric generation facilities.

The capabilities of existing IP units are shown on Table 1.1-12.

Fuel types, duty cycles, and capacity factor estimates (1984 and 1995) for these units and Clinton Units 1 and 2 are shown on l

Table 1.1-13.

Capacity additions and-retirements that are planned for IP,.Ill-Mo Pool, and MAIN are shown on Table 1.1-14.

IP capability, both existing and planned, and planned capacity for Ill-Mo Pool and MAIN at the time of annual peak demand are tabulated on Table 1.1-15.

O 1.1-11

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 1.1.3 Reserve Margin lll As noted in Subsection 1.1.2, IP's required reserve margin is 15%

of its adjusted demand prior to the installation of Clinton 1 and 17% thereafter.

These margins are based on the Ill-Mo Pool Interconnection Agreement, MAIN recommendations, and in-house study.

The Ill-Mo Pool 15% reserve requirement is founded on actual operating experience and supplemented by probability studies made from time to time by Pool members.

Analyses by the MAIN Guide #6 Working Group have recommended a 15% reserve level for the member companies in the early 1980's.

This reserve level recognizes the value of the interconnected individual systems within MAIN and the assistance available from inter-tie with adjacent reliability councils.

At this time, MAIN has not mandated a minimum reserve requirement for its members.

The MAIN analysis was made using the Probability of Positive Margin (POPM) approach.

This method relies on statistics to determine the reliability of MAIN's generating system.

Increased attention is being paid to the level of reserve that is considered adequate.

Both IP and the MAIN Guide #6 are developing reliability indices using the Loss of Load Probability (LOLP) method.

This approach uses statistics to calculate the 3

number of occurrences of load exceeding capacity.

The results of W

these studies are, as yet, unavailable.

Forced and scheduled unit outage rates are closely related to overall IP system security and reserve margins.

The spring and fall months usually have the lowest monthly capacity requirements and are ideal for scheduling maintenance.

Thus, the scheduled maintenance of generation capacity closely follows seasonal fluctuations in load.

Generation maintenance is scheduled with the intent of levelizing reserve margins at a constant percentage of load responsibility each week during the maintenance season.

Unexpected forced outages may cause the maintenance schedule to be revised.

Many times, a forced outage on one unit will prevent others from coming off for scheduled maintenance because of reserve requirement limitations.

In some instances when a unit is forced out, maintenance work planned for later in the year is done ahead of schedule since the unit is down anyway.

Generation and transmission maintenance plans are coordinated extensively within the Ill-Mo Pool.

Maintenance is also coordinatcd with systems outside the Pool, and the effect of scheduled outages of major units and transmission lines in neighboring systems is considered in overall reliability planning.

Table 1.1-16 is a summary of IP actual load and capability data lh for the 1975 through 1980 period.

The actual reserve may exceed l

1.1-12

a CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981

('.

the minimum required reserve because of (1) mismatches in annual growth rates and economical unit sizes and (2) differences between actual and forecasted loads.

Table 1.1-17 shows the adjustments to IP's load and capacity made to calculate the adjusted demand and adjusted capacity for the period from 1981 through 1999.

Table 1.1-18 is a summary of forecasted loads and capability for IP, Ill-Mo Pool, and MAIN during the 1981 through 1999 period.

These summaries indicate that in 1984 with the inclusion of Clinton Unit 1, IP will have reserves of 1,104 MW, Ill-Mo Pool will have reserves of 3,770 MW, and MAIN will have reserves of 9,238 MW.

In 1995 with the inclusion of Clinton 2, IP will have reserves of 1,164 MW.

Information for MAIN and Ill-Mo is unavailable.

1.1.4 External Supporting Studies MAIN Guide #6, included in the Appendix to MAIN's response to FPC Order 383, adopts an adequacy criterion of a LOLP of 0.1 day per year.

Preliminary results utilizing the LOLP criterion generally correspond to the POPM criterion used by MAIN prior to LOLP.

Based on POPM, MAIN established that " current analysis and

. practices are consistent with an interim policy of maintaining a minimum reserve for MAIN as a whole of 15% each year for the next several years."

At the time this interim policy was established (1976), it was recognized that further investigations of the

()

parameters that influence reserve requirements should be made prior to adoption of a firm policy.

This investigation is still under way.

1 Item 3B of the aforementioned report concludes that the forecasted reserves for the Ill-Mo Pool are " adequate for the report period," (1981-1985).

l l

l i

)

1.1-13

[

. )

e r

TABLE 1.1-1 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY ELECTRIC OPERATING STATISTICS Revised April 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 _

1975 1974 Customers At End of Year Residential 466,546 461,956 455,014 445,130 435,611 426,062 419,742 Cenercial and small Pmer 54,546 53,604 53,051 51,384 51,019 49,996 49,783 8

359 374 368a 1,305 1,340 1,J09 1,273

_715 714 699 692 694 689 692 1.arge Power and Light to ti.1 522,166 516,858 509,'.32 498,511 466,664 476,056 471,490 Other O

'O Sales in Thocsands of Kilowatt liours Residential 4,003,563 3,737,245 3,770,703 3,632,893 3,271,719 3,277,664 2,935,760 f

corrercial and 5 211 rover 2,492,933 2,403,131 2,383,521 1,696,894 1,40!,3sv 1,350,771 1,249,4?3 m

Large Pe.icr and.1J. t 6,507,468 6,738,321 6,271,877 6,541,429 6,412,646 5,759,317 5,@2,e w W g

271,853 26C,263 247,298 222,810 201,490 g 290,S51 282,84' u

I S ale s-U lt im.at e Constrr.e rs 13,294,612 13,166,545 12,697,949 12,131,434 11,337,054 10,o40,502 lo,0 79,3 s 7 p

H Ottier

{

Rural Coopurvives and ttunicipal Utilities 1,389,702 1,057,113 874,412 817,334 736,334 Cs),02b e t y,30 (f)

Other ElecLric Utilitzes 1,961 1,8 74 2,0J0 2,035 1,836 1, * > 50 1,4 a.

Total 14,4S6,475 14,225,532 13,574,4 5 12,950,o53 12,075,724 11,J2),230 10,7UU,2vo Q " Reclassification due to rate ' structure change.

C um CC s==

"cro g

e am

-::2:

-g pr-

~

9 e

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.1-2 PAST ANNUAL PEAK LOAD DEMAND EXCLUDING INTERRUPTIBLES Revised April 1981 (All Values in Megawatts) a a

b Year MAIN ILL-MO

_7 p 1966 1,299 1967 1,338 1968 1,607 1969 1,709 1970 1,827 1971 1,974 19i2 2,126 1973 2,349 O.

1974 2,352 1975 2,476 l-1976 2,570 1977 33,404 10,135 2,846 1978 33,222 10,061 2,825 l

l 1979 33,803 10,421 3,019 l

1980 33,915 11,186 3,150 l

l l

l

Source: Appendices of MAIN yearly reports (MAIN 1970-1931).

bSource: IP historical data.

l

' O 1.1-15

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.1-3 h

FUTURE PROJECTED ANNUAL PEAK LOAD DEMAND EXCLUDING INTERRUPTIBIES Revised April, 1981 (All Values in Megawatts)

MAIN" ILL-MO" IP Year 1981 34,993 11,130 3,250 1982 36,207 11,497 3,395 1983 37,236 11,835 3,515 1984 38,298 11,843 3,390 c

1985 39,405 12,191 3,300 1986 40,538 12,543 3,615

,1987 41,781 12,718 3,730 1988 42,968 13,083 3,850 1989 44,158 13,444 3,970 1990 45,433 13,824 4,110 1991 47,732 14,470 4,260 ggg d

1992 49,205 14,973 4,485 1993 CO,753 15,499 4,715 1994 52,381 16,063 4,955 1995 54,006 16,638 5,210 1996 55,728 17,232 5,475 1997 57,482 17,848 5,735 1998

'59,321 18,488 6,005 1999 61,198 19,145 6,285 2000 63,156 19,825 6,580

Source:

MAIN (1981).

bSource:

IP (1980).

First year in which WIPCO and SOYLAND are excluded from IP native lh c

peak load.

Year IP system becomes winter peaking.

1.1-16 L

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.1-4 O

PAST ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS:

'NC' TO LOAD-Revised April 1981 (All Values in Gigawatt Hours) a b

Year.

}&IN ILL-MO*

IP 1966-6,574 1967 7,043 1968 7,900-1969 8,654 1970-9,158 1971 9,658 1972 10,484 1973 11,297 1974 11,439 1975 12,116 i

1976 13,036 1977 162,351 48,037 13,938.

I 1978 168,803 49,096 14,550.

1979 171,052 50,203 15,229 l

l

'980 166,170 51,124 15,530 Source: Appendices of 1%IN yearly reports (MAIN 1970-1981).

a bSource: IP historical data.

)

1.1-17

..~. -

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.1-5 h

FUTURE PROJECTED ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS:

NET TO LOAD Revised April, 1981 (All Values in Gigawatt Hours)

MAIN" ILL-MO" IP YEAR 1981 169,292 51,306 15,416 1982 175,250 53,431 16,097 1983 180,809 54,438 16,130 1984 187,253 55,575 16,537 1985 193,457 57,697 17,327 1986 20L,010 59,854 18,151 1987 206,654 61,470 18,968 1988 213,540 63,323 19,796 1989 220,424 65,569 20,640 1990 227,c95 67,786 21,509 22,279 1991 23,455 O

1992 24,658 1993 25,913 1994 27,247 1995 28,633 1996 29,992 1997 31,404 1998 32,869 1999 34,412 2000

^ Source:

MAIN (1981).

Source:

IP 1901-1990 Electric Energy Forecast (1980).

The 1991 through 2000 energy forecast is estimated on the basis of a 59.7%

annual system load factor.

O 1.1-18

.O O

O a

i TABLE 1.1-6 COMPARISON OF PAST LOAD FORECASTS WITH ACTUAL DEMAND Revised April 1981 nuorenom usoic-,s.

n -o a.n - >=nemer - < mom nevue

~

D.TE 1972 1973 1974 1's75 1976 1977 1978 _

1979 1990 i

pta.ber 1972 2140 - 0.7 2328 - to.9) 2523 - 7.3 2716 - 9.7 2917 - 13.5 3124 - 9.8 3345 - 10.4 3541 - 10.6 3020 - 21.3 2525 - 7.4 2715 - 9.7 2915 - 13.4 3125 - 9.8 3345 - 15.4

'3500 - 18.6' 3830 - 21.6 J.nu.ry 1974 0.c ber 1974 2535 - 2.4 2715 - 5.6 2910 - 2.2 3095 9.6 3290 - 9.0 3495 - 11.0

- = = =

7 J u.ry 1976

=

2605 - 4.5 2870 - 0.8 3055 - e.1 3245 - 7.5 3445 - 9.4 j

co.b.r 1977 2985 -

,.7 3155 - 4.5 3330 - 5.7

-- -==

-= =-

-

,s b.r 1,7s

-- - -=

=

3075 1.,

3 3.5 g

n00 - (1.6 '

]

o.e b.,19n 4

~

1,..

. nu not nu m.

u70 a

m5 mt n50

~

=

I

^

p O

. g C'

Cf3 w

f 4

C3

C8 4,

t

y3g-4 CC zm mm 5

~Y A

p

E.

e

. 1

..a

.., i...

m i. 1 r

1.

,.r

. r..a.u...

~z

.d i

I H

i i

t i

6 TABLE 1.1-7 HISTORICAL IP TOTAL SYSTEM MONTHLY INTEGRATED PEAK DEMAND (All Values in Kilowatts)

JANUAPl FEBRUARY MAPCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER.

NOVEMBER _

DECEMBER 1965 1,0 %,280 984,945 949,828 928,025 937,627 1,140,135

1,298,674 1,141,846 1,145.883 1,020,692 1,069,940 1,097,460 1967 1,083,090 1,082,320 1,028,550 978,305 1,127,870 1,307,630 1,292,730

1,338,140 1,139,670 1,128,940 1,209,045 1,198,080 1963 1,221,210 1,151,043 1,109,220 1,078,910 1,173,349 1,480,790 1,500,646

1,607,369 1.222,440 1,221,270 1,226,280 1,304,850 t

1969 1,287,660 1,247,990 1,220,430 1,179,020 1,402.100 1,598,700

1,709,093 1,638,110 1,492,010 1,294,400 1.338,210 1,390.210 1970 1,413,790 1,367,755 1,281,880 1,404,440 1,516,460 1,758,160

1,827,350 1,697,855 1,732,760 1,294,380 1,440,645 1,417,390 O

't U)

H 1971 1,420,990 1,456,530 1,374,820 1,331,410 1,315,630 1,953,795 1,935,460 1,906,940 *1,973,670 1,707,620 1,451,060 1,490,320 l

M 1972 1,514,500 1,535,510 1,433,650 1,431,770 1,797,850 1,886,800 2,102,560 *2,126,680a 2,126,280 1,523,475 1,568,615 1,666,950

{

7 O

o 1973 1,630,250 1,617,550 1,523,253 1,532,525 1,507,285 2,071,660 2,179,900

2,K9,135 1,916,790 1,747,830 1,640,540 1,694,760 p

N U) 1974 1,656,670 1,591,720 1,566,620 1,549 *;0 1,874,310 2,187,800 *2,351,580 2,28i,020 1,894,950 1,672,180 1,692,330 1,731.760 1975 1,746,990 1,769,160 1,725,510 1,595,100 2,167,130 2,411,480 2,425,140

2,475,900 2,432, 10 1,774,670 1.824,020 1,992.950 11 3 1,981,200 1,911,650 1,827,170 1,681,000 1,755,000 2,2 tc,760

2,570,395 2,557,240 2,289,000 1,906,395 2,063.000 2,189,000 1977 2,174,490 1,996,000 1,877,000 1,840,000 2,335,000 2,459,000

2,846,260 2,616,160 2,578,000 1,862.000 2,063,000 2,152,000 1978 2,234,300 2,093,000 1,992,000 1,856,000 2,410,000 2,802,750

2,832,500 2,782,100 2,825.010 1,972,000 2,129,000 2,257,000 1979 2,372,770 2,351,000 2,104,000 2,047,000 2,168,400 2,720,000 2,812,000 83,046,494c 2,591,000 2,110,300 2,339,000 2,349,000 1980 2,344,000 2,296,000 2,241,000 2,087,000 2,191,000 2,827,000 *3,150,450 3,100,000 2,898.000 2,098,000 2,171,000 2,362,000 C a U)

CC Z 't U

Note: Asterisk (*) dettotes peak load for year.

"Value includes 19,000 kW of interruptible load.

CD M HZ Value includes 27,500 kW of interruptible load.

>3 "Value includes 27,280 kW of interruptible load.

F8 O

e

Table'1.1-8 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY-1980-1990 MONTHLY PEAK FORECAST

~

(All Talues in Megawatts)

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 1981 2715 2640 2470 2210 2585 2980 3250 3135 2945 2365 2690 2830 1982 2875 2795 2615 2325 2700 3110 3395 3275 3075 2485 2845 8

1983 3040 2955 2765 2435 2795-3220 3515 3390 2970 2415 2775 2920 1994 2965 2885 2695 2365 2695 3105 3390 3270 3070 2520 2925 3075 1985 3125 3040 2840 2470

~2780 3205 3500 3375 3170.

2630 3085 3245 1986 3295 3205 2995 2580 2870 3310 3615 3485 3275 2745 3250 3415 o

1987 3470 3375 3155 2690 2965 3415 3730 3595' 3380 2865 3415 3590 E

g 1988 3650 3550 3320 2805 3060 3525 3850 3710 3490 2990 3600 3745 0

1989 3845 3740 3495 2930 3155 3635 3970 3830 3595 3120 3785 3980 1990 4045 3930 3675 3060 3265 3765 4110 3960 3725 3260 3985 4190 i

Source:

Illinois Power " Native Electric Peak Load Forecast 1980-2000."

The values include

)

interruptibles except for July.

4m EO "First month in which WIPCO sad SOYLAND are excluded from IP native load.

g 1" Ee H

i

TABLE 1.1-9 HISTORICAL IP PAST MONTHLY ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FROM 1966 TO 1980 (All Values in Kilowatt Hours)

YEAR JANUARY FTFRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY 1966 556,760,058 500,783,546 534,559,680 500,052,856 506,781,019 546,866,7;3 647,257,077 1967 583,174,523 542,629.949 572,457,298 529,111,960 548,907,526 608 165,469 612.049,640 1968 660,914,726 620,884,342 626,991,265 537,164,324 615.468,223 694 285,928 742,233,158 1969 715,894,707 633,618,301 689,956,390 644,073,677 684,521,934 720,375,987

$12,021,705 1970 777,123,914 687,344,645 730,909.775 686,610,219 742,406,018 776,899,265 872,465,433 1971 796,026,240 729,065.945 781,515,139 712,986,815 725,084,800 950,549,938 900,819,313 1972 846,804,335 806,217,209 823,326,722 761,033,831 943,538,243 097,050,429 981,056,264 1973 928,333,434 836,177,116 079,164,866 826,760,365 859,999,275 1,000,688.370 1,128,194,370 O

T 1974 960,275,010 853,053,320 903,461,675 842,977,273 099,820,735 917.365,300 1,214,670,174 m

FJ

.975 1,015,141,690 899,007.126 981,683,653 886,956,723 936,587,399 1,069,450,925 1,168,921.407 8

M 1976 1,116,513,640 990,814,518 1,025,107,788 950,038,972 911,332.394 1,100,194,793 1,279,316.356 1977 1,261,034,961 1,051,650,010 1,090,391,199 997,988,055 1.152,106.033 1,176,130.905 1,418,180,474 N

1978 1,243,799,766 1,118,709,320 1.135,479,729 1,031,555,490 1,139,544,896 1,255,816.465 1,384,138,838 C

N 1979 1,391,230,814 1,242,636,586 1,242,244,460 1,114,575,569 1,156,692,810 1,292,243,150 1,372.142,230 M

1980 1,350,124,960 1,285,297,160 1,286,779.190 1,124,324,110 1.133,084,630 1,240,528,370 1,589,682,002 AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCitBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER ANNUAL g

1966 570.394,224 521,732,966 542,414,487 551,243,271 591,305,824 6,574,152,519 1967 619,246,398 563,757,433 604,104,327 622.171.251 642,797,127 7,047,903,900 1968 767,330,656 609,731,250 649,182,031 632,089,934 486,086,393 7,900,362,230 1969 418,687,906 708,067,843 724,714.332 695,140,369 746,856,609 8,653,989.660 1970 852,893,300 798,651,200 737,179,447 719.930,924 775,701.007 9.158,104,147 1971 890,743,427 872,044,335 763,214.028 750,798,562 805,257,598 9.650,106,940 1972 1,011,236,704 895,631.061 848,164.923 854,764,662 914,178,330 10,483,610,613 1973 1,143,085,451 951,042,532 922,648,740 891,307,200 928,450,009 11,295,885,729 1974 1,088,735,106 906,780.245 947,506.200 921.022,310 972,562,710 11,429,029,141 1975 1,203.204,259 973,667,564 986.122.533 950,728,655 1,044,326.856 12.115,ita,820 g

1976 1,168,000,797 1,050,942,739 1,089.641,434 1,109.879,048 1,180,448,151 13,033,020.638 2* g wanness MT W

ammsrmm 1977 1,26) 145,940 1,137,624,032 1,089.309,518 1,114.344.155 1,133,974.543 13,934,938.595 1978 1,371,020,604 1,275,701,167 1,175,938,590 1,160,477,499 1,258,202,208 14,550,294,644 g

1979 1,445,729,132 1,207,247,980 1,251,293.300 1,241,496,695 1,268,829,717 15,226,362,343 gg pm 03 M 1980 1,552,171,047 1,269,585,370 1,209,050,130 1,177,560,510 1,310,766,905 15,528,962,984 HZ p

8 H

9 e

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1

' JUNE 1981 s

TABLE 1.1-10 HISTORIC IP CAPACITY ENTITLEMENTS AND COMMITMENTS AT TIME OF SNMMER PEAK (All Values in Megawatts)-

NET YEAR ENTITLEMENTS" COMMITMENTS ENTITLEMENTS 1969 711 188 523

-1970 867 220 647 1971 480 340 140 1972 530 275 255 1973 444 660 (216) 1974 243 100 143-

=1975 220 312

( 92)

(}

1976 270 592 (322) 1977 282 34 248 1

{

1978

~123 88 35 1979-187 156 31 1980 132 6

126 1

Source:

Illinois Power'(various dates).-

~

"EEIsurplus'includedasanentitlemekh.

i O

J t

i 1 1-23

._-...__.._-__.___.,___....._..__,_.,._.-._.__.__,..._,_m____-.____

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.1-11 PROJECTED CAPACITY ENTITLEMENTS AND COMMITMENTS llh FOR MAIN, ILL-MO, AND IP (All Values in Megawatts) a YEAR MAIN ILL-MO IP 1981 (759)

( 59) 161 1982 (403) 301 118 1983

( 93) 303 118 1984

( 91) 510 284 1sd5 131 753 356 1986 159 799 372 1987 157 624 234 1988 466 583 137 1989 464 584 137 1990 462 587 137 146 1991 llh 146 1992 146 1993 146 1994 146 1995 146 1996 146 1997 146 l

1998 146 1999 Source:

MAIN (1981).

Note:

Import values are in parentheses; export values are not.

^ Excludes EEI capacity and includes DOE load.

1981-1983 and 1987 reflect changes to IP entitlements and commitments since issuance of 1981 main report.

O 1.1-24

0 u

,g U.%[

f I

'l e

&V873 I*I-IE I6L8 IITINOIS DOM 3H 3ONdYNA YDOH3GI&3G DVdYEII'I&A 3dd3O&IA2 G302NE3H IE' -

s**=

ott**ed s**tttues -

r.

a..r.a-uer.

si i-soamit tev as ne 9 meso.

i,..

a.- n -

-w.

at=*

sa sa sA ra ro====

W 3**

sdesse M

C. E A !eTeT M A ITteT T" T M U T T8TeT M T A !eTsT M T g -g i

i 1sWoTTT N W. N M'

M-I raa*ad ees ses oos ttis tw tw ees u wt tto w tse te9 tse tog tes wt tae u '

tta

9 t9 8

9e 9

' t9 ats tesa deganeaA ees ees ees tels te9 9E9 sle 44 wt tte - 4e tot 149 168 tog tes oot teat go tot 19 19 t

~9*e 9

t'9 '

tte teel

=

ees ees ees tsis wv tse eog ta wt sto u tae tes tse ies tes oot teet a

tot tE 9

9e 9

t9 oo,

tset

=n

= = m nu m,n e.i u wt w.

= ne it.

ut iw,os evi tae e9

.e u

. n I

,r 9

tv tot nu i

u='

eot eot a ts I tot 94 tes u tta tu w tse tse tse iot tot ees tesa ot as it tt.

I 9e 9

89 tas tesa I

r==

w-oot oci iees too tw see w tts tit u tot iot tsi tot tse

,st sets so st

- tI o

8 9o 9

49 ts1 tew rats soa ese eoc isoo tse tte ew as tte tse is tca tot t se tot tta ese 59w es ot tE 1(

I 9*e

,9 89 tes esu i

8 9*9 tot tete 9"sa**

ese ees eoc ttoG too tte tot is ttE tes 25 tes ~ tot ' tse 10( tes ese itto ot et lI ti 9

t'9 seda=ges eot eot,

teos tot tte.ees se tE 4 to t te tae ts*

tst tot 901 ess tets ot ks tI tE 8

9'e 9

8 *9 tes

' ts9$

eot g.

40

, weep oot eot ees tets g

' ret tte e62 44 W tta W tog ts9 tsi te9 tot ese tets et es 14 1(

8 9'9 9

8 *9 1M tset N

g saneuges ees ees ees tets 899 9 E9 eM 41

+9 5 tgS se tog tw tst to9 tes oot M4e ed.

tot tE 19 8

9'o 9

I"9 810 tege 3aI

rs=esa ees ees eon tels tot tt9 ses as tis tte te teS

- s tst t09 905 tot

, tots eS 104 9

19,

4 1 9*o 4

t'9 tte tees I

M N

O ns i.

Am

^

1 l

s i

.LC 7

3 3C 3C 8,o,. t,n -,d..e,e es 8,,t,'1. es 2.aq,uot ri. r. 2 2,,es.

1lll2c e yssaepitsuS go gesop es aed g3pu dneewze gessea memonep ;asu soaagae*

os yssaep131eS se geser sa ned 4184 daeeenao gesaes assenep ;som sesagam eup y sasa daesenae*

[

,,, ysasep3:3eS sa teeey on y enes dsesenap*

ew na sp 6

ro. gee-nie.a o-i =e

,iop gg:ot y u

tnes gg* 1448 d *am neya tt = 9 maepg u, m->>ep e.id -

,.9 si i6u

.]Q onnaa: tgo enadna ;aem igo reageomastte aimga le 3eud*aealid 11eliep te

(

3 e seeywse onadna og eddaoegneseid g taes pas as engenezinu saruojesuese g uanamum

l2 l

r f

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 i

g TABLE 1.1-13 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY UNIT WORK DATA FOR 1984 AND 1995 ESTIMATED ACCREDITED CAPT. CITY FACTORS CAPABILITY (in percent)

UNIT NAME (MW)

DUTY FUEL TYPE 1984a 1995a Clinton 1 760 Base Nuclear 79 70 Clinton 2 760 Base Nuclear.

N/A 80 Baldwin 1 600 Base Illinois Coal 62 64 Baldwin 2 600 Base Illinois Coal 56 65 Baldwin 3 600 Base Illinois Coal 52 59 Wood River 1-3 150 Cycling Oil #2 1

3 Wood River 4 103 Cycling Low Sulfur Coal 27 26 Wood River 5 397 Base Low Sulfur Coal 30 32 IIennepin 1 75 Cycling Illinois coal 14 14 Hennepin 2 233 Base Illinois Coal 43 47 Vermilion 1 75 Cycling Illinois Coal 16 40 Vermilion 2 107 Cycling Illinois coal 19 38

!!avana 1-5 260 Cycling Oil #6 3

6 Havana 6 426 Cycling Low Sulfur Coal 4

5 Stallings 1-4 91 Peaking 011 #2 2

2 Oglesby 1-4 60 Peaking Oil #2 2

2 Vermilion GT 12 Peaking Oil' #2 1

2 Jacksonvilleb 26 Peaking Oil #2 0

2 aFirst full year of operation at maximum capacity.

Modeled t include Jacksonville jet engine, all other small diesel capacity, and Marseilles hydro.

l 1.1-26

r SUPPLEMENT <1

. CPS-ER(OLS).

JUNE 1981-

., ~4 il 'v/ -

- TABLE 1.1-14 FUTURE GENERATION' INSTALLATIONS FROM 1981 TO 1999 FOR MAIN, ILL-MO, IP.

YEAR ^

MAIN

.LL-MO.

IP 1981; J71 81 0

1982 1433

'85 0-in

~1983~

2509 1670 0

1984 2457 870 760*-

1985~

1730 0

0 l

1986'

-1090 0

0

-1987 1977 O

O-1988

_(10)

'O' O'

S1989-643 0

0-I

~

11095 1150 0

'1990

[p il991 450 V-1992 0

l. -

1993 450 i994-0-

b 1995' 760 1996 0

'~

1997:

600

1998-1999 600 i

l' I

i I

r-D []

i.

Installed August 1983.

Source:

MAIN (1981).

i:

1.1-27 L

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.1-15 INSTALLED GENERATING CAPACITY DURING SUMMER FROM 1970 TO 1999 (All Values in Megawatts) a b

YEAR

. MAIN" ILL-Mo 7p 1970 2,199 1971 2,190 1972 2,l'21 1973 2,796 1974 2,813 1975 3,388 1976 3,412 1977 3,412 1978 3,839 1979 3,839 1980 3,815 1981 41,106 13,468 3,815 1982 42,539 13,553 3,815 1983 45,048 15,223 3,815 1984 47,504 16,093 4,575 1985 49,234 16,093 4,575 1986 50,724 16,093 4,575 1987 52,301 16,093 4,575 lll 1988 53,441 17,243 4,575

-1989 54,084 17,243 4,575 1990 54,084 17,243 4,575 1991 5,107c

-1992 5,107 1993 5,557 1994 5,557 1995 6,317 1996 6,317 1997 6,917 1998 6,917 1999 7,517 l

" Source:

MAIN Appendices to Yearly Reports (MAIN 1970-1978, 1981).

D IP Historical and Forecasted System Data.

Does not include Source:

IP's share of EEI capability or 20 percent other company ownership of Clinton - Units 1 and 2.

Includes 82 MW increase in system capability due to use of winter c

ratings.

O 1.1-28

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPIIMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.1-16

'(

)

IP LOAD AND CAPABILITY

SUMMARY

FOR 1975-1980 l

YEAR-PARAMETER VALUE i

-1975 Adjusted Capability (MW) 3,293 Adjusted Demand (MW) 2,467 Reserve (MW) 826 Reserve (%)

33.5 1976 Adjusted Capability (MW) 3,106 Adjusted Demand (MW) 2,586 Reserve (MW) 520 Reserve (%)

20.1 1977 Adjusted Capability (MW) 3,629 Adjusted Demand (MW) 2,815 Reserve (MW) 814 Reserve (%)

28.9 1978 Adjusted Capability (MW)

.3,846 Adjusted Demand (MW) 2,793 Reserve (MW) 1,053 Reserve (%)

37.7 1979 Adjusted Capability (MW) 3,784 Adjusted Demand (MW) 2,954 s

Reserve (MW) 830 Reserve (%)-

28.1 1980 Adjusted Capability (MW) 3,866 Adjusted Demand ' (MW) 3,085 Reserve -(bGi) 781 l

Reserve (%)

25.3 l

l l

I Note:

Values have been calculated from Power Production Data.

(Illinois Power, various dates).

O 1.1-29 l

? i f.

- s >- s

TABLE 1.1-17 IF PROJECTED CAPACITY AND DEMAND AT SYSTEM PEAK (All Values in Megawatts)

PARAMETER 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 19A8 1989 1990 1991 198}

1993 1994 1995 19%6 19e7 leeN fu?

3 b

450 760 600 600 532 Units Added 760 Unita petired owned capacity 3815 3815 3815 4575 4575 4575 4575 4575 4575 4575 5107 5107 5557 5557 6317 6317 6917 6917 7517 Joppa Capacity 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 DOE Surplus 37 37 Systen. CapaMty 4018 4055 4055 4778 4778 4778 4778 4778 4778 4778 5310 5310 5760 5760 6520 6520 7120 7120 1720

.O Unreserved harchase U

Hyero 2

2 2

harth Count s:s U) g H

Dcr Load (28)

(0)

(0) (148) (148) (148) (148) (148) (148) (148) (148) (148) (14e) (148) (148) (148) (148) (1483 (148) g unreserved sales y

e CE (200) (185T (185)

Adjusted capacity 3797 3872 3872 4632 4632 4632 4632 4632 4632 4632 5164 5164 5614 5614 6374 6374 6974 6974 7574 e

net System Decand 3250 3395 3515 3390 3500 3615 3730 3850 1970 4110 4260 4485 4715 4955 5210 5475 5735 6005 6285 v

meserved 6alen 203 219 235 97 soyland Reserved Purchases TVA (65) 45)

(65)

(9)

(,)

(9)

9)

Adjusted Demand 3185 3330 3450 3528 3710 3841 3818 3841 3961 4101 4260 4485 4715 4955 5210 5475 5735 6005 62e5 scheduled Units 607 542 422 1104 922 791 814 791 671 531 904 679 899 659 1164 899 1239 969 1289 meserve with Percent seserve 19.1 16.3 12.*

31.3 24.9 20.6 21.3 20.6 16.9 12.9 21.2 15.1 19.1 13.3 22.3 16.4 21.6 16.1 70.5 c:3 lll2:3 um ec b) e H trl cZ

P

3*'""

tri a1987 and 1988 reduction i. Cles.no le detivery poine..

p-e r-

.,1ect s -e t..,nt e r.at -s 82 -).

H O

O e

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT.1 JUNE 1981 TABLE.l.1-18 l_

FUTURE PROJECTED DEMAND AND CAPABILITY

SUMMARY

MAIN, ILL-MO, AND IP FROM 1981 to 1999 YEAR' PARAMETER' MAIN" ILL-MO" Ih' 1981 Adjusted. Capability.(MW) 41,648 13,527

~3,792 Adjusted Demand (MW) 34,890 11,100 3,185' Reserve-(MW) 6,758 2,427

. 607 Reserve (%)

19.4 21.9 19.1 4

1982:

Adjusted Capability (MW) 42,725 13,252 3,872 Adjusted Demand (MW) 36,072 11,467 3,330 Reserve'(MW) 6,653 l',785 542 Reserve (%)

18.4 15.6 16.3 1983 Adjusted Capability (MW) 44,924 14,920 3,872 Adjusted Demand (MW) 37,100 11,805 3,450 Reserve (MW) 7,824 3,115 422 Reserve (%)

21.1 26.4 12.2-1984 Adjusted Capability (MW) 47,398 15,583 4,632 Adjusted Demand (PDf) 38,160 11,813 3,528 Reserve.(MW) 9,238 3,770 1,104

()

Reserve (%)

24.2 31.9 31.3 1985 Adjusted Capability (MW) 48,906 15,340 4,632 Adjusted Demand (MW) 39,265 12,161 3,710 Reserve (MW) 9,641 3,179 922 Reserve (%)

24.6 26.1 24.9 1986 Adjusted Capability (MW) 50,565 15,294 4,632 Adjusted Demand (MW) 40,397 1 2,- 5 1 3 3,841 Reserve'(MW) 10,168 2,781 791 Reserve (%)

25.2 22.2 20.6 1987 Adjusted Capability (MW) 52,14/.

15,469 4,632 Adjusted Demand (MW) 41,637 12,688 3,818 Reserve (MW) 10,507 2,781 814 Reserve (%)

.25.2 21.9 21.3 1988

_ Adjusted Capability (MW) 52,975 16,660 4,632 Adjusted Demand ~ (FM) 42,823 13,053 3,841 Reserve (MW) 10,152 3,607 791 Reserve (%)

23.7 27.6 20.6

'1989 Adjusted Capability (MW) 53,620 16,659 4,632 Adjusted Demand (MW) 44,009 13,414 3,961 9,611 3,245 671 Reserve (MW)

Je3 Reserve (%)

21.8 24.2 16.9 LJ

" Source:

MAIN (1981) 8 Source:. Table 1.1-17.

1.1-31

CPS-ERIOLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.1-18 (Cont'd)

YEAR PARAMETER MAIN ILL-MO IP 1990 Adjusted Capability (MW) 53,622 16,656 4,632 Adjusted Demand (MW) 45,284 13,794 4,101 Reserve (.MW) 8,338 2,862 531 Reserve (%)

18.4 20.7 12.9 1991 Adjusted Capability (MW) 5,164 Adjusted Demand (hW) 4,260 Reserve (MW) 904 Reserve (%)

21.2 1992 Adjusted Capability (MW) 5,164 Adjusted Demand (MW) 4,485 Reserve (MW) 679 Reserve (%)

15.1 1993 Adjusted Capability (MW)

.614 Adjusted Demand (MW) 4,715 Reserve (MW) 899 Reserve (%)

19.1 1994 Adjusted Capability (MW) 5,614 Adjusted Demand (MW) 4,955 Reserve (MW) 659 Reserve (%)

13.3 1995 Adjusted Capability (MW) 6,374 Adjusted Demand (MW) 5,210 Reserve (MW) 1,164 Reserve (%)

22.3 1996 Adjusted Capability (MW) 6,374 Adjusted Demand (MW) 5,475 Reserve (MW) 899 Reserve (%)

16.4

,1997 Adjusted Capability (MW) 6,974 Adjusted Demand (MW) 5,735 Reserve (MW) 1,239 Reserve (%)

21.6 1998 Adjusted Capability (MW) 6,974 Adjusted Demand (MW) 6,005 Reserve (MW) 969 Reserve (%)

16.1 O

1.1-32 v

CPS-ER(OLS)

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE l'.1-18 (Cont'd)

YEAR PARAMETER MAIN ILL-MO IP

-1999 Adjusted Capability (MW):

7,574 Adjusted Demand (MW) 6,285 Reserve -(MW) 1,289 Reserve (%)

20.5 O'

l i

i l

l l

1 t

r l-I l

O I

1.1-33

SUPPLEMENT 1

.-.-..-..._...,_._..._._.__.l-JUNE 1981 l

l l

l i

t i

e

_1_.,

I s

t

7..

u,__p---.

I L.

i i

i U

,___.i;--_-_..,,

i, i

i i

j. --.,

1_

..- _ v '- -,F - '-,1, q

l l

j r

4,.,

i i

'r- -- ',

._____ r_-

p,,....... ; f_J.[~. 2.... 4..

y

...o.,

,___ i u

c-,

i F-~,

F-_--,J t.___' " A1 8

g ud.. -

,......... i, - - - - _ _4,

-, -- - i, g t_,

.-s i

i

!\\_..._,l d.'

,.j--,.

i t.

',- 3

/

't,--l i

i

- T, 1 -- $,

s L

i...

t.o, 3

i

t. - -

k*.F l

C*.T _ gS'*"oij

'P y *l

... z l

,/

t

-_-t i

i w-1 F..._.._. ;L _ _f ii i

m.

l Ti!-

i j

6 l o, jp.

.-f r

L.?' t*.*p rpa q

f y

i 7.e,

i 8

'~~ ctietod I

s I

l p

I

[--..(<f_ _ _ _ _ -r - - _ _ { ' -.n.c.[,.r.o.; _e_ -. _ _t. -

i i

l

(

tq~

\\X

/

,- s L _ _ _ r-i

~*

,t - _.t _,._ L_ _ _ j

\\!

f-- - !

l l l

_ _a i

t__ y p---q l

Fr-]

r -- T. ---L,-- _ L,- _.

i.

\\.

g -- -

- --l l

l l

t

/"',).

t.

__ _ _2 i

,[_' _]e s

L 7, _ _ h, _

's wooo sevte f

e

%.dte.ess_

Poeta St.fsom l

[

i

__' _.* *$.l" mat i g

,6 r- --s _l __

t j

\\

--/~~.

/

N i

f 9

8 w

..towie 3_

f,.___I__L Poeta sv.rion

.7 * --,-

~_}_. -.4 t

i l

2%

i t

g_ _ _i,__

y -

,ls

...,.so i

I

{

4 g

I P-- - { **

WEm 6

[

1 4

.g...........

3 t __ _

l l

,/

t g

-.6-s o

s A

5.****'***===**w*****.m***

.. case...=...........

+.

see.. s..a.

6u..

l

____.. =, =..... _..

(

CLINTON POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT. OPERATING LICENSE STAGE FIGURE 1.1-4 O

v ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES AND SUBSTATIONS OF ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY l

AS OF 1981 1

P00RBREAL

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 10 0 9o f

80 70 o<

O J

6--Z Go to O

CC E

O so 40 30

'/

/

i I

I I

I o o io ao so 40 so so 70 80 so too PERCENT TIME CLINTON POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 E NV IRO NM E NTAL RE PORT + OPE R ATING LICE NSE STAGE FIGURE 1.1-5 TYPICAL IP LOAD CUR'/E WITH 56% LOAD FACTOR

.. _. _.. - ~ -.,

SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 (O,

9.000 -

f

/

8.000 -

/

\\^

/ M

\\^

7.000 -

0 /

G 8

/

h

/

6.000 -

/

j 9

6580 n

Ol3 5

/

2 V

5.000 -

O 4995

<I O

4.000 -

4:10 M

?_J3r gO$w ul3E 2:

g$30 ua!.

!iils

!!.Iv g I.

ii ss; 1"i li36
=ti ii i
l E.
i
=t.
i
[i:
l8g ig
!.t iE j!
!Ie it
E r
i al 2 I.
Eii lrqg
j. '-
l=.
l
f l
!i!
!i i.
5, l
I lI
il i '
=, 'e I "y,!
~
~
~
~
~
I iit l g I! i9 I I * ?_
]f "I i a;.
9 s.
l1 n! =y ht.
I r
=i t
l" t
i=
!rB t
j! e!
5
~
l S lI,
!i I.
E i
W
hI#!.
idi.
a!.
i N
V ls'1
a 5'i I
l NT I
l !:lI_
?r. 5 5 ls R
E O
~
~
R N
M PF E
C
!i:s
!I
I I! nig "EI.5 EL
!rl!
!r[!
ige jsg!
N AOI T
L llii
)i iv g
jlii i!
!t ir KWL A
I L
N L
LDI T
~
~
OI N R U O
~
SAA0 F E
gi. i P
HDGI I
P IN Ii s 3
!1eg yg ig N
li jl 5t ii E
RS G O T O
EMA U
R P
TOMP R TS O
~
'l ! i U
D O E 1!
2EFW O1 W R
_0 RR LOE 1
PE A E
~
~.
FL 1
R O1C A N R IR!. i !
s I
t' TD U
_2N9O 7
I 2TS tg G8M i
N R
T-A A
- 0P G
I E2N L
T G
R0Y I
I JS M0 C
O UU I
0 E
F N
N NP N__
O S
EP E
L A
_R 1E E
S 9M C
L A
A 1N T
8E S
G T
T E
1
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 v) 6580
?
6500 6000
.5500 V) 5000 4
3:
y4500 a
w 4000 E
1990-2000 o 3500 1966-1973 GROWTH RATE 4.8%
J
^
O*O 3000
.x 4
W 2500 h
1974-1989 2000 GROWTH RATE 3.6%
1500 0
8 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 10 0 4
ACTUAL-FORECAST y
l YEAR i
l CLINTON POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 E NV IRONM E NTAL RE t ORT
OPE RATING LICE NSE STAGE FIGURE 1.1-8 g
ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY ACTUAL AND FORECASTED ANNUAL PEAK LOAD DEMAND FROM 1966 TO 2000
g
- g a 84
~
- a(~3 2"-
=
gr
. e
-5 2
o
- B e
_ =
n
.n.
=;-
e
-1
_ g.
o
- 3
=
a O
.O-E
~
s
- :e A
i
,a g
e.t i
t
=
o y a E.a
- !--a i
i r
g-n -
~
s i - '.
o E
e 4
r
~w
- -l n
l
o am:
e l-
"5 s
1 '
O t
g a
i e
l-I s. I
,, I
.I i.
I
,. I.
.I
,,I
,,I a"
I o
4 I.
E.
4 4
4 9
4 4
i o
o o
g o
o o
o 2
a e
e e
sanow 11vavoso M ASU3N3 CLINTON POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 ENvlRONMENTAL RE PORT-OPERATING LICENSE STAGE TIGURE 1.1-9 ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY ACTUAL AND FORECASTED ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FROM 1966 TO 2000 i
l l -.
l'
. ~.
-- - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CPS-ERf0LS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
/~(m/
1.3 CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY-IP, under existing state and federal laws, has the legal responsibility and obligation to supply electricity to meet the
~
demand in'its service area, and must, therefore, plan to satisfy the forecasted demand.
The effects of delays in the commercial operation of Clinton Unit 1 on reserve margins are'shown on Table 1.3-1..-The reserve margins of IP, Ill-Mo Pool, and MAIN that result from delays of 1, 2, 3, and 4 years are also shown.
For.IP, Table 1.3-1 shows that delays of 1, 2,
3, and 4 years in the commercial operation of Clinton Unit 1 will reduce IP reserve margins to 9.8% in 1984, 4.4% in 1985, 0.8% in 1986, and 1.4% in 1987.
All reserve margins are reduced below the planned 15%.
Even with a delay of only 1 year, the failure of any one of the three Baldwin 690 MW units, Havana Unit 6, or Wood River Unit 5 will lower IP capacity below peak demand.
Similarly, delays of 1, 2, 3, and 4 years in the commercial operation of Clinton Unit 1 will reduce Ill-Mo reserve margins to 25.5% in 1984, 19.9% in 1985, 16.2% in 1986, and 15.9% in 1987.
These delays will reduce the MAIN reserve margins to 21.7% in 1984, 22.1% in 1985, 22.8% in 1986, and 23.0% in 1987.
Delays of 1, 2, 3, and 4 years in the commercial operation of h,s)
Clinton Unit 2, as shown in Table 1.3-2, will reduce IP reserve margins to 7.8% in 1995, 2.5% in 1996, 8.4% in 1997, and 3.5% in 1998. -These reserve margins are substantially below the planned 175.
Furthermore, these delays will reduce Ill-Mo Pool and MAIN reserve margins.
In addition to jeopardizing reliability, delays in the commercial operation of Clinton Unit 1 and Clinton Unit 2 will increase IP's reliance on oil and other fossil fuels.
Additional burning of l
these fuels will increase dependence on oil; increase emissions to the environment; and increase the overall electric energy cost j
to the customer.
Customer costs will also increase because of the' effects of escalation and interest charges for funds used l
during construction.
Table 1.3-3 shows how the variable production costs change if the Clinton Power Station is delayed or unavailable.
Without Unit 1, the annual production costs increase by $21.4 million in 1983,
$96.5 million in 1984, $215.1 million in 1985, $290.8 million in 1986, $294.4 million in 1987, $334.5 million in 1988.
Without l
Unit 2, the annual production costs increase by $429.2 million in l
1995, $527.3 million in '.996,
$345.1 million in 1997, $473.4 million in 1998, and $394.0 million in 1999.
Also shown on Table 1.3-3 are the projected annual Clinton Power Station capacity factors.
Table 1.3-4 shows the cost of replacement energy by (s,)
fuel category (i.e., coal, oil, etc.) on the IP system if Clinton l
l Power Station is delayed.
Table 1.3-5 shows how the replacement l
energy was distributed.among the other fuel categories.
Tables i
f 1.3-1
_~
CPS-ER (OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 1.3-3 through 1.3-5 were developed using a probabilistic lll production cost computer program.
This program uses a generation model and a load model to determine the expected cost (including fuel and variable 06M) for. future years.
The system was modeled with Units 1 and 2 installed in 1983 and 1995, respectively.
Each unit was then delayed five years so that the distri'oution and cost of the replacement energy could be determined.
The results reflect the operation of 100% of Clinton Power Station (i.e., two 950 MW units).
All costs are in current year dollars.
Tables 1.3-3 through 1.3-5 are based upon an analysis whicli includes the expected IP load growth.
Tables 1.3 1.3-8 are similar, except that a zero load growth rate was assumed.
The following costs are expected for the first year of operation of Clinton Unit 1 (commercial operation beginning August 31, 1983):
Millions of Dollars Mills /KWh Pixed Charges 371.2 70.3 l
Fuel /
60.7 11.5 OSM 7.6 1.4 ll)
TOTAL-439.5 83.2
~1/The estimated fuel load date for Unit 1 is January 1983.
The estimated date of criticality is February 1983.
The estimated date of commercial operation is August 1983.
In the event of non-operation of Clinton Unit 1, the following costs would be expected:
Costs in Millions of Dollars 1984 1985 Replacement Pvwer Cost 77.2 172.1 Interest on Capital 118.0 127.3 Fuel Carrying Charges 6.9 7.5 TOTAL 202.1 306.9 The above costs are for IP's 80% share of the Clinton Unit.
The total cost of a delay would be even greater because of costs to ggg the owners of the remaining 20% of the unit.
1.3-2
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
. O
.The installed costs of IP's 80% si.are of Clinton Unit 1 is e ti> eea to de *' ass s37 ooo-rai ces' 1=c1eae
^rooc e=a assumes a commercial operation date of August 31, 1983.
The-fuel carrying charges are only for the initial core.
Since a delay could also affect subsequent batches of fuel, the total impact may be much greater than that shown above.
a O
t i
4 L
l I
l i
1 Ol 1.3-3 i
- -.... ~,....,. - -....... - _ - -.. -. _. _.., -. _. - - -.. _ -... _ _ _ _ _ -.. - -. - - _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _., _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.3-1 FUTURE PROJECTED LOAD AND CAPABILITY
SUMMARY
WITHOUT IP CLINTON - UNIT 1 FOR MAIN, ILL-MO AND IP FROM 1984 TO 1987 YEAR PARAMETER MAIN ILL-MO IP 1984 Adjusted Capability (MW) 46,448 14,823 3,872 Adjusted Demand 04W) 38,160 11,813 3,528 Reserve (MW) 8,288 3,010 344 1.'
Reserve (%)
21.7 25.5 0,. 8 1985 Adjusted Capability (MW) 47,956 14,580 3,872 Adjusted Demand (MW)
'39,265 12,161 3,710 Reserve (MW) 8,691 2,419 162 Reserve (%)
22.1 19.9 4.4 l
(. W) 49,615 14,534 3,872 1986 Adjusted Capability M
Adjusted Demand (MW) 40,397 12,513 3,841 Reserve (MW) 9,218 2,021 Reserve (%)
22.8 16.2 0.8 1987 Adjusted Capability (MW) 51,194 14,709 3,872
(. W) 41,637 12,688 3,818 Adjusted Demand M
Reserve (MW) 9,557 2,021 54 a
Reservo (%)
23.0 15.9 1.4 W
Derived from Table 1.1-18 by removing 760 MW capability from Note:
IP system and Ill-Mo and 950 MW (Soyland included) from MAIN.
O 1.3-4
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.3-2 v3 FUTURE PROJECTED LOAD AND CAPABILITY
SUMMARY
U WITHOUT IP CLINTON - UNIT 2 I
FOR MAIN, ILL-MO AND IP FROM 1995 TO 1998 YEAR PARAMETER MAIN ILL-MO IP 1995 Adjusted Capability (MW)
Not Available 5,614 Adjusted Demand (MW) 5,210 Reserve (MW) 404 Reserve (%)
7.8 1996 Adjusted Capability (MW)
Not Available 5,614 Adjusted Demand-(MW,'
5,475 Reserve (MW) 139 Reserve (%)
2.5 1997 Adjusted Capability (MW)
Not Available 6,214 Adjusted Demand (MW) 5,735 Reserve (MW) 479 Reserve (%)
8.4 1998 Adjusted Capability (MW)
Not Available 6,214 Adjusted Demand CMW) 6,005 Reserve (MW) 209 Reserve (%)
3.5 1
l l
Note:
Derived from Table 1.1-18 by removing a 760 MW IP capacity from l
IP and Ill-Mo and 950 MW (Soyland included) from MAIN.
l
'k l
1.3-5 l
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.3-3 h
PRODUCTION COST ANALYSIS FOR OFFICIAL LOAD FORECAST SYSTEM CLINTON UNITS PRODUCTION COST CPS CAPACITY IN OPERATION (millions of dollars)
FACTOR (%)
YEAR BASE DELAY BASE DELAY DIFFERENCE BASE DELAY 1983 1
393.2 414.6 21.4 79 1984-1 385.2 481.7 96.5 79 1985 1
486.7 701.8 215.1 66 1986 1
593.2 884.0 290.8 70 1987 1
662.3 956.7 294.4 70 1988 1
754.3 1088.8 334.5 71 1989 1
1 938.1 905.8
( 32.3) 71 80 1990 1
1 1086.9 1111.0 24.1 71 66 1991 1
1 1242.7 1239.3
(
3.4) 71 71 1992 1
1 1342.7 1344.0 1.2 71 71
'jll 1993 1
1 1413.5 1411.8
(
1.6) 71 71 1994 1
1 1662.2 1660.7
(
l.5) 71 71 1995' 1,2 1
1502.0 1931.2 429.2 75 71 1996 1,2 1
1846.5 2373.8 527.3 68 71 1997 1,2 1
1951.2 2296.3 345.1 70 71 1998 1,2 1
2230.5 2703.9 473.4 70 71 1999 1,2 1
2489.9 2883.8 394.0 70 71 l
l Results reflect impact of 100% of Unit (i.e.,
950 MW).
l l
Notes:
1.
2.
All cost figures are in current year dollars.
1983 and Base case has Clinton Unit 1 installed in August l
3.
Clinton Unit 2 installed in January 1995.
Delay case has Unit 1 installed in January 1989 and Unit 2 installed in
ll January,2000.
1.3-6
CPS-ER(OLS)
. SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.'3-4 o
VARIABLE COSTS FOR OFFICIAL LOAD FORECAST CLINTON-HIGH Iai
' POWER SULFUR SULFUR NATURAL STATION COAL
' COAL OIL GAS EMERGENCY YEAR FUEL OEM FUEL. _O&M FUEL O&M FUEL
.O&M FUEL O&M POWER 1983 11.5 1.4 15.5 1.0 32.6 1.7 111.4 1.1 59.3 2.6 37.8 1984 11.5 1.4 17.6 1.1
-36.9 1.9 117.0 1.3 66.8 2.8 41.8 1985 10.0 1.6 20.0 1.2 43.2 2.0 149.8 1.7 45.4 1986 10.0 1.7 21.6.
1.4 47.9 2.2 176.1 2.0 50.7 1907 10.6 1.9 23.5 1.5 51.9 2.4 189.7 2.1 54.6
~1988 11.5 2.1 25.5 1.6 56.7
.2.6 209.2 2.3 60.0 1989 12.4 2.3 27.9 1.7 62.3.
3.0 228.5 2.5 65.7 1990 13.3 2.5 30.3 1.9 67.3 3.2 243.1 2.7 71.2 1991 14.3 2.7 33.6 2.9 74.7 3.5 269.9 3.0 77.8 1992 15.3 2.9 36.5 3.0 80,4 3.8 298.2 3.3 84.8
,G 1993 16.5 3.2 40.3 3.6 85.6 4.3 328.3 3.5 92.0 1994 17.7.
3.5 43.9 4.1 93.5 4.7 355.4 3.8 101.2 1995 19.1 3.8 47.6 4.4 104.8 4.9 390.0 4.3 109.7 1996 20.6~
4.l' 52.2 5.1 113.1 5.4 428.6 4.7 119.5 j
1997 22.4 4.5 57.4 5.7 121.7 6.0 473.1 5.0 130.6 1998 24.6 4.9 62.4 6.3 135.3 6.5 510.2 5.5 142.9 1999 27.0 5.3 68.9 7.4 143.3 7.3 564.6 5.9 155.4 Note: All cost figures are in current year dollars in mills /kWh.
i i
v 1.3-7
TABLE 1.3-5 REPLACEMENT ENERGY FOR OFFICIAL LOAD FORECAST CLINTON HIGH LOW POWER SULFUR SULFUR NATURAL EMERGENCY STATION COAL COAL OIL GAS POW",R YEAR GWh GWh GWh GWh GWh GWh 1983 (2193)
(100.0) 1644 75.0 451 20.6 25 1.1 65 3.0 8
.4 1984 (6600)
(100.0) 4581 69.4 1572 23.8 200 2.8 186 3.0 61
.9 1985 (5482)
(100.0) 2670 48.7 1747 31.9 848 15.5 217 4.0 1986 (5865)
(100.0) 2561 43.7 2007 34.2 1004 17.1 293 5.0 1987 (5863)
(100.0) 2701 46.1 2013 34.3 904 15.4 244 4.2 1988 (5884)
(100.0) 2668 45.4 1985 33.7 960 16.3 271 4.6 1989 759 100.0
( 491)
(64.7)
( 158)
(20.8)
( 96)
(12.7)
( A3)
(1.8) n 1990
( 381)
(100.0) 197 51.5 9a 23.5 79 20.6 17 4.4
]
1991 O
(
9) 48
( 31)
( 7)
o 1992 0
1
(
4) 7
( 3) g w
{
5 1993 0
( 11) 20
(
9)
(.
1) 1994 0
1
(
4)
(
1) 4 1995 (6555)
(100.0) 4783 73.0 1203 18.4 432 6.6 137 2.1 1996 (5466)
(100.0) 3428 62.7 1136 20.8 673 12.3 229 4.2 1997 (5841)
(100.0) 5045 86.4 532 9.1 201 3.4 63 1.1 1998 (5851)
(100.0) 4514 77.2 901 15.4 326 5.6 111 1.9 1999 (5860)
(100.0) 5174 88.3 491 8.4 147 2.5 49
.8 4 tn Ek trJ T t*
$58 Percent columns indicate percent of total replacement energy provided by each source.
Note:
H O
e
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 f3 TABLE 1.3-6 i,)
PRODUCTION COST ANALYSIS FOR-NO' LOAD GROWTH SYSTEM CLINTON UNITS PRODUCTION COST CPS CAPACITY IN OPERATION (millions of dollars)
FACTOR (%)
YEAR
-BASE DELAY BASE DELAY DIFFERENCE BASE DELAY 1983 1
370.1 390.2 20.2 78 1984 1
360.3 436.9 76.6-78 1985 1
408.3 557.7-149.4 66 1986 1
444.3 585.7 141.4 70 1987 1
480.4 648.6 168.1 69 1988 1
528.4 660.7 132.3 69 1989 1
1 579.1 568.7
(.10.5) 69 77 1990 1
'l 631.8 634.5 2.7 69 65 1991 l'
1 699.3 687.8
( 11.5) 69 69 1992 1
1 741.7 744.2 2.5 69 69 1993 1
1 808.1 809.6 1.5 69 68 1994 1
1 885.2 884.1
(
l.1) 69 69 1995
+1, 2 1
816.9 963.6 146.7 61 69 1996 1,2 1
906.6 1049.6 143.1 58 69 1997 1,2 1
980.8 1135.5 154.7 59 69 1996 1,2 1
1079.2 1238.3 159.0 58 69 1999 1,2 1
1178.5 1353.8 175.3 58 68 Notes:
1.
Results reflect impact of 100% of Unit (i.e.,
950 MW).
2.
All cost figures are in current year dollars.
T 3.
Base case has Clinton Unit 1 installed in August 1983 and
(~J
\\-
Clinton Unit 2 installed in January 1995.
Delay case has Unit 1 installed in January 1989 and Unit 2 installed in January 2000.
4.
Assumes load held constant at 1980 level.
1. 3-.9
~
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 1.3-7 VARIABLE COSTS FOR NO LOAD GROWTH CLINTON HIGH LOW POWER SULFUR SULFUR NATURAL STATION COAL COAL OIL GAS EMERGENCY YEAR FUEL O&M FUEL O&M FCZL O&M FUEL O&M FUEL O&M POWER 1983 11.5 1.4 15.5 1.0 32.4 1.7 113.5 1.1 60.6 2.6 38.2
-1984 11.5 1.4 17.6 1.1 36.3 1.9 117.0 1.3 66.8 2.8 41.8 1985 10.0 1.6 20.0 1.2 42.9 2.1 145.1 1.6 45.7 1986 10.0 1.7
21.,
1 d 46.8 2.3 166.3 1.8 50.5 1987 10.7 1.9 23.5 1.5 50.2 2.6 178.6 1.9 54.1 1988 11.5 2.1 25.4 1.6 i4. 8 2.8 201.4 2.0 59.8 1989 12.4 2.3 28.1 1.8 59.4 3.2 247.4 2.0 65.3 1990 13.4 2.5 30.3 1.9 64.9 3.4 258.8 2.3 71.0 1991 14.3 2.7 33.2 2.1 70.9 3.7 284.5 2.4 77.4 1992 15.3 2.9 36.3 2.3 76.6 4.1 317.3 2.6 84.0 1993 16.5 3.2 39.5 2.5 83.6 4.5 347.7 2.8 91.9 1994 17.8 3.5 43.0 2.7 91.4 4.9 374.0 3.1 100.3 1995 19.1 3.8 46.8 2.9 99.8 5.3 407.3 3.4 109.6 1996 20.6 4.1 51.0 3.2 109.3 5.7 436.6 3.8 119.1 1997 22.5 4.5 55.8 3.5 117.9 6.3 490.1 3.9 129.8 1998 24.6 4.9 60.8 3.8 129.3 6.9 536.2 4.3 141.2 1999 27.0 5.3 66.3 4.1 140.2 7.5 586.8 4.7 153.5 Notes:
1.
All cost figures are in current year dollars in mills /kWh.
2.
Assumes load held constant at 1980 level.
O 1.3-10 t
( w)
)-
s s.
v J
TABLE 1.3-8 REPLACEMENT ENERGY FOR NO LOAD GROWTH CLINTON HIGH-LOW-
-POWER SULFUR SULFUR NATURAL EMERGENCY STATION COAL COAL OIL GAS POWER YEAR GWh GWh GWh GWh GWh GWh 1983-(2176)
(100.0) 1670 76.7 409-18.8 25 1.1 65 3.0 8
.4 1984
.(6508)
(100.0) 4969 76.4 1239 19.0 120 1.8 137 2.1 43
.7 1985 (5455)
(100.0) 3435 63.0 1458 26.7 478 8.8 84 1.5 1986 (5825)
(100.0) 4309 74.0 1122 19.3 333 5.7 61 1.0 1987-(5759)
(100.0) 3921 68.1 1402 24.3 376 6.5 59 1.0 1988 (5731)
(100.0) 4606 80.4 911 15.9 186 3.2 28
.5 1989 683 100.0
( 635)
( 92.8)
( 47)
(
6.8).
(.2)
(
.3)
( 1)
(
.1) o 1990
( 356)
(100.0) 363 101.9
(
4)
( l.1)
( 2)
(
.7)
( 1)
(
.1) 1991
( 14)
(100.0) 114 851.4
( 58)
(435.5)
( 38)
(284.1)
( 4)
(31.8)
E
o H 1992
( 14)
(100.0)
( 14)
(102.8) 24 175.0.
3 24.1 1-3.7 g
Y 1993
( 22)
(100.0)
(
5)
( 20.3) 28 120.9 0
(
.5) 0.
0.0 e
P 1994 24 100.0
( 21)
( 88.6)
(
5)
( 21.2) 2 8.3 0
1.6 l
1995 (4392)
(100.0) 4012 91.4 321 7.3 52 1.2 7
.2 f
1996 (3864)
(100.0) 3530 91.4 269 7.0 57 1.5 8
.2 l
1997 (4032)
(100.0) 3724 92.4 263
'6.5 39 1.0 5
.1 1998 (3921)
(100.0) 3699 94.4 175 4.5 41 1.0 6
.1 l
1999 (4085)
(100.0) 3882 95.0 166 4.1 32
.8 5
.1 I
p ro Sh 4
mm i
Notes:
1.
Percent columns indicate percent of total replacement energy provided by each source.
co m Hz 2.
Assumes load held constant at 1980 level.
8 l
H I
e
CPS-ER(OLS)
(~),
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
(
TITLE PAGE NUMBER Water Wells Within 5 Miles of the Site 2.4-42 2.4-21 2.4-22 Piezometer Installation Data 2.4-53 Additional Water Level Observations 2.4-58 2.4-23 2.4-24 Laboratory Permeability Test Data:
Station Site Borings 2.4-59 2.4-25 Laboratory Permeability. Test Data:
Dam Site Borings 2.4-60 2.4-26 Field Permeability Tests 2.4-62 2.5 Agricultural soil Characteristics 2.5-5 2.7-1 Description of Noise Monitoring Location 2.7-5 2.7-2 Allowable Octave Band Sound Pressure 2.7-6 Levels 2.7-3 Noise Monitoring Data for Daytime without Construction on February 26, 1978 2.7-7 Noise Monitoring Data for Daytime with 2.7-4 Construction on-December 29, 1978 2.7-8
~
2.7-5 Noise Monitoring Data for Nighttime without Construction on January 4 & 5, 2.7-9 1978 2.7-6 Noise Monitoring Data for Daytime without Construction on June 4, 1978 2.7-10
(~)'
Noise Monitoring Data for Daytime with 2.7-7
'~
Construction on April 14, 1978 2.7-11 Noise Monitoring Data for Nighttime 2.7-8 without Construction on April 14, 1978 2.7-12 2.7-9' Noise Monitoring Data for Daytime without Construction o.: August 6, 1978 2.7-13 2.7-10 Noise Monitoring Data for Daytime with Construction on August 11, 1978 2.7-14 2.7-11 Noise Monitoring Data for Nighttime without Construction on August 11, 1978 2.7-15 2.7-12 Noise Monitoring Data for Daytime without Construction on October 29, 1978 2.7-16 2.7-13 Noise Monitoring Data for Daytime with Construction on October 27, 1978 2.7-17 2.7-14 Noise Monitoring Data for Nighttime without Construction on October 27, 1978 2.7-18 h:
2-xix
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 CHAPTER 2 - THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL' INTERFACES LIST OF FIGURES TITLE NUMBER 2.1-1 Plant and Site Location Location of Clinton Power Station Site within DeWitt 2.1-2 County Location of Clinton Power Station Site within 2.1-3 Political Townships 2.1-4 Clinton Power Station Index Plat Clinton Power Station Site Development Drawing 2.1-5 2.1-6 Layout of Plant Facilities and Exclusion Area 2.1-7 Principal Station Structures Railroads within a Fifty-Mile Radius of the Site 2.1-8 Major Transportation Routes and Pipelines within a 2.1-9 Five-Mile Radius of the Site 2.1-10 Clinton Power Station Restricted Area 2.1-11 Population within 5 Miles of the Site 2.1-12 Population within 10 Miles of the Site 2.1-13 Population within 50 Miles of the Site 2.1-14 Major Cities within 50 Miles of the Site 2.1-15 Recreational Development of Lake Clinton Status of Completion of Recreational Development at 13 2.1-15A IW lake Clinton 2.1-16 General Land Use Plan for DeWitt County Major Transportation Routes within 5 Hiles of Clinton 2.1-17 Power Station 2.1-18 Counties Located within 50 Miles of Clinton Power Station 2.2-1 Degree of Floristic Resemblance between Years 1977-1976, 1977-1975, 1977-1974 and 1977-1972 in Five
.lant Communities 2.2-2 Total Month 13 Precipitation, January 1974 through February 1975 Total Monthly o ecipitation and Normal Monthly r
2.2-3 Precipitation, May 1975 through April 1976 Total Monthly Preciptation and Normal Monthly 2.2-4 Precipitation, May 1976 through April 1977 2.2-5 Total Monthly Precipitation and Normal Monthly Precipitation, May 1977 through February 1978 2.2-6 Annual Mean Densities of Dominant Benthic Macroinvertebrate Familes Quantitatively Collected from Riffle Habitata in Salt Creek, 1974-1978 2.2-7 Annual Mean 'ansities of Dominant Benthic Macroinvertebrate Familes Quantitatively Collected
^
from Pool Habitats in Salt Creek 1974-1978 2.3-1 Period of Record (1972-1977) Onsite Wind Rose for 10-Meter Level Composite January Onsite Wind Rose for 10-Meter Level lll 2.3-2 2-xx
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
{}
LIST OF' FIGURES (Cont'd)
NUMBER TITLE 2.3-3 Composite February Onsite Wind Rose for 10-Meter Level 2.3-4 Composite March Onsite Wind Rose for 10-Meter Levei 2.3-5 Composite April Onsite Wind Rose for 10-Meter L; vel 2.3-6 Composite May Onsite Wind Rose for 10-Meter Level 2.3-7 Composite June Onsite Wind Rose for 10-Meter Level 2.3-8 Composite July Onsite Wind Rose for 10-Meter Level 2.3-9' Composite August Onsite Wind Rose'for 10-Meter Level 2.3-10 Composite September Onsite Wind Rose for 10-Mccer Level 2.3-11 Composite October Onsite Wind Rose for 10-Meter Level 2.3-12 Composite November Onsite Wind Rose for 10-Meter Level 2.3-13 Composite December Onsite Wind Rose for 10-Meter Level 2.3-14 Topographic Map of the Area within 50 Miles of the Clinton Power Station Site 2.3-16 Topographical Cross Section as a Function of the Distance from the Clinton Power Station site 2.4-1 Plant Location Plan 2.4-2 Hydrologic Network:
Sangamon River Basin (s) 2.4-3 Peak Flood Magnitudes and Frequencies for Salt Creek at Rowell 2.4-4 Low-Flow Magnitudes and Frequencies for Salt Creek at Rowell 2.4-5 Plan of Lake Showing Bottom Contours 2.4-6 Lake Elevation - Area Capacity Curves 2.4-7 Plan of Main Dam, Spillways, and Outlet Works 2.4-8 Area-Capacity of Submerged Ultimate Heat Sink 2.4-9 Water Surface Profiles:
Salt Creek 2.4-10 Water Surface Profiles:
North Fork 2.4-10A Preconstruction Flood Prene Area l
2.4-10B Preconstruction Flood Prone Area and Property Line 2.4-10C Flood Prone Area with Dam in Place 2.4-11 Discharge and Turbidity Frequency Curves:
Salt Creek Near Rowell 2.4-12 Man-Made Lakes Used in Sedimentation Analysis (Numbers 1-6) 2.4-13 Sediment Deposition in Lake Clinton After 50 Years 2.4-14 Lake Area Capacity Curves Before and After 50 Years of Sedimentation 2.4-15 Water Quality Frequency Curves:
Salt Creek Near Rowell 2.4-16 Non-Private Water Wells within 15 Miles of Site 2,4-17 Water Wells within 5 Miles of Site 2.4-18 Location of Piezometers, CPS Test Well, and Water Table in Site Vicinity 2-xxi
CPS-ER (OLS)
I LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
NUMBER TITLE 2.4-19 Typical Installation Details for OW-Series Piezometers 2.4-20 Water Level Observations:
Station Site 2.4-21 Water Level Observations:
Dam Sites 2.4-22 Water Level Observations:
Borings E-1B to E-7 2.4-23 Ground-Water Levels and Daily Precipitation 2.4-24 Ground-Water Levels and Daily Precipitation 2.4-25 Ground-Water Levels and Daily Precipitation 2.4-26 Ground-Water Levels and Daily Precipitation 2.4-27 Ground-Water Levels and Daily Precipitation 2.5-1 Site Stratigraphic Column 2.5-2 Comparison of Terminology Used for the CPS-ER, PSAR and boring Logs 2.5-3 Agricultural Soil Associations 2.7-1 Noise Monitoring Locations 2.7-2 Noise Levels - Location 1 Daytime without Construction Noise Levels - Location 1 Daytime with Construction 2.7-3 2.7-4 Noise Levels - Location 1 Nighttime without Construction 2.7-5 Noise Levels - Location 2 Daytime without ll)
Construction Noise Levels - Location 2 Daytime with Construction 2.7-6 2.7-7 Noise Levels - Location 2 Nighttime without Construction 2.7-8 Noise Levels - Location 3 Daytime without Construction 2.7-9 Noise Levels - Location 3 Daytime with Construction 2.7-10 Noise Levels - Location 3 Nighttime without Construction 2.7-11 Noise Levels - Location 4 Daytime without Construction Noise Levels - Location 4 Daytime with Construction 2.7-12 2.7-13 Noise Levels - Location 4 Nighttime without Construction 2.7-14 Noise Levels - Location 5 Daytime without Construction Noise Levels - Location 5 Daytime with Construction 2.7-15 2.7-16 Noise Levels - Location 5 Nighttime.without Construction 2.7-17 Noise Levels - Location 6 Daytime without Construction 2.7-18 Noise Levels - Location 6 Daytime with Construction 2.7-19 Noise Levels - Location 6 Nighttime without Construction 2.7-20 Noise Levels - Location 7 Daytime without Construction 2-xxii
CPS-ER (OLS)
'(-
LIST OF FIGURES- (Cont'd)
(
NUMBER TITLE 2 7-21 Noise Levels - Location'7 Daytime with' Construction i
2.7-22'
. Noise Levels --Location 7 Nighttime without Construction 2.'7-23 Noise Levels - Location 8 Daytime without Construction 2.7-24 Noise Levels - Location 8 Daytime with Construction 2.7-25
-Noise Levels - Location'8 Nighttime without
-Construction 2.7-26 Noise Levels - Location 9 Daytime without Construction
.2.7-27 Noise Levels - Location 9 Daytime with Construction 2.7-28 Noise Levels - Location 9 Nighttime without Construction 2.7-29 Noise Levels - Location 10 Daytime without Construction 2.7-30 Noise Levels - Location 10 Daytime with Construction 2.7 Neise Levels - Location 10 Nighttime without Construction 2.7-32.
Noise Levels - Location 11 Daytime without Construction
-2.7-33 Noise Levels - Location 11 Daytime with Construction O-2.7-34 Ncise Levels - Location 11 Nighttime without Construction j-f I
i l
O 2-xxiii
. ~.
~
I CPS-ER(OLS) recreation.
The recreational development of the site is described in Subsection 2.1.3.
(}
The boundcrv line of the station exclusion area (as defined in 10 CFR 100) 13 shown in Figures 2.1-5 and 2.1 -6.
The exclusion area is entirely within the station property and is the area encompassed by-a circle'of 975 meters radius centered on the station standby gas treatment system vent.
Figure 2.1-5 also shows the low population zone as defined in 10 CFR 100.
The Clinton Power Station exclusion area meets the requirements of 10 CFR 100.11-(a).
The engineered safety features maintain the integrity of the containment under postulated accident conditions and limit exposures at the exclusion area and low population zone boundaries to levels well within the gaidelines of 10 CFR 100.
Figures 2.1-2 and 2.1-4 show the highway and railway networks that traverse or are adjacent to the site.
The nearest major highways are State Highways 54, 10, and 48, all of which cross the site.
Other major thoroughfares are U. S. Highway 51, located about 6 miles west of the plant, and Interstate Highway 74, located about 11 miles northeast of the plant.
The nearest railroad is the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad (ICG), which crosses the site east to west and comes within about 0.75 mile to the north of the reactors' centerlines.
Another ICG track is locnted approximately 3.5 miles south of the station.
Railroads
(-)
surrounding the site are depicted in Figures 2.1-8 and 2.1-9.
Major transportation routes and pipelines surrounding the site are shown in Figure 2.1-9.
2.1.1.3 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release Limits i
The boundary of'the restricted area (as defined in 10 CFR 20) is shown in Figure 2.1-10.
There are no residential quarters in the restricted area.
The radiation dose limits given in 10 CFR 2G.105 and the concentration limits of radioactive material in i
effluents given-in 10 CFR 20.106 are met at the restricted area boundary.
Access to the restricted area is prevented by a cyclone fence with "No Trespassing" signs posted at regular intervals.
In i
addition, there will be periodic surveillance to ensure that no l
unauthorized entry to the restricted area takes place.
The distance in meters (and feet) from the normal gaseous effluent release' point (i.e., the common station HVAC vent) to the nearest site boundary by compass sectors is shown in Figure 2.1-5.
The guidelines for keeping the radiation exposures as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA), as given in 10 CFR 50 Annex to Appendix I, are applied at the site boundary.
The station gaseous and liquid effluent release points are shown in Figure
(~)
2 1-7.
y I'
2.1-3 l
{
CPS-ER(OLS)_
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 lh The liquid effluents from the static are discharged into Lake Clinton, the outfall of which joins the Sangamon River approximately 56 miles downstream.
The Sangamon River joins the Illinois River approximately 80 miles west of the site.
The closest sizeable lake is Lake Decatur, located approximately 20 miles south of the site.
There is no plausible way for liquid effluents to get to Lake Decatur.
The liquid effluents from the station are discharged into Lake Clinton through the discharge flume to the unrestricted area.
The routine gaseous effluents discharged from the common station HVAC vent are released to the unrestricted area at the boundary of the restricted area in all of the sectors.
Solid radioactive material is shipped from the CPS site via truck or rail in special containers or casks.
2.1.2 Population Distribution 2.1.2.1 Population within 10 Miles The population within 5 miles of the site is shown in Figure 2.1-11.
These statistics as well as the 5-to-10-mile statistics are based on an actual onsite house count conducted by Sargent &
Lundy (S&L) in 1972 and 1973.
The total 1972 population within 5 miles of the site was 1199.
As indicated by a population density of 15 persons per square mile, the area within 5 miles of the lll site is very sparsely populated.
There are two small residential groupings within 5 miles of the site:
one is DeWitt, approximate population of 199, located 2.5 miles east-northeast; and the other is Lane, estimated population of 150, located 3.5 miles l
south-southwest.
As indicated in Figure 2.1-12, the population within 10 miles of the site is quite low.
A large proportion of the population lives in the city of Clinton (1970 population 7570), 6 to 7 miles west and west-southwest of the site.
Most of the surrounding area within 10 miles.
rural, with a population density of 42 persons per square mile.
The total 1970 population within a 10-mile radius of the station location is 13,143.
Projections indicate that this area is expected to experience a slight decrease in population by 1980 and then gradually increase.
The projected population for the year 2020 is 18,608.
There are few cities within 10 miles of the site, and no major population centers (cities with populations greater than 25,000).
Table 2.1-2 includes all the ;ommunities within 50 miles along with their 1980 populations.
l As seen in the following list, the percent population age distri-a bution within DeWitt County in 1970 was similar to the national W
distribution (U.S. Department of Commerce 1971a, 1975).
2.1-4
-CPS-ER(OLS)-
SUPPLEMENT l' JUNE 1981 (f
Age' Group.
DeWitt County
'Un'ited States-1970' 1970 2000
. 0-11 21.1 22.4 17.5 18 12.8 13.7 11.1
' 19 and overL 66.1-63.9 71.4 JApplying the, pro'jected'U.S.fage distribution for the' year 2000
(the approximate midpoint of station operating life) to the projected population within 10_ miles of the-station yields the following. expected population:
Projected Age Group Population 0-11 2,679:
12-18 1,699-19 and.over; 10,9281 4
4
' TOTAL 15,306
'The U.S. projected age distribution 's used"because in 1970 i
j; DeWitt County was not significantly different'from the total U.S.
j
_-age distribution, when~the significance test described in Appendix D c# segulatory Guide'4.2 was applied.
Thus, it was assumed that the area within a,10-mile ~ radius of the-station I
(most.of which lies within DeWitt. County):will have.an age distribution similar to that projected for the United States as a
whole.-
i.
L 2.1.2.2
-Population between 10 and 50' Miles
,The1 total population within 50 miles of the station is 720,998 o
and :is expected. to grow to 988,491 by'2000.
More than 90% of the
~totalJ1970 population within 50 miles lives outside of a 20-mile
~
Figure 2.1-13 shows the_1970 population radius'of the station.
and projections to the year ~2020 for the area within 10 to 50-miles'of-the site.. Figure 2.1-14 shows the locations of the
. major cities 1within 50 miles of the' site; the population-of these cities'for.1980 is included in Table 2.1-2.
l
'~
.The.most: heavily populated sector within 50 miles of the site is
~
the[ south-southwest sector with a 1970~ population of 119,510.
.;The high' population in this sector is due primarily to Decatur, g
. Illinois', which is -located between 20 'and"30 miles from the site
, :n
,and had a 1970Lpopulation of 90,397. -The northeast sector, which
[:U; is' predominately rural, has the lowest:1970 population.
!r.
2.1-5 1
I-
---.Z..
.._...,...m_.._
. _. _,.,.. _,. _.m
_--.,_,._,_,..m~~_.-.....,m.-,_
CPS-ER (OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 The age distribution in the year 2000 within 50 miles of the station is expected to be similar to the projected national age lll distribution.
The age distribution of counties within a 50-mile radius is shown in Table 2.1-3.
Since the 1970 age distributions in these countica were similar to the national distribution, the U.S.
projected age distribution shown previously for the year 2000 was used to project the following age distribution for the year 2000 for the area within 50 miles:
Age Group Number Percentage 0-11 172,986 17.5 12-18 109,722 11.1 19 and over 705,783 71.4 TOTAL 988,491 100.0 2.1.2.3 Transient Population Recreation is the only significant source of transient population.
Weldon Springs State Park, located about 5.5 miles southwest of the site, had 488,982 visitors in 1976 (Illinois Department of Conservation 1976).
The peak attendance occurs on Independence Day when it may reach 11,000 for the fireworks display (Herzog 1977).
The 370-acre park, 28 acres of which is lll lake, offers facilities for fishing, boating, and hiking (Illinois Department of Conservation 1976).
The park is popular because of the lack of other facilities in the county.
Average and peak daily attendance is given in Table 2.1-4.
The Clinton Country Club, 6.3 miles southwest, has a membership of approximately 210.
During the golfing season, approximately 75 to 80 golfers may use the course on c weekend day.
On a peak attendance day, up to 200 people may use the facilities, which include the golf course, pool, tennis courts, and dining room (Hoffman 1978).
Arrowhead Acres Camp, locatedabout0.h.nilessouthwestofthe site, operates from April through October and has about 25 long-term campers during the season and up to 50 campers on a weekend (Ferguson 1977).
The Little Galilee Christian Assembly Church Camp (located approximately 6 miles southwest of the city of Clinton, off U.S.
Route 51) operates a summer camp between June rul September.
About 2000 people attend during the season, with about 125 chil-dren in attendance during each week.
A peak attendance of approximately 300 people occurs on weekends when parents pick up and drop off children (Johnson 1977).
O 2.1-6
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
()
miles west of the Clinton Power Station.
The Sangamon-Illinois River confluence is approximately 80 miles west of the station.
There are no public or private water supplies taken from Salt Creek downstream from the station to its confluence with the Sangamon River.
There are no users of the Salt Creek or the North Fork of the Salt Creek upstream of the station (Beauchamp 1977; Bunch 1977; Burris 1977; Combs 1977; Glithero 1977; Selburg 1977; Smith.1977).
In addition, there is no municipal water use of either the Sangamon River from the confluence of Salt Creek to the confluence with the Illinois River or the Illinois River from its confluence with the Sangamon River to the confluence with the Mississippi River.
The nearest public water supply which uses the Mississippi River as a water source is Alton, Illinois, approximately 242 river miles downstream of the Clinton Power Station.
The 1976 average rate of pumping at the Alton intake was 11.7 million gallons per day (Selburg 1977).
The 1970 population of. Alton was 39,700 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1971b).
No industries or water and sewage treatment facilities take water from Salt Creek, and no local or state agency contacted had any
-record of planned industrial use of Salt Creek except for the Clinton Power Station.
Salt Creek water is not used for irrigation within 50 radial miles doenstream from the station.
(_/<-)
Water supplies for industrial, municipal, and irrigation purposes in the region are obtained from groundwater sources (Beauchamp 1977; Bunch 1977; Burris 1977; Combs 1977; Cruthis 1978; Glithero 1977; Smith 1977).
There is no commercial fishing on Salt Creek.
Sport fishing is the major recreational use of Salt Creek and its tributaries.
Small and large mouth bass, crappie, sunfish, channel catfish, and rough fish such as carp are the primary fish caught in Salt Creek.
Sport fishing access on Salt Creek and the North Fork of Salt Creek is generally at the road crossings near county bridges.
No catch data is available for Salt Creek or the North Fork of Salt Creek (Allen 1978).
The estimated consumptive water use and downstream release for 1955, a 1-in-50 year drought, is shown in Table 2.1-24.
The assumed seepage from the lake is 0.5% of the lake capacity per month.
When Salt Creek average flow is less than the evaporation and seepage losses, a minimum release of 5 cfs from the lake will be the flow downstream of the dam.
The effects of station effluents on Lake Clinton and water
'eleased from the lake are discussed in Chapter 5.
2.1-11
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 2.1.3.2.2 Groundwater gg Public water supplies in the regional area are derived exclusively from groundwater sources.
Public. wells between 5 and 15 miles of the site are listed in Table 2.4-20 and shown in Figure 2.4-16.
Public water supply systems within 15 miles of the station are summarized in Table 2.4-19.
Table 2.4-21 lists the private water wells within 5 miles of the station and Figure 2.4-17 locates them.
Two wells are located on site property.
One is owned by Illinois Power Company and is located at the Visitors' Center (see Figure 2.1-15).
The other is owned and used for water supply by the village of DeWitt.
The location of this well is shown on Figures 2.1-5 and 2.4-17.
A further discussion of private and public groundwater use near the Clinton Power Station is contained in Subsection 2.4.2.2.
There will be no groundwater used for the Clinton Power Station.
2.1.3.3 Recreational Develooment Plan The primary purpose of Clinton Power Station and the 4,895-acre cooling lake is to provide energy for the future needs of the people of central Illinois.
It has been recognized by IP that, in addition to providing energy, the Clinton Power Station site has the potential to supply a wide variety of quality recreation lll opportunities.
IP and the co-owners of CPS are demonstrating multipurpose utilization of finite resources by leasing about 10,208 acres of the site property to the Illinois Department of Conservation for public recreational facilities.
The lease agreement is discussed in Section 5.6.
Figure 2.1-15 shows the recreation development plaa, and Table 2.1-5 lists the planned recreation facilities.
Figure 2.1-15A shows the stage of completion of the planned l
recreational facilities as of June 1, 1981.
I In August 1979 the site was opened to fishing, powerboating, water skiing, and wildlife observation and study.
Snowmobiling may be allowed on the lake but not on park grounds.
Some car ing, hiking, and picnicking facilities were opened in 1980 and others will be opened later as finished.
Ice skating will be allowed in designated areas.
Swimming is not authorized at the present time.
The Illinois Department of Conservation has estimated that in 1980 the site was visited by 520,212 people.
Their projected estimates for the next five years are as follows:
O 2.1-12
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUP?LEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
(~'
A >s 650,000
-1981 1982 750,000 (includes campers)
'1983 and beyond
- 1,000,000
.The " Final Environmental Statement Related te '.he Proposed Clinton Power Station: Units 1 and 2, October, 1974," states:
" Hunting will not be permitted anywhere on the applicant's property." This would have resulted in the' annual loss of 15,000 user,-days of hunting.
A partial recovery of this loss will be-undertaken by provision for wildlife hunting under state control on. upland tracts that' surround Lake Clinton, such as the northern end of the North. Fork arm (North Fork Canoe Access Area and Illinois Prairie Access Area).
Waterfowl hunting is provided from numbered blind sites on the North Fork arm'from the North Fork boat ramp north to the Prairie Restoration Area, and on the
)
3 4
2.1-12a
CPS-ER(OLS)'
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 2.1-2
/~i CITIES, TOWNS, AND VILLAGES WITHIN 50 MILES OF CLINTON POWER STATION
.V DISTANCE AND 1980 DIRECTION FROM CITY OR TOWN COUNTY' POPULATION THE SITE DeWitt DeWitto 232 2.5 miles ENE Weldon DeWitt 531 5.3 miles ESE
'Clinton DeWitt 8,014 6.3 miles W-
'Wapella-DeWitt-768 7.4 miles WNW Deland Platt 509 10.1 miles ESE Maroa Macon 1,760 10.7' miles SW Farmer City DeWitt 2,25; 11.2 miles _ENE f
Cisco
-Piatt 333 11.7 miles SSE Heyworth' RMcLean 1,599 12.3 miles NW Argenta Macon 994 12.4 miles S Le Roy.
McLean 2,870 13.1' miles NNE Kenney DeWitt 443 13.6 miles WSW Oreana
.Macon
'999 15.6 miles S lDowns.
McLean 561 15.7 miles N Waynesville DeWitt 569 15.7 miles WNW Monticello'
~Piatt 4,753 16.6 miles SE Mansfield Platt 921 17.0 miles E
~
Porsyth Macon 1,072 17.0 miles SSW Cerro Gordo Platt 1,553 19.6 miles SSE Warrensburg Macon 1,372 19.8 miles SW s
McLean McLean 836 19.9 miles WNW I
Bellflower McLean 421 19.9 miles NE Ellsworth-McLean 244 20.2 mile 9 NNE Atlanta Logan 1,807 21.3 mile s WNW Bement.
Platt 1,770 21.4 miles SE Latham Logan 564 21.5 miles SW Arrowsmith McLean 292 21.9 miles NNE l
Mahomet Champaign 1,986 22.1 miles E
[
Decatur Macon 94,081 22.4 miles SSW Bloomington McLean 44,189 22.7 miles NNW Saybrook McLean 882 23.8 miles NE Ivesdale Champaign 339 24.5 miles SE Normal McLean 35,672 24.6 miles NNW
-Foosland.
Champaign 153 24.7 miles ENE Mount Pulaski Logan 1,783 25.3 miles WSW Cooksville McLean 269 26.3 miles NNE Mount Zion Macon 4,563 26.5 miles S Fisher.
Champaign 1,572 26.8 miles ENZ Stanford McLean 720 26.8 miles NW
.Armington Tazewell 292 27.0 miles WNW Lincoln Logan 16,327 27.1 miles W Niantic Macoh 761 27.2 miles SW Towanda McLean 630 27.2 miles N Hammond Platt 556 28.1 miles SSE
' O-2.1-15
~
CPS-ER (OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TACLE 2.3-2 (Cont'd)
DISTlNCE AND g
DIRECTION PROM W
CITY OR TOWN COUNTY POPUL1. TION TIIE SITE Sadorus Champaign 435 28.6 miles Ese Colfax McLean 920 29.4 miles NNE Illiopolis Sangamon 1,118 29.8 miles SW Champaign Chaupaign 58,133 29.9 miles E Danvers McLean 921 30.2 miles NW Minier Tazewoll 1,261 30.3 miles NW Savoy Champaign 2,126 30.7 miles ESE Dalton City Moultrie 574 30.8 miles S Hudson _
McLean 929 30.9 miles NNW Gibson City Ford 3,498 31.0 miles NE Anchor Mclean 192 31.2 miles NNE Atwood Douglas /Platt 1,464 31.3 miles SE ilartsburg Logan 379 31.5 miles W Tolono Champaign 2,434 31.7 miles ESE Broadwell Logan 183 31.7 miles WSW Carlock McLean 410' 32.0 miles NNW Urbana Champaign 35,978 32.2 miles E Macon Macon 1,300 32.2 miles SSW Lovington Moultrie 1,313 32.4 miles SSE Lexington McLean 1,806 32.4 miles N Garrett Douglas 205 32.7 miles SE Pesotum Champaign 651 33.5 miles ESE g
Thomasboro Champaign 1,242 33.5 miles E W
llopedale Tazewell 913 34.2 miles NNW Emden Logan 527 34.3 miles WNW Elkhart Logan 493 34.5 miles WSW Mount Auburn Christian 598 34.8 miles SW Blue Mound Macon 1,338 35.0 miles SSif Elliott Ford 370 35.2 miles NE D: ppa Woodford 170 35.8 miles NNW Arthur Douglas /Moultrie 2,122 35.9 miles SSE Bathany Moultrie 1,550 36.0 miles S Congerville Woodford 373 36.1 miles NNW Buffalo Sangamon 514 36.3 miles SW Philo Champaign 973 36.3 miles ESE Mackinaw Tazewell 1,354 36.5 miles NW Rantoul Champaign 20,161 36.6 miles ENE Sibley Ford 370 36.9 miles NE Tuscola Douglas 3,839 37.6 miles SE M2chanicsburg Sangamon 515 37.7 miles SW Moweagua She]by 1,922 38.0 miles SSW N;w !!alland Logan 295 38.1 miles W Dawson Sangamon 532 38.2 miles WSW Delavan Tazewell 1,973 38.8 miles WNW Goodfield Woodford 500 38.8 miles WNW Middletown Logan 503 38.8 miles W Williamsville Sangamon 996 39.2 miles WSW gg 2.1-16
CPS-ER(OLS)
((
SUPPLEMENT'l l
C JUNE 1981 N'
TABLE 2.1-2.(Cont'd) i-i DISTANCE AND 1980-DIRECTION FROM
. CITY OR TOWN COUNTY POPULATION THE SITE Gridley.
'McLean 1,246'
.39.2 miles N Champaign 397 39.3 miles ENE Ludlow.
McLean 1,847, 39.8 miles N p
Chenoa;
}
El Paso
'Woodford' 2,676 40.1 miles NNW Villa Grove' Douglas 2,707 40.2. miles ESE h
Sullivan Moultrie 4,526 40.2 miles SSE
.Stonington Christian 1,184 40.3 miles SSW 4
' Sidney
. Champaign.
886-40.3 miles ESE-Deer Creek.
Tazewell.
688 40.3 miles NW SanJJose'
. Logan / Mason.
784 40.4 miles WNW Melvin' Ford.
519 40.6 miles NE St.. Joseph ~
Champaign 1,900 40.7 miles E
.Spaulding Sangamon 428 41.4 miles-WSW Tazewell:
2,096 41.4 miles NW Tremont-Riverton Sangamon
'2,783 42.0 miles WSW Secor Christian 488 42.1 miles NNW JCamargo Douglas 428 42.3 miles SE.
U b
Arcola Douglas 2,714 42.4 miles SE
-Paxton Ford 4,258 42.7 miles ENE i
Fairbury Livingston 3,544 42.7 miles NNE
' ~ ~
Gifford-Champaign 848 42.7 miles ENE t
Strawn-Livingston 143 42.7 miles NNE Panola~
Coles 31 43.0 miles NNW
-Sherman.
Sangamon 1,501 43.5 miles WSW Eureka Woodford 4,306 43.6 miles NNW Morton-Tazewell 14,178 43.7 miles _NW Longview..
Champaign 207 43.8 miles ESE Mason City Mason 2,719 44.0_ miles W
Findlay, Shelby 868 44.1 miles S Royal Champaign 274 44.1 miles E Allenville-Moultrie' 204 44.2 miles SSE
Green 1 Valley Tazewell 768 44.3 miles WNW Clear Lake Sangamon 236 44.4 miles WSW Edinburg; Christian.
1,231 44.6 miles SW
' Roberts Ford 422 45.1 miles NE Forrest Livingston 1,246 45.2 miles NNE Ogden Champaign 818 45.2 miles E Assumption Christian 1,283 45.3 miles SSW Loda Iroquois 486 45.3 miles ENE Cantrall Sangamon 141 45.7 miles WSW Homer Champaign 1,279 44.8 miles ESE Rochester
.Sangamon 2,488 45.9 miles SW
Greenview
-Menard 830 46.3 miles W Broadlands Champaign 346 46.4 miles ESE Humboldt Coles 499 46.4 miles SE Grandview Sangamon.
1,794 46.4 miles WSW 2.1-17
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 2.1-2 (Cont'd) g DISTANCE AND 1980 DIRECTION FROM CITY OR TOWN COUNTY POPULATION THE SITE Roanoke Woodford 2,001 46.7 miles NNW Washington Tazewell 10,364 46.8 miles NW South Pekin Tazewell 1,243 47.2 miles WNW Athens Menard 1,371 47.4 miles WSW Taylorville Christian 11,386 48.1 miles SSW Flanagan Livingston 978 48.3 miles N Hindsboro Douglas 407 48.6 miles SE Springfield Sangamon 99,637 48.6 miles WSW Benson Woodford 460 48.7 miles NNW Chatsworth Livingston 1,187 48.7 miles NE Pekin Tazewell 33,967 49.0 miles NW Kincaid Christian 1,591 49.1 miles SW Allerton Vermillion 303 49.1 miles ESE Fithian Vermillion 540 49.1 miles E Bulpitt Christian 301 49.3 miles SW Pontiac Livingston 11,227 49.5 miles NNE East Peoria Tazewell 22,385 49.5 miles NW Jeiseyville Christian 178 49.5 miles SW Marquette Heights Tazewell 3,386 49.8 miles NW Owaneco Christian 285 49.9 miles SSW O
Source:
U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1981.
O 2.1-18
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 2.1-24 CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE AND DOWNSTREAM RELEASE FOR CLINTON POWER STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 USING 1955 WEATHER DATA CONSUMPTIVE DOWNSTREAN LOAD FACTOR WATER USE RELEASE MONTH
(%)
(cfs)
(cfs)
January 80 33.0 5
February 70:
25.1 5
March 70 38.7 5
April 70 41.0 5
4 May 70 62.4 11 June 92 83.6 122 July 92 91.4 5
O aueu e 92 105.6 5
September 80 88.7 5
October 70 69.3 5
November-70 49.4 5
i December 80 31.8 5
l
[
l l-i i
O 2.1-43 i
., _. -...., _ _ _.. _.... _ ~ _..
m x.,
(
?
~.,.
/
/
/
/
// /
r y
r :s e s.
e a
e c
o f a,
~
yo e a
/ s
/:
I!'s e/c/
s /:!~ +1. $_NS$/!!e'/r i e "!e sp!!s!!!!
see>
~
sc ee<*
.a :
ee
..,,,, c c, E A., A XIX.
XX X X X:X
.X
<, l_
u m "*""
)
n
[
/~ [
nsCrUTlY STATE PARK g
=In Carr CRot:xo 75 gg
~
X X
l X
JF57 529C ACCESS AREA
,o os 5n wsTitruRK ACCESS AttA 90 95 an attb>4 ACCESS AREA "ARNELL ACCESS AREA 9g LAxE t'AY U$E AREA m
90 50
'ENINSU!.A USE AREA
[
9g h
40RTH FORK CANOE ACCESS i:A"P QUEST CROUP CAMP gg 9$
a n
2 i*4 LESTOM FISHING ACCES$
%M
-4 I
f iAtT CREFK fists!NC ACCES$
l M
CI > "m c aCh
./
5" 'LW"Y " 8"2"C ^CCE85 90 n
h o
2 1ATURAL AREA C
0y a >F M o F
o T1 3 gT pg m
O 3
t,si eEvEtomrwr <x Cmettro
)n F@
g _h N
E,c =
r ib e
C- < --
1,s otvEt m EnT Em*
"m do m
. ATE ame,1. 1,81
-CDor-
.nn
.=oo 5gy p,
3*
"""D*
r h
J r-g cm n
a O
C<=
m Z
r j
I$
o m
--e. n 9
O E 4
CD r,
d =
C1
-4 m
a
CPS-ER(OLS) 2.4.1.4.2 Lake Fillina Analvsis 73
(_)
A lake filling analysis was done, assuming filling to start in the month of October with an average runoff condition on Salt Creek.
Filling of the lake to the normal pool elevation of 690 feet was estimated to take 7 months.
The analysis was done based on a constant reservoir release of 5 cubic feet per second and a seepage loss of 0.5% of the lake capacity per month.
Using runoff values for historic drought and 100-year drought conditions, the time to fill the lake was estimated at 31 and 34 months, respectively.
The main dam was closed on October 12, 1977, and lake filling was begun.
By the end of December 1977, with reservoir releases varying from 40 to 130 cubic feet per second, the lake level was observed at elevation 683 feet.
This is about 7 feet higher than the water level expected in the lake with the average runoff conditions used in the lake filling analysis.
The runoff on Salt Creek during the months of October, November, and December of 1977 was greater than the average flow.
The lake water level reached elevation 690 feet on May 17, 1978.
2.4.1.4.3 Flooding Conditions The flood water surface elevations in the lake were determined by routing the floods through the lake using the " SPRAT" computer r~s program (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1966).
The once-in-100-(-)
year flood level in the lake at the dam site is elevation 697 feet.
The routed peak outflow through the service spillway is 11,610 cubic feet per second.
Based on the flood frequency analysis, the once-in-100-year flood flow at the dam site is 26,400 cubic feet per second.
The magnitude of the flood flows downstream from the dam is reduced due to the flood absorption l
effect of the lake.
The probable maximum flood level with an i
antecedent standard project flood is elevation 708.8 feet at the dam.
l The flooding effects on the headwater area of the cooling lake were determined by backwater computations using the U. S. Corps l
of Engineers' computer program " Water Surface Profiles" (WASP)
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1968).
Figures 2.4-9 and 2.4-10 l
show the water surface profiles of the~100-year flood and probable maximum flood under natural conditions both with and without the reservoir for Salt Creek and the North Fork of Salt Creek, respectively.
The backwater effect of a once-in-100 year flood in the lake terminates at the Township Road Bridge (Iron Bridge), 76,000 feet or 14.5 miles upstream from the dam and 1.5 miles southwest of Farmer City.
Flooding in the lake does not affect the residential area of Farmer City.
For the North Fork of Salt Creek, the backwater effect of a once-in-100-year flood in the (s) lake terminates at 39,000 feet or 7.5 miles upstream from the dam.
There are no residential areas along the North Fork of Salt 2.4-7
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Creek.
The once-in-100-year flood level was a criterica used in (g) the property acquisition for the lake area.
The power station is at a grade elevation of 736 feet and will not be affected by floods in the lake.
The Trenkle Slough Drainage District drains into a creek that joins Salt Creek 0.5 mile upstream from the Iron Bridge.
The analysis for the flooding effects of the lake shows that the flood level in the Trenkle Slough is not increased by the once-in-100-year flood in the lake.
HoweJer, the time for the flood water to recede is increased by about 3 days at the confluence of the creeks and by about 7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months at a point 3 miles upstream from the mouth of the Trenkle Slough.
This effect on the flood recession period decreases for smaller floods.
The Salt Creek channel from the Iron Bridge to the mouth of the Trenkle Slough was widened to improve the drainag conditions in the Trenkle Slough area and to avoid any adverse effect.
Figure 2.4-10A shows the once-in-100-year flood prone area that would exist in the vicinity of Clinton Power Station without Lake Clinton in place (preconstruction flood prone area), as outlined by the US.S Geological Survey (1974).
This flood prone area is along Salt Creek and the North Fork of Salt Creek.
A review of maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development indicates that there is no flood prone area in the vicinity of the station other than that showr. in Figure 2.4-10A.
Figure 2.4-10B shows the llk property line of the Clinton Power Station site compared to the preconstruction flood prone area.
As can be seen, the property line encloses the flood prone area.
Impounding Salt Creek and the North Fork of the Salt Creek to form Lake Clinton altered natural flood levels.
Figure 2.4-10C shows the preconstruction flood prone area, the property line, and the once-in-100-year flooded area with Lake Clinton in place.
The details of the determination of the once-in-100-year flood elevation with the lake in place are given earlier in this l
subsection.
Figure 2.4-10C shows that the once-in-100-year flooded area with Lake Clinton in place is well within the station property line.
Beyond the property line, in the upper reaches of Salt Creek and the North Fork of Salt Creek, the lake does not increase the flooded area as compared to the preconstruction once-in-100-year flood.
Flood flows downstream of the Lake Clinton dam are lowered col.>. pared to preconstruction flood flows; hence, the once-in-100-year flood levels are lower.
No station structures were built in the preconstruction once-in-100-year flood prone area except for the dam that was built across Salt Creek to create Lake Clinton.
Obviously, there was no alternative location for the dam outside of the flood prone area.
Several structures have been built along the edges of the post-construction flood prone area (with Lake Clinton in place).
lll These include the intake and discharge structures, modified 2.4-8
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1
+
JUNE 1981 o()
highway bridges, a marina, and
ven boat ramps.
Again,'there were no feasible locations for these structures outside of the flood prone Construction of these structures is complete, and their area.
presence will not cause any. alteration in flood levels that would extend beyond the' site property lines.
There will be no effect on downstream facilities of debris generated from the site during floods.
2.4.1.4.4 Effects of Drought A design drought with a recurrence interval of 100 years was used in the determination of minimum water level in the cooling lake.
The once-in-100-year drought runoff data with a duration up to 60 months are given in Table 2.4-8.
Net lake evaporation values for a 100-year recurrence interval are given in Table 2.4-9.
The average monthly forced evaporation data with the plant operating at 70% load factor are given in Table 2.4-10.
Lake drawdown analyses were made starting at a normal pool elevation of 690 feet, using a minimum reservoir release of 5 cubic feet per second and assuaing a seepage loss of 0.5% of the lake capacity per month.
The minimum water level obtained for the once-in-100-year drought is elevation 682.3 feet.
The plant will be able to withstand the effect of the once-in-100-year drought without interruption of normal operations.
Similarly, the effect of the historic drought on the lake was
(~)/
analyzed using precipitation and evaparation values obtained from s_
the U.S. Department of Commerce (U.S. Department of Commerce 1943-1977).
The water level in the lake for a historic drought condition is elevation 684.1 feet.
In the event of a drought more severe than the once-in-100-year drought that will lower the lake level to elevation 577 feet, the ultimate heat sink will supply water for tr.e emergency core cooling system.
2.4.1.4.5 Lake Sedimentaticn Studies were made on sediment distribution and deposition in the lake to determine the effect on the lake capacity, depth, and shoreline area.
On Salt Creek near Rowell, an average turbidity of 16 parts per million and a discharge of 0.35 cubic feet per second per square mile were observed from 1950 to 1956 (see ts
-N) 2.4-8a
CPS-ER(OLS) a drop of 18 feet.
The second is designed for a drop of 26 (d
feet.
Natural drainage in the area of the discharge flume is main-tained by culverts under the flume (see Figure 3.4-7).
Bar-riers are provided along both sides of the fiume and near the t
discharge structure to prevent public access.
The discharge structure at the lake shore end of the discharge fiume is shown in Figure 3.4-8.
This structure is designed to minimize erosion by means_of the energy dissipating teeth" located on the ramp surface.
Flow into the lake is smooth (about 1.3-ft/sec) and will cause no disturbances to boating l
in the vicinity of the discharge area.
3.4.4 Supplemental Cooling System j
Waste heat is transferred primarily to the atmosphere through l
the 4895-acre (3880 acres, effective) cooling lake (Lake l
Clinton), which will be augmented by a supplemental cooling system within the discharge fiume.
The supplemental system will be operated when the temberature of the water discharge from the condenser exceeds 96 F.
It is designed to main-tain the temperature of the water at the discharge structure at 960 F' or less during normal sumner operation.
To achieve this, system modules (see Figure 3.4-9) will operate as fol-I lows.
In the late spring when the condenser discharge tempera-ture reaches 920 F or on June 1, whichever comes first, the supplemental cooling system will begin operation at approxi-mately 1/15 of the total capacity.
Each day thereafter another l
1/15 of the system will begin operation, until by June 15, at l
the latest, all spray modules will be operating.
In the late 0
l summer when the condenser discharge temperature reaches 92 on the declining side of the time / temperature curve, or on Sept-ember 19, whichever comes last, the supplemental cooling sys-tem will begin to be sequenced off, with approximately 1/15 of the modules being shutdown for the first 6 days.
Each day thereafter another 2/15 or_less of the' modules will be shut off, until by September 30, at the earliest, the complete system will
.be turned off.
The applicant is currently updating the thermal modeling of the lake.
Subsection 3.4.5 presents a brief description of the LARM model being used.
It is planned that the modeling j
results along with current biological data will be evaluated to determine if a thermal standard different than that presently in effect might be appropriate for Lake Clinton.
If Illinois l
Power Company feels that an alternate thermal standard would be the appropriate proceedings will be initiated be-acceptable, fore the Region V U.S. EPA and/or the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) as allowed under the Clean Water Act.
1 3.4-3 l
\\
L
SUPPLEMENT 1 CPS-ER(OLS)
JUNE 1981 3.4.5 The Cooling Lake and Water Temperatures The water from the discharge flume will be discharged into Lake Clinton for cooling.
The physical features of Lake Clinton are described in Subsection 1.4.1.4.
Meteorological data for 1955, 1962, and 1964 were used with the LAKET computer program.
Based on the analysis of 23 years of meteorological data, 1962 was selected as a typical year, 1955 as a 1-in-50-year drought year, and 1964 as 1-in-10-year hot summer.
The predicted lake temperatures during these years are shown in Tables 5-4 through 5-8 and in Figures 5-8 through 5-12 from the Clinton Power Station Section 316 (a) application.
These figures and tables are included in Appendix 5.1A of this report.
The predicted values were calculated using the loading schedule discussed in Subsection 3.4.1.
The temperatures listed in these figures and tables are based on a naximum canal. discharge temperature constrained to 96 F and do not include the effects of the supplemental cooling system.
For comparison, Figures 3.4-10 and 3.4-11 show the temperature / time transients expected for two-unit operation during a typical year (1962) and a 1-in-10-year hot summer (1964) including the effects of the supplemental cooling system.
These figures demonstrate that a discharge temperature of 96* F will occasionally occur for short durations during the 1-in-10-year hot summer.
The maxinun temperature during the summer of an average year (such as 1962) will be approximately 92 F, with the temocrature for the most part being llk less than 90* F.
~111nois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) Rules and Regulations (Chapter 3:
Water Pollution, Part II:
Water Quality Standards)
Rule - 203 (i) specifies that water temperatures must not exceed 90 F
from April through November and 60* F during the remainder of the year.
However, Rule 203 (1) (11) exempts the Clinton cooling lake from the general provisions of the rule and sets a limit of 96 F, with the provision that the supplemental cooling system operate in the manner described in Subsection 3.4.4.
Available data from the Section 316(a) application for adverse conditions (see Tables 5-7 and 5-3 and Figure 5-12 provided in Appendix 5.lA) indicate that water temperatures at the discharge of the spillway will comply with the ruling set forth by the IPCB.
The operation of Clinton Power Station will also be in compliance with the U.S. EPA thermal discharae effluent limitations specified in 40 CFR 423.13 (1) (2).
The applicant is presently having the hydrodynamic and temperature dictribution of Lake Clinton remodeled using the Laterally Averaged Reservoir Model (LARM).
LARM has features that renresent the longitudinal and vertical equations of fluid motion, continuity and heat transport and incorporates a coupling of buoyancy between the temperature distribution and the equations of rotion as well as surface wind forces.
LARM has been develooed for the analysis and prediction of two dimensional (longitudina'l and vertical) lll hydrodynamics and temperature structure 3.4-4 u
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT ;
JUNE 1981 CHAPTER 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION k-LIST OF FIGURES NUMBER 5.1-0A Thermal Demonstration Figure-6-3 5.1-0B-
-Thermal Demonstration Figure 6-8 5.1-0C Thermal Demonstration Figure 6-2 5.1-1 Areas Studied for Steam Fog Impact 5.2-1 Possible Radiation Exposure Pathways for Local' Flora and Local and Migratory Fauna 5.2-2 Possible Radiation Exposure' Pathways to Persons 5.5-1 Swamp Buttercup Cover on a Right-of-Way 5.5-2 Love Grass and Fragrant Sumac Cover on a Right-of-Way 5.5 Mixed Vegetative Cover on a Right-of-Way 5.5-4 Shrub Species Mixed Cover on a Right-of-Way 5.5-5 Shrub Cover 15.5. Shrub Cover G)-
(
i l
~
l 8%
l l
l l
5-v l
CPS-ER(OLS)
CHAPTER 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION s.
p/
x-5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 5.1.1 Effluent Limitations and Water Quality Standards Federal and state of Illinois thermal standards applicable to effluent from Clinton Power Station - Units 1 and 2 into Lake Clinton are discussed in this subsection.
The thermal limitation currently applicable to the condenser cooling water discharge from Units 1 and 2 into Lake Clinton is contained in Chapter 3, Section 203(i) (11) of the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) Rules and Regulations.
This limitation has been imposed by three different regulatory bodies.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC) im-posed the limit in the construction permit based on certifica-tion from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
This certification, in turn, was based on the initial variance grant from IPCB for Lake Clinton and subse-quent rule-changes specifically for Lake Clinton.
The U.S.
EPA also imposed the.same requirements through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit process and a Section 316(a) " alternate" thermal standard that was granted for Lake Clinton and incorporated into the permit.
.u im)-
Chapter 3, Section 203(i) (11) of the IPCS Rules and Regulations as it - > plies to Lake Clinton is as follows:
(aa)
Lake Clinton l
The thermal dincharge to Lake Clinton shall meet the following standards and conditions:
l 1.
The effluent temperature shall not axceed 96 F.
1 l
2.
All conditions adopted by Board Order in PCB 75-31 (July 31,1975).
Due to the site distance from the state border, it is not anti-l cipated that the effluent will, in any way, affect other states.
1 5.1.2 Physical Effects of Operation of Heat Dissipation System l
Surface temperatures at different times and locations on 4895-acre Lake Clinton were analyzed by a one-dimensional mathe-matical lake transient model called LAKET (see Appendix 6A of l
the Construction Permit Stage - Environmental Report [ CPS-ERJ).
The model performs a mass and energy balance on the lake by representing the lake as a long rectangular channel with the length being.the actual distance from flume discharge to plant
--])
intake, the width being the average width of the lake, and the
(
l depth being the average depth of the lake.
The lake effective 5.1-1
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1781 CPS-ER(OLS) area is defined as the total area of the lake minus two-thirds of the lake finger area, or 3880 acres at a lake level of 690 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
The effective volume at 690 feet MSL llI is 66,300 acre-feet, resulting in an average effective depth of 17.09 feet.
Data for the model were taken from meteorological records for the area and loading schedules for the station.
Peoria, Illinois, meteorological records from 1962 were used as a typical year, with 1955 chosen as the worst conditions (1-in-50-year drought) and l
1964 chosen as a 1-in-10-year hot summer.
The data set used was recorded at the surface station at the Peoria airport, which is located on a flat tableland, set back a mile from the rim of the Illinois River valley and about 200 feet above the river, and the instruments are well exposed.
This separation of the station from the river and its valley suggested that there would not be a significant effect of the river on the Peoria airport weather records.
The following loading schedule was used:
92% load in June, July, and August; 80% load in January, September, and December; and 70% load in February, March, April, May, October, and November.
Lake surface temperatures that would occur under varying meteoro-logical and hydrological conditions are shown in Appendix 5.1A.
The IPCB rule 203(i) soecifies that water temperatures must not exceed 90* F from April through November and 60 F durino the rest of the year.
However, rule 203(i) (11) exempts Lake Clinton from the general provisions of rule 203 (i) and sets a yearly limit of 96 F, with provisions for a supplemental cooling system.
lll Illinois Power Company is committed to install 112 spray modules with Unit 1 and 120 spray modules with Unit 2, along the 3.4-mile-long effluent discharge canal.
When the discharge temperature reaches 92 F or on June 1, whichever occurs first, approximately 1/15 of the spray system capacity will be switched on, with approximately 1/15 of the system capacity switched on every day thereafter.
When the discharge temperature is lower than 92 F,
or on September 19, whichever occurs last, approximately 1/15 of the spray system capacity will be shut down on each of the first 6 days.
Each day thereafter, approximately 2/15 or less of the capacity will be shut off, until on September 30 at the earliest, the complete system will be off.
Using this spray system, it is astimated that the discharge temperature will peak at 96
? during a 1-in-10-year hot summer and at 92 F during an average year.
Natural warming of waters in the spring and summer and the addition of the heated circulating water from the Clinton Power Sea. tion will cause thermal stratification in Lake Clinton.
Durina the preoperational period, Lake Clinton has been etratified from June to September with the thermocline at about 8 to 10 meters deen at the main dam (Location 8).
During station operation, thermal loading will O
5.1-2
1 CPS-ER(OLS) g-(
. tend to cause stratification earlier in the year and extend stratifi-
's )
cation later into the fall.
It will also extend the thermocline below its normal' depth.
Colder autumn and winter temperatures will cause a' breakdown in the thermal stratification.
Stratification was not taken into account in the LAKET model, but the layer of hot water on top will increase heat dispersion to the air and, hence, decrease the overall lake temperature estimated in the model.
I O
1 i-l 4
I 5.1-2a
SUPPLEMENT 1 CPS-ER(OLS)
JUNE 1981 Estimates of the discharge plume characteristics for the worst lll thermal' conditions in a typical year were assessed using the
" Workbook of Thermal Plume Prediction," by M.
A.
Shirizi and L.
R. Davis (1972), and the following input parnmeters:
96 F discharge temperaute; 84 F maximum ambient lake temperature; 2000 feet from discharge structure to opposite shoreline; and 20-foot maximum lake depth at discharge.
The thermal plume is expected to extend comoletely across the 2000-foot Salt Creek area, with a maximum temperature of 93.6 F on the shore opposite the discharge plume.
Since the thermal plume generally will float over the cooler lake water and since southwesterly winds predominate in July and August at the Clinton site, the plume could possibly be blown upstream to a portion of Salt Creek not normally part of the cooling loop.
With an assumed average wind velocity of 10 mph, a shallow 0.2 mph current is expected.
However, a countercurrent will occur due to the circulating water pattern and the natural flow in Salt Creek.
The temperature of the shallow layer will be reduced to ambient in a short time as the shallow layer mixes with cooler upstream water and evaporation and heat dissipation to the atmosohere take effect.
The temperature profiles given in Figures 5.1-0A, 5.1-0B, and 5.1-0C of the Clinton Power Station Thermal Demonstration to the Illinois Pollution Control Board, July 1980, indicate that thermal plume intrusion into the region upstream on Salt Creek, are minimal.
For further details see the response to Question 240.8 in Supple-3 ment 1.
W 5.1.3 Biological Effects Projec ad impacts on aquatic Fiota due to thermal discharges from Clinton Power Station (CPS) into Lake Clinton are discussed in Section 5.1 of the CPS-FR; in the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's Final Environmental Statement (FES); in the Anplication for Thermal Effluent Limitations Pursuant to Federal Water Pollution Control A_c t, PL-92-500, Section 316 (a), Type 2 Demonstration; and in the Illinois Pollution Control Board's Opinion and Order PCB 75-31.
See also Section 2.2 of this report for the base]ine ecological data summary.
Projected impacts on aquatic biota due to operation of the intake and discharge structures, including condenser passage, are discussed in Section 5.1 of the CPS-ER, the FES, and the 316 (a) demonstration.
See also Section 3.4 of this report.
l The conclusions presented in the earlier documents concerning thermal discharges and operation of intake and discharge structures at CPS are unchanged.
5.1.4 Effects of Heat Dissipation Facilities Operation of the station will influence the local micrometeorology as llh a result of discharging warm water into Lake Clinton.
The principal 5.1-3
9 CPS-ER (OLS)
-meteorological effect of this will be to produce a steam fog over the lake when cold air (41' F or less)-moves over.the significantly warmer.(%59' F or higher) _ lake water.
The rate of condensation of the_. evaporated water vapor-(and thus the formation of steam #og) will-be greatest-at the lower ambient air temperature durit.x ainter.
With heavy steam fog I
1
-9.
5.1-3a
CPS-ER(OLS) and relatively light wind speeds (approximately 2 meters per second - 5 mph - or less), noticeable drift of the steam fog off the lake surface is possible.
The characteristics of such steam fog will vary with_the water temperature, the dis-tance traveled over the water, and the low-level ambient air temperature, relative humidity, vertical stability, horizontal wind direction fluctuation, and the transporting wind speed.
An analytical model was used that acocunts for the processes of evaporation, condensation, and diffusion downwind and includes the variables listed previously as input conditions.
A description of the model is provided in Subsection 6.1.3.2.
Icing caused by condensed water vapor from the lake will have an effect primarily on vertical surfaces adjacent to the lake shores.
Horizontal surfaces will accumulate much less rime.
Observations of icing conditione from the Dresden Nuclear Power Station in Illinois indicate that icing on horizontal surfaces is not a significant problem beyond the first 200 feet from the edge of the lake.
The increases in water temperature in portions of Lake Clinton due to station operation were determined by use of the LAKET (Transient-Lake Temperature Prediction) computer model.
The variations of temperatures with time and natural and forced evaporation were also predicted by LAKET.
This program sim-ulated the effects of varying weather conditions and station heated-water discharge on the surface temperature and evapora-lll tion rates of a lake or river.
The time-varying temperature distribution along the water body's central axis is computed against time, along with the natural and forced evaporation.
In the case of lakes, the variation in the lake level is also computed.
Inputs to the computer program include data on the lake, the station, and the weather.
Lake data include total surface area, salt content, seepage rate, initial temperature, and the length and width of the segments used in the analysis.
Station data include temperature rises, flow rs.tes, latitude, longitude, and altitude.
Weather data include dates, wind speed, dry bulb temperatures, relative humidity, dew point, barometric pressure, air vapor pressure, cloud cover, and precipitation.
Output from the program provides time-varying temperature along the water body, natural and forced evaporation, and plots of temperature vs. time at nine locations.
The computational approach consists of modeling the body of water into an idealized system of prismatic volumes, each having geometric and physical characteristics (i.e., width, depth, area, and flow) unique to its location and time.
Using input weather data, the natural water temperature is determined, O
m 5.1-4
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
O w
w Ew8 8
8 g
E E e
P w
E 8
w 8 - *a 3
8 a
a i mW 1
d w
m 8 e5 N
g M
G E
6 K Gs
~-
~
SEGMENT 5 ' l 1 l 213 l 4 l 5 l 617 l 819110111112l13 li4115116117118l191201211221231241 690 9
30 31 2
0 2*
\\
/
//,
680 -
z 670 -
\\
24e lake bottom 660 -
I 650 -
Discharge Flume Temperature = 37.4*C (99.3*F)
SEGMENTS l 1 l 21314 I 516 I 7 l 8 I 9110111:121131141151161171181191201211221231241
~
~ '-
(
35'
/ /
3
- 29 33 32 31 %
[
680 -
v
^ 28 670 -
26 -
s I
g 22% T 1 6' 20-un n i 100; t w o 660 -
=
~
i N
I 650 -
Discharge Flume Temperature = 38.2*C (100.8'F)
Figure 6-3.
Longitudinal and Vertical Temperatures ('C) of Clinton iske on July 23 (Julian Day 204) 1978 Under Unit 13peration at 92 and 100 Percent Load.
t CLINTON POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 E NV IRO NM E NTAL RE PORT =O PE RATING LICE NSE STAGE FIGURE 5.1-0A THERMAL DEMONSTRATION FIGURE 6-3
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
,m g
'w w
w 8
8 8
E" E E E
e m
=
=
=
8 8 3 W
a m
o i wW 1
d
=
w m
W 5
s gs 5
g M
B
=
5 a
a e
s
~ SEGMENTS I 1 l 21314 l 5 l 617 l 819110111112113114115 l 161171181191201211221231241 690
\\
\\
l
'3s'
/ //
a 30 E
680 -
31 2
33 32 31 30 670 -
28 -
660 -
24 650 -
15 7
UNITS 1 and 2 Discharge Flume Temperature = 35.6*C (96'F)
O l
Figure 6-8.
Longitudinal and Vertical Temperatures (*C)of Clinton Lake on July 23 (Julian Day 204). 197 Under Units 1 and 2 Operation at 92 Percent Load and Discharge Temperature Constrained to Less Than or Equal to 35.6'C (96'F).
l l
I f
CLINTON POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 l
E NVIRONME NTAL RE PORT = OPERATING LICE NSE STAGE I
C FIGURE 5.1-08 THERMAL DEMONSTRATION FIGURE 6-8
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 ON.]
5 E
=
=
=
m
=
hI E
5 03 y
W g
u E SE E
=o.
m o
-o m-B SEGMENTS l 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 l 5 l 617 I 819110111112113114115 l 16117 ll8119120l 211221231241
' 690 -
-28#
26
\\
hI g'
I 29 -
.d
)
27 27 28 1x 680 -
\\w
.f 24 670 -
T i
]
(#
- 22 r
o I
\\ - 20 660 -
15 AH81ENT w
650 -
1
\\-
e ZER0TH PERCENTILE 23.30 24.90 22.00 25.60 24.90 26.00 FIFTH PERCENTILE 23.48 25.02 22.00 25.60 24.96 26.06 (U)
TENTH PERCENTILE 23.70 25.12 22.08 26.32 25.10 26.58 TWENTIETH PERCENTILE 24.10 25.34 22.70 26.54 25.10 26.94 THIRTIETH PERCENTILE 24.30 25.56 22.90 26.86 25.20 27.16 FORTIETH PERCENTILE 24.40 25.95 23.30 27.00 25.46 27.36 MEDIAN 24.50 26.10 23.40 27.20 25.60 27.40 SIXTIETH PERCENTILE 25.00 26.42 23.52 27.40 25.94 27.64 SEVENTIETH PERCENTILE 25.24 26.60 23.80 27.44 26.84 27.90 EIGHTIETH PERCENTILE 25.86 26.76 24.02 27.60 26.96 28.20 NINETIETH PERCENTILE 26.28 27.00 24.20 27.98 27.40 28.50 NINETY-FIFTH PERCENTILE 27.00 27.14 24.36 28.34 27.78 28.64 HUNDREDTH PERCENTILE 27.30 27.20 24.60 28.40 28.20 28.70 MEAN 24.87 26.10 23.34 27.12 25.98 27.51 STANDARD DEVIATION 0.98 0.68 0.70 0.67 0.94 0.69 Figure 6-2.
Graphic Presentation of Longitudinal and Vertical Ambient Temperatures (*C) of Clinton Lake on July 23 (Julian Day 204),1978 and Tabulated Summary Statistics for July 197E.
i i
CLINTON POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 E NV IRONM E NTAL RE PORT-O PE R AT ING LICE NSE STAGE Il FIGURE 5.1-0C U
THERMAL DEMONSTRATION FIGURE 6-2
r's CL APPENDIX 5.lA - PREDICTED LAKE CLINTON TEMPERATURES Lake surface temperatures that would occur under varying meteorological and hydrological conditions are shown in the following:
Tables (5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10) and Figures (5-6, 5-7, 5-8,.5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12) taken from the Illinois Power Company (IP) 316(a) application to the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
These are as close as we can come, at present, to ths specified three-dimensional isotherms, since LAKET provided only a-two-demensional graph.
However, IP is in process of developing a new model which will bitter protray these conditions.
Q l
()'
1 5.1A-1
W CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 i
JUNE 1981 TABLE 5-4 PREDICTED CLINTON LAKE TEMPERATURES AT INDICATED ACRES (1962) 9 DATE/ LOAD TEMPERATURE AT START OF INDICATED DAY
F FACTOR ACRES 0
37_
768 1500 2231 2962 3694 3880 Jan. 1 61 61 55 51 48 45 42 42 80% 10 59 59 53 49 45 43 40 40 19 56 56 51 46 42 40 37 37 28 55 55 50 45 42 39 36 36 Feb. 1 53 54 50 46 42 40 37 36 70% 10 54 54 49 46 43 40 33 37 19 56 56 50 46 43 42 40 39 28 55 55 50 46 43 41 38 38 Mar..1 55 54 50 46 43 40 38 38 70% 10 55 55 50 46 44 41 39 38 19 57 57 52 48 45 43 41 40 28 62 61 57 53 50 47 45 45 Apr.
1 64 64 58 55 52 49 47 47 70% 10 67 67 61 58 55 52 50 50 19 69 69 63 59 56 54 52 52 28 76 75 70 66 63 61 59 59 May 1
78 78 72 68 66 63 61 61 70% 10 81 81 74 71 68~
66 64 64 W
19 88 87 81 77 74 72 71 71 "a
90 90 82 78 76 74 73 73 June 1 93 92 84 79 77 75 74 74 92%
Supplemental Cooling Effective June 10 to September 10 -
See Table 5-5 Sept. 10 96 96 88 84 81 78 77 77 80%
19 95 94 87 82 79 77 76 76 28 91 91 84 SO 76
'4 72 72 Oct.
1 88 88 84 79 76 73 71 71 70% 10 86 86 30 77 74 71 70 69 l.
19 87 87 80 76 74 72 70 70 28 80 80 74 70 70 65 63 63 Nov.
1 78 78 72 68 65 63
'61 61 70% 10 74 73 68 64 61 59 57 57 19 71 71 65 62 58 56 55 54 28 68 67 62 58 55 53 51 51 Dec.
1 70 69 63 58 55 53 51 51 l
80% 10 66 66 59 54 51 49 47 46 19 62 62 57 52 48
'5 43 43 3
28 59 59 54 50 46 41 40 W
1 i
Note: Two Units operating at indicated load factors 5.1A-2
cps-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 5-7 O
PREDICTED CLINTON LAKE TEMPERATURES AT INDICATED ACRES (1955)
DATE/ LOAD TEMPERATURE AT START OF INDICATED DAY
F FACTOR ACRES 0
37 768 1500 2231 2962 3694 3880 Jan. 1 60 60 53 49 46 43 41 41 80% 10 62 62 56 52 48 45 43 43 19
' 59 59 53 48 46 43
. 41 40 28 57 56 50 45 42 40 38 37
~ Feb. 1 53 53 50 45 41 38' 39 36 70% 10 54 54 49 46 43 40 38 37 19 54 54 49 4 's 41 40 38 37 28 57 57 53 49 46 43 41 40 Mar. 1 58 58 53 49 46 43 41 41 70% 10 61 61 55 52 49 47 45 45 19 65
-65 59 55 52 50 49 48 28 62 62 56 52 49 47 46 45 Apr. 1 64 64 60 55 52 50 48 49 70% 10 70 70 64 60 58 55 53 53 19 76 76 70 66 64 62 60 60
()
28 80 80 73 69 66 65 63 63 My 1
-81 81 75 71 68 66 65 64 a
70% 10 83 83 77 73 70 68 67 66 19 85 85 79 75 72 70 69 68 28 89 89 81 78 75 74 72 72 Supplemental r oling Ef fective June 1 to September 14 -
i
~
See Table 5-6 Sept. 14 95 95 87 83 80 78 76 76 l
80%
19 95 95 87 82 80 78 76 76 l
23 95 95 88 83 80 78 76 76 l
28 93 92 85 80 77 75 74 73 Oct.
1 90 90 85 80 77 75 73 73 70%
10 87 87 80 78 74 72 71 70 19 82 82 76 71 68 67 66 65 28 78 78 71 68 65 63 62 61 Nov.
1 75 75 68 64 62 60 SC 58 70%
10 70 69 63 59 56 54 53 53 19 67 67 61 58 55 52 51 50 28 64 65 59 55 52 50 48 48 Dec.
1 64 63 55 52 49 47 45 45 80%
10 61 61 56 50 47 44 42 42 g"5
(_/
19 59 58 53 49 46 42 40 39 28 60 60 54 50 46 44 41 41 Note: Two units operating at indicated load factors 5.lA 5
r TABLE 5-8 l
PREDICTED CLINTON LAKE TEMPERATURES W4TH j
SUPPLEMENTAL COOLING - SUMMER 1955 i
TEMPERATURE AT START OF INDICATED DAY
F DATE ACRES 0
415 780 1150 1520 1890
~2250 2640 2980 3340 3480 June 7
96 89 85 82 81 80 79 77 76 75 10 96 89 85 82 80 78 77 77 76 75 13 96 87 84 81 78 77 75 74 74 73 73 16 96 89 85 93 80 78 76 75 74 73 73 19 96 92 89 86 83 82 79 78 78 78 78 22 96 92 91 88 86 84 82 82 82 82 82 25 96 92 89 88 87 85 84.
82 81 81 81 o
28 96 92 90 88 87 86 84 83 82 82 82-vi'.
s l
ACRES 0
420 800 1178 1555 1935 2315 2690 3070 3450 357'8 l
July 4
96 93 90 88 87 86 85 85 84 83 83 1
7 96 93 92 89 87 87 85 85 84 84 83 10 96 93 91 90 88 87 86 85 85 84 84 13 96 93 91 90 89 88 86 86 85 84 84 16 96 93 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 85 85 19 96 93 91 90 89 88 87 86 86 85 85 22 96 95 93 91 90 09 88 87 87 86 86 25 96 93 93 92 90 89 88 87 87 86 86 28 96 94 93 92 91 90 89 89 88 87 87 31 96 95 94 93 92 91 91 90 89 89 88 i
~
(Sheet 1 of 2)
I 1
O)
O)
O>
-CPS-ER(OLS) 6.
-Radionuclides released to the lake may be adsorbed on or-n-
(sh absorbed by suspended particles:and bottom sediment.
The suspended matter will-settle to-the bottom of the lake, with the point of settling and the time of. settling depending on
'the size'of-the~ particles'and the-currents in the lake.
As a rssult, radionuclides may accumulate in. lake sediments in the vicinity of,the Clinton Power Station discharge for the life of-'tha station. ; Benthic organisms that' live on or in this sediment could be exposed to the emitted radiation.-
In addition, sh6 reline exposure of terrestrial organisms may result from gamma radiation from sedimentary deposits that umulate_ near the bank and have only a shallow covering of ma w.ter, b
5.2.1.2 Exposure Pathways for Man
' The various fossible radiation exposure. pathways for man are -
(shown.in Figure 5.2-2.
~5.2.1.2;l. Terrestrial Pathways
" Radioactive effluents could be distributed in the terrestrial environment as discussed in Subsection 5.2.1.1.1.
The import-sant t'errestrial pathways for radiation exposure to man are the same as for terrestrial organisms and are listed below:
()
immersion -in a cloud of gaseous effluents; a.
b.
inhalation'of gaseous and particulate effluents; direct radiation exposure-from radionuclide deposi-i -
c.
tion on vegetation, soil, and exposed surfaces; d.
ingestion c' contaminated water and food chain components; and direct radiation exposure from the facility.
e.
The gaseous effluent' concentrations were calculated for each f
!~
22.5o sector within 50 miles of the Clinton Power Station -
based on 5 years of meteorological data gathered at the site.
~
Resultant skin, thyroid, inhalation, and whole-body l dose rates l'
were calculated for the predicted population in each -section
~
for the year 2020 and for-the hypothetical individual exposed continuously to the. gaseous effluents at that section of the site boundary where the maximum effluent concentration is found. 'The resultant calculated exposure rates are conserva-tive estimates since occupancy factors and the shielding afford-ed by terrain and structures, such'as houses, were ignored.
Some of the most important gaseous effluents include radioactive noble gases and halogens released during normal operation of the h
5.2-3 i
t
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 power station.
These effluents could become attached to particles in the air and deposit on vege:ation, on the ground, lll or on a body of water.
These radioactive materials could then be assimilated by land plants or animals, resulting in radia-tion exposure to man if the biota is in man's food chain.
Be-cause a milk cow concentrates iodine in its milk and the human thyroid also concentrates it, the air-grass-cow-milk pathway can be used to evaluate the thyroid dose to man that results
'from the deposition of halogens.
Direct radiation exposure from the facility is of little conse-quence beyond the site boundary.
5.2.1.2.2 Aquatic Pathways The aquatic pathways of radiation exposure for man will be essentially the same as those described for biota other than man in Subsection 5.2.1.1.2.
The important exposure pathways for man are the following:
a.
internal exposure from ingestion of water or contaminated food chain components; b.
external exposure from the surface of contaminated water or from shoreline sediment; and external exposure from immersion in contaminated c.
gg water.
Water from Lake Clinton will be utilized for station potable water, but it will not be utilized in any way for public consumption.
There are no municipal or industrial water intakes on Salt Creek or the Sangamon River within 50 miles downstream from the Clinton Power Station (Englehardt 1981; Falkerson 1981; Hardy 1981; TeRonde 1981).
Kenny, Illinois, is the nearest town downstream from the Clinton Power Station.
It is located approximately 13.5 miles downstream but does not derive its municipal water from Salt Creek.
Commercial fishina is allowed on the Sangamon River but not on Salt Creek.
Sport fishing is the major recreational use of Salt Creek and its tributaries.
Therefore, the only possible pathway for radiation exposure of the public through the aquatic food chain is the con-sumption of fish caught by sport fishermen in Lake Clinton or Salt Creek or by commercial fishermen in the Sangamon River.
Statistics on the number of fish caught by sport fishermen are not available.
The reported commercial fish harvest from the Sangamon River in 1979, the most recent available year, was as follows (Fritz 1981) :
Buffalo 1,330; Catfish 850; Carp 820; and Drum 100.
External dose rates were estimated for individuals boating or llI swimming in Lake Clinton at the discharge point.
The exposure 5.2-4
CPS-ER(OLS) rate front contaminated shoreline sediments was also calculated.
A drinking-water dose was~ estimated, although consumption of water
' f}
near the discharge is not anticipated.
Evaluation of each path-way was' based on maximized conditions; no credit was taken for dilution of the effluents.by mixing in the lake.
All interactions were. assumed to occur.with the radionuclide concentrations that will occur at the' point of discharge.
- s i
l l
N 5.2-4a I
.-,_p,.
..-,,%_,,.__..,..wm.y..
--m.m,.
,.,.,.,.,--,,,.-e-,_y.m.,-m,_r.,
..-,-.-9._.y._,-,,.9,
.y,,
~ CPS-ER(OLS)-
which-the drop size dis'tribution isidifferent than'for cold' fogs. -Therefore,ethe data for' natural fog are used when the
(_,J
. ambient air temperature is'360F or higher.. For cold fogs, a mean - drop. size radius of '10 Jun was used with a factor of k =
1.2 in Equation 6.1-4.(Hippler 1972).
This produces-a curve
.that!is used when.the air. temperature is^28 of less, and is in good' agreement with the resultslof a U.S.LArmy study on f
arctic 1 ogs (KumaL1972).
A log-log _ plot of Equation ~6.1-4 is presented in Figure 6.1-6 for.the warm fog and' cold fog cases.
. An interpolation is used between the two curves for transition temperatures between 28 and 36 F.
Occurrences of -overpredicting downwind concentrations laf ~ water
. vapor were investigated as~part-of the model development.
The problem.was related to the evaporative processes on a parcel of' air as it travels across the lake.
That is, the term (q, q,)_from Equation 6.1-2-decreases with travel time because of o
tHe following dynamic effects:
The specific humidity of_the' air, q2, is initially a a.
. function of the dew point and is normally less than the saturation. specific humidity.
As the air re-
~
ceives water vapor from the pond, saturation is reached, increasing the value of q2'
~
b.
As further moisture is received by the air after it has reached saturation, the' water vapor condenses h
into liquid water,. releasing the latent heat of
~
i I V. -
condensation of the water vapor and further increas-ing q2' c.
As fog is - formed, heat radiated from the pond is re-flected and absorbed by the water droplets, further increasing the air temperature and, hence, q2'
.d.
Convection.of heat from the pond surface to the atmos-l
-phere still further increases q2-As the value of q2 increases by the previous methods, the term (qt - q9) decreases, and hence, the evaporation into a parcel I
of air Secreases as the parcel travels across the lake.
The l
first two mechanisum are quantifiable and were used to deter-min'e the weighting factor for adjusting the evaporation rate with' travel time.
Radiation and convective effects were not computed and thus were empirically accounted for in the cali-l bration of the model.
6.1.3.2.3.2 Model-Use Predicted water temperatures for six aress of the lake evaluated to date are reduced to representative (monthly) values.
The
~
lake is ~ divided into adjoining rectangular blocks that present an edge perpendicular to the wind' direction to be evaluated.
6.1-19 l
l_--__,....._._.,._.-.._.._.__,_..-.________._..~...____..._-__...____.___
1 CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Each of these blocks is used as a source area to compute the evaporation-condensation-diffusion process over the lake and surrounding areas of interest.
To evaluate the potential for steam fog and subsequent drift off the lake, an ambient air temperature, relative humidity, wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability are used as input to the model for a given lake source area and water temperature.
The model output is water vapor concentration at orthogonal gridpoints that cover the area of interest.
A grid mesh of 500 meters was normally used, but frecuently the size was varied to determine the location of critical values of water vapor concentration.
Five to ten years of surface meteorological data from the Peoria, Illinois, National Weather Service surface station were used as input to the analytical fog model.
The period of record used was within the period of record used for the Lake Clinton temperature aralyses (1949-1971).
After seven areas of interest were identified in the immadiate vicinity of Lake Clinton, the Peoria meteorological data was screened for conditions that would significantly reduce visibility at the seven locations.
Parameters considered in the screening process included wind direction, wind speed, stability category, and temperature-dew point difference.
The foa analysis was then conducted under the conditions that would affect the areas of (l) interest.
6.1.4 Land 6.1.4.1 Geology and Soils The basic geologic and scil data for the site obtained from the field data and laboratory testing were described in the CPS-ER and the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.
Additional information obtained since that time is presented in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
6.1.4.2 Land Use and Demographic Surveys The methodology employed in the land use and demographic surveys were described in the CPS-ER.
These methods were also employed to update the data; the results are discussed in Section 2.1 of this report.
6.1.4.3 Ecological Parameters The CPS-ER discussion of the terrestrial ecological monitoring program described the baseline study that had been conducted during 1972.
This section provides a summary description of the program conducted beginning in May 1974.
The schedule for this program was in accordance with the frequencies listed in Table 6.1-4A of the CPS-ER and as described in the FES.
This orogram is related to the three phases of site development described at the begiining of Section 6.1.
6.1-20
CPS-ER (OLS)
_( )
This program was designed to monitor the wildlife and vegetation communities in.the site area.
The program provides data on
' naturally occurring year-to-year variations within these co;mmunities during the preconstruction, construction, and lake filling and development phases.
All work watt performed.by NALCO Environmental Sciences of_Northbrook, Illinois (formerly Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories).
6.1.4.3.1 Flora
-The five plant communities sampled during baseline study were sampled in May of each year -(see Figures 6.1-3 and 6.1-4).
O I
l l
O
(
6.1-20a I.
- - - > - - ~
CPS-ER(OLS)
Theso communities included the Abandoned-Pasture (Site 1),
/'t Upland White' Oak Woods (Site 2), Mesic Woods (Site 3),
(J Floodplain Woods (Site 4), and Xeric Woods (Site 5).
The plant communities.were sampled quantitatively once to deter-minii the frequency of occurrence, density, and dominance of
' individual species.
The entire vegetational structure in-cluding trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses was sampled.
Impor-tance value was computed according to.Curtis and McIntosh (1951) for individual tree species.
Sampling methods included the quadrant, gaster, and transect methods (Curtis and Cottam 1962).
Sampling points have been distributed systematically (Oosting 1965).
The degree of sampling intensity (i.e., number cf sampling points in each -
l l
community)~is adequate to assess each community.
Nomencla-ture follows Gleason (1968).
6.1.4.3.2 -Fauna 6.1.4.3.2.1 Birds Surveys were conducted during May, July, November, and February to determine species' composition and relative abundance of resi-dent and migratory game and nongame birds.
Birds were censused.along a 20-mile. wildlife survey route on two~ consecutive days each quarter.
(see Figures 6.1-3 and es()~
6.1-4)
Surveys were initiated each day during the hour follow-ing official sunrise.
Observations of birds were reported s_
i during a 3-minute period at each of 20 stops and between stops along the route.
Species composition and relative abundance of birds were re-corded in the five-plant communities.
Sight counts and audit-ory censuses were used along qu,arter-mile transect routes that l.
followed the small mammal trapping lines.
Nomenclature follows the American Ornithologists Union (1957,1973,1976).
l
'6.1.4.3.2.2 Mammals l
Surveys of small and medium-sized mammal populations were con-ducted during May and November of each year in the Abandoned Pasture (Site 1), Floodplain Woods (Site 4), and Xeric Woods (Site 5) (see Figures 6.1-3 and 6.1-4).
A series of traplines using live-and snap-traps were set to census the resident small and medium-sized mammal populations.
Cottontail rabbits were censused by standard roadside counts.
Time-area counts were used to census squirrels during February in the wooded habitats.
Nomenclature follows Jones et al. (1975).
In addition to the described surveys, records were kept of all observations of mannals and/or their sign (tracks or scats)
/')N.
during each field trip.
In general, all the described census q
s-6.1-21
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 techniques are standard techniques to determine the abundance and distribution of wildlife species (Giles 1971).
Table 6.1-7 llI provides a summary schedule for the terrestrial ecological monitoring.
6.1.5 Radiological Monitoring The preoperational radiological environmental monitoring program for the Clinton Power Station will consist of activities to monitor airborne, direct radiation, waterborne, and ingestion pathways.
The Radiological Environmental Program has been patterned after l
the Branch Technical Position of the U.S. NRC, "An Acceptsble Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program." dated March, 1978.
Some of the important items of the Branch Technical Position that are included in the program are the following:
l a.
During preoperational and operational monitoring annual reports will be prepared and sent to the U.S. NRC.
Deviations from the sampling schedule l
shall be documented in the annual report.
b.
The laboratory performing the analysis shall partici-pate in the U.S. EPA Crosscheck Program.
The results of the crosscheck analysis shall be included in the annual report.
c.
An annual census shall be conducted to determine the gg) location of nearby milk animals and vegetable gardens (greater than 500 sq. ft.).
If the census results in changes in the sample locations during the opera-tional phase, a written report shall be sent to the Director of Operating Reactors, NRR, within 30 days.
Figure 6.1-7 indicates locations where environmental samples will be taken Table 6.1-8 indicates the direction and distance, the type of simple, the frequency start date, and the duration of sampling for all samples.
Table 6.1-9 gives the lower limits of detection for the various analysis techniques.
Radiological sampling Locations 1 and 8 are at the communities of Birkbeck and DeWitt respectively.
Locations 2, 3, 4, and 6 l
are near the exclusion area boundary in sectors that have rela-tively high x/0 values.
Location 7 is the Lake Clinton State Recreational Area (IP land leased to the Illinois Department of Conservation).
Location 9 is near the point where the Clinton Power Station discharge flume empties into Lake Clinton.
Location 10 is upstream of the state Route 48 bridge and will be used as the control location for water samples.
Location 11 is 16 miles l
south of the station and will serve as a control location.
Location 12 is the site of the deep well supplying water for the community of DeWitt.
Location 13 is on Salt Creek downstream of the Lake Clinton dam.
ggg 6.1-22
SUPPLEMENT 1 CPS-ER(OLS)
JUNE 1981
- ()
Location 14 is at the Clinton Power Station makeup water pump house.
Locations 15, 16, and 17 will be determined by the annual l
census of milk animals; their exact locations will be provided in the first annual report.
Location 19 will be in the general lake area of the discharge flume.
Once every 3 years soil samples will be collected at the airborne detector locations, and these samples will undergo gamma isotopic analysis.
6.1.6 Proposed Changes to Existing Preoperational Program Since the lake is full and experience bas been gained in sampling it as it exists now, the applicant feels that some changes should be made in the existing preoparation monitoring program.
These proposed changes and the supporting rationale are pre-ented in this subsection.
The proposed changes consist of additions, deletions, reduction, and other modifications.
Most of the additions proposed have already been implemented.
The implementation of these changes began when IP took over monitoring in early 1978, and these additions were thus in-cluded in-the description of the monitoring program given in Subsection 6.1.1.
6.1.6.1 Water Chemistry 0>
The following changes are proposed:
a.
add - Location 16 for all parameters (see Figure 6.1-2);
b.
add - vertical proff.le at 1 meter intervals at Loca-tions 2, 4, 8, and 16 for dissolved oxygen, tempera-ture, pH, and conductivity; c.
add - all chemical parameters to Locations 6 and 9; d.
reduce - chlorine measurement to Locations 9 and 3 during the preoperational period, add Locations 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 after operation; l
e.
reduce - duplicate sample collection and analysis to only one location each month; and f.
move - temperature station from 5,000 feet upstream to Location 16.
These proposed changes have the following rationale:
Location 16 should be added to provide a control loca-a.
tion for lake water prior to any effluent addition by
~ (~)
the plant.
Location 3 indicates the quality of the s
m water entering the lake, and Location 2 represents the site of the power plant discharge into the lake.
6.1-23
CPS-ER(OLS)
The water chemistry could be altered by physical, g
chemical and biological factors characteristic of the lake environments between Location 3 and Loca-tion 2.
.The State Route 48 bridge because of its long causeways and narrow waterways should some-what isolate Location 16 from direct influence of plant effluents.
This location will provide a con-trol location for the lake water prior to any plant influence.
This location will also serve as an important control site for biological samples.
b.
Vertical profiles at 1-meter intervals at the lake location will provide additional information about the thermostratification pattern of the lake.
Thiu information will be helpful in rare accurately defin-ing the epilimnion, metalimnion, and hypolimnion for the collection of water samples for all chemical parameters.
c.
Locations 6 and 9 will be analyzed for all the same chemical parameters as the other locations.
This uniformity will be helpful in comparing information between locations.
It will also allow measurement of effects of the Farmer City sewage treatment plant discharge, the only potential source of chlorine into the lake aside from Clinton Power Station.
Location a
3 is. downstream of Location 9 and will provide a W
-s check point for any residual chlorine from the sewage treatment plant discharge.
d.
During the operational period, Locations 2, 8, and 4 will likely be added for chlorine.
Location 2 is at the only potential source of chlorine into the lake from the power plant.
The present limitation of only 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months of chlorination per day at 0.2 mg/ liter is so low it probably will not be detectable at Location 2.
Location 8 is a potential source of discharge from the lake and will validate the lack of chlorine.
Location 4 will provide validation that there is no residual chlorine in the cooling loop.
e.
Collection of duplicate samples from different loca-tion each month will provide a 10% duplication on the sample collection.
Replicate analyses are per-formed on approximately 10% of the samples as a quality control on the precision of the analysis.
Spiked samples are also run approximately 10% of the time as a quality control on the accuracy of the analysis.
This quality control program generally follows the recommendations contained in the Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Waste-water Laboratories (U.S. EPA 1979).
The effort ll) required for complete duplication in the collection of water samples is disproportionate to the additional l
6.1-24
.~
(t
.,m.
,,i
. ( (~T
' (\\ )
- n j
TABLE.6.1-7' ENVIRONMENTAL-MONITORING SCHEDULE FOR PRECONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION, AND LAKE' FILLING AND DEVELOPMENT PHASES e ItEd*STRtX71ssN PHAnt.
(Th57ktX,TItm PHA$E 1914 l's7%
1975 19 7e 1917 dE$b5ddb$S5S dE5AOdd$$
$$S d[D$5dEbIkEk dEEb5ddAdb
- TERRFSTWIAL ECOL 4GY r
Veget at &<in X
4 b
s x
x Avi f auha g.
g g
g g
g a.
.E E
R Mailma 1 **
E M
M X
X X
X AQUATIC ECIM.fCV Water Chemistryd
,X E
X X
X 3XE NNMMNIMMM3IX XXXEINIIE 3 Sediment Cheenstry*
1 Aquatic biologyI X
3 Fernphyton 1
E R
R R
E-A E
'I.
Q O
X 3
E R
X
. Benthus X
.E E
E X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X q
Floherges9 E
N N
I E
R X
N R
H E
N 5
I g
H
" 8 I
' A M
W LAKE F1LLING AND DEVE1MNT FMASE 1977 1978 1919 19so
^
EE dl5SSEd&E9IE d[O8Ddd8$95E d[385ddOk95E a
m vegetation a
I-~
X X
X Avif aunab I
E I
I E
R R
MadunaleC E
E X
X X
AQUATIC EcotaCY Water Chemistryh 1 I EI1E1XXX1EEE A R EXXX XXhXX R NXXXXXXXXXEE d
Nuatic Biology Periphytonf I
E E
I E
E X
X a
X X
X X
Benthosf e l X
X X
X X
X E
1 h
E 1
N X
(beginning an 5/78)
Flankton)
X X
X X
X M
X R
E E
X i
(beginning in 5/78),
Fisheries 9ek X
XE R
X X
X s
4 h
A X
i Cam locatione 1-a (see Ftgere 6,1-31.
bg pled at g,1ed at locations 1-5 and along J0-mile survey route (see F&gure 6.1-33.
cSampled at locations 1-5 and along 20-male survey route (see Fagure 4.1-19.
tim 11 masunal tratt aN at locat ions 1, 4, and 5 only.)
d e
Sampled at locations I, 3, 5, and 7 (see Fagure 6.1 1).
Eamsled at location 1 (se=e Figure 6.1-1).
Isampied at locations a and 7 (see Figure 6.1-18.
mesasunas
'5ang1*d at locations I, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 (see Figure 6.1 1).
saww hsampted at location. l-w isee rigure 6.1-n.
15ampled at locat ions I, 2, 4, 7, II, and 10 (see Fagure (.1-2).
11astled at locat &< ann I, J,
l. 4, 4. S. S. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 16 (see Figure 6. 4-J a.
b 5ampled at locat tsw. 8 J.
4, 4.5, S, 7, e, 16 and 17 (see Fnqure b.1-21.
a v.,
n .
CPS-ER(OLS)
S U'P P L E M E N T 1 JUNE 1981 TABLE 6el-8 PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 14 CATION REIATIVE ANALISIS TO STATION-TO St GENERAL COLLECTION SAM 12 DIRECTION / PERFOMMED TYPE OF FREQUENCv/
APPICE.
LOCATION CISTANCE.
ON 1EACM COL 12CT10N ANALY$15
$ TAMING Ct. ATIJN 1
NUMhrt
( f ee t )
. SAMFLE ECCIPMENT PREQUENCY DATE (mor tha t 5 AMP!2 TYPE I
NNM/9,7$0 I-1 31 Air par-7 days /7 days 10/01 1$
Aa rborne Gror,s I ticulate 7 days /7 days 7/81 18 y isotopic Monitor 7 days /92 days 7/01 IS y dose TLD 92 devs 4/80 33 Direct kadaataca 2
NNE/ 3,000 I-131 Air Par-7 days /7 days 10/81 15 Airborne Grosa $
t t culate 7 days /7 days 7/81 16 y isntopic Mncitor 7 days /92 days 7/81 la y dose TLD 92 days 4/90 33 Direct Rada at ton 3
NE/3,000 1-131 Aar Par-7 days /7 days 10/01 15 Airborne Grose 8 ticulate 7 days /7 days 7/81 18 y isotopic Monitor 7 days /92 days 7/81 18 y dose TID 92 days 4/80 33 Direct Aadiation 4
Wsu/3,000 1-131 Air Per-7 days /7 days 10/81 15 Alstorne Gross $
ticulate 7 days /7 days 7/81 le y tactopic Monitor 7 days /92 days 7/81 18 y dose "D
92 days 4/00 33 t,1 rect Radiation 6
EW/1,000 I-131 Air Par-7 days /7 days 10/t1 15 Airborne Gross 8 ticulate 7 days /7 days 7/81 le y isotopic Monitor 7 days /92 days 7/91 18 y dose TLP 92 days 4/90 33 Direct RadAat stA 1
SE/11,7$0 1-1 31 Air Par-7 days /7 days 10/81 15 Airborne Gross 8 ticulate 7 days /7 days 7/81 le y isotopic Monitor 7 days /92 days 7/01 le y ensa TLD 92 days 4/80 31 Direct Radiation v isotq &e Grab 182 days /182 days 4/80 33 shorelane Easpiss Sediamat y isotopic G-ab 182 days /182 days 4/80 33 pot ton Samples Sedlaent y 1sotoGic Crab 142 days /182 days 4/80 33 81 km*
Samples Gross 8 Grab 31 dafs/11 daye 7/81 19 Well Water y 1soteric Samples 31 days /31 days 7/91 18 t ri t ies 31 days /92 days 7/81 18 9
ENE/13,750 I-1 31 Air Per-7 days /7 days 10/91 l$
A irborne Cross 8 ticulate 7 days /7 days 7/81 le y isotopic Nue s tor 7 days /92 days 7/a1 le y dose TLD 92 days 4/60 35 Direct Radaation 9
E '.7,500 y isotopic Gr ab 31 days /31 days 7/81 le Surf ace heter tr a t i es Samplee 51 days /92 days 7/81 la e
P00R BRBEl
.1.
SUPPLEMENT 1 E M 81 CPS-ER(OLS)
(V)
TABLE 6.1-8 (Cont'd) lorATICII REIATIVE 4flALYSIS TO STATIGt-TO 88 mgERAL
'M t arTICE SAMP12 DIRECTIOu/ PERF00 SED TYPE OF FREQUNICT/
AppaDE.
IACAT10u CISTA8tCE GI EACM C0tJACTICIf ANALYSIS STARyING DURATICu leUpsER.
( feet)
SAf912 ECUIPseu?
FREQUEIICT DATE (IEWWES)
SAlW12 TyFE 10 -
EuB/26,250
y isotopic Grab.
31 days /31 days 7/81 18 surface unter
- tritius samples 31 days /92 days
. 7/s1 18 Y isotopic Grab 182 days /182 days 4/30 33 slime Ramcles y isotopAe Grab 182 days /182 days 4/80 33 Shoreline Easplee Sedament y isotopic Grab 102 days /142 days 4/s0 33 aotte Samples sediment 11 s/appros-I-131 Air Par-7 days /7 days 1C/81 15 -
Airborne imately Gross 8 ticulate 7 days /7 days 7/81 18 16 mi.
y isotopic Monitors 7 days /92 days 7/91 le y dose TLD 92 days 4/80 33 Direct Radiation 1-131 2 gallons. 14 days /14 days 10/81 15 nilt per en pasters y is(topic Incation 31 days /31 days other -
14
$/5,250 2 131 Grab 14 days /14 days 7/81 18 pell Water Gross 6 Samples 31 days /31 days 7/61 18 y isotopie
' 31 days /31 days 7/s1 18
{Q t ritium 31 days /92 days 7/e1 18 f
%J 13 su/20,000 T isotopic Grab 31 days /31 days 7/t
!=
Surface mater trities
' staples 31 days /92 days 7/01 18 le ' ulN/1,000 3-131 Camposite 14 days /14 days -
7/01 18 uell mater Grose 6 mater 31 days /31 days 7/81 18 y isotopic Samples 31 days /31 days 7/91 18 tritiust 31 days /92 days 7/01 18 15 - To be 3 131 2 gallons 14 days /14 days 10/81 15 milk to determined per aniasis on 17 on the Imestion - pasture basis of y isotopte 31 days /31 days 7/81 18 census other resulta le To be '
y isotopic Grab 365 days /365 days 7/01 10 Green Imafy determined Sesslas vegetables and an the Tuberous Veg.
basis of I'
census results 19 Discharge y isotopic met 182 days /182 days 4/80 33 Fish f1mse area 5
l 21-52 16 sectors y dose Tim 92 days 4/80 33 Direct Radiation I'
in an tener rang near ette bour.d-
[ -
ary 16 sectors
[
l in an outer rang 465 males range f
fra site i
'N 1
' k.)
I P00R GnM 6.1-45 i
r
, - -... ~,,. _
4 TABLE 6.1-9 LOWER LIMITS OF DETECTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS AIRBORNE PARTICULATE WATER OR GAS FISI!
MILK FOOD PRODUCTS SEDIME!TT 3
ANALYSIS (pCi/ liter)
(pCi/m )
(pCi/kg, wet)
(pCi/ liter)
(pCi/kg, wet)
(pC1/kg, dry)
Gross Beta 2
1 x 10-2 11 - 3 330 Mn-54 15 130 Fe-50 30 260 0
Co-58; Co-60 15 130 r1 Zn-65 30 260 O
b Zr-95; Nb-95 10
~
I-131 0.5 7 x 10-2 8.8
-2 Cs-134; Cs-137 15 1 x 10 130 15 150 Ba-140; La-140 15 15 L< tn n
H:s Hz8 H
O O
O
O YY
/ ~'s y
' ' ~ - ~ ~ ~ _ '
-.~'E
-__,3 m
$r~'
l
~ - - -
52
~
~
m&
b"5 39 ENL ARGED
ww _
Paraen 51 a ? hnA rm : x~ f t
Q
'I F
ra j
r Y
MaCRow n cwpp...- ~
"I 80 y oys - #
^
s..
40' k J
V,
~
,50
"I
ndB
~
[
. )g.
WS#
m*
r L +-
r h
-)3 ;%15-
j~~.
k;+ N Y;M d, }_ze e 5:
t:
~
80
~
>;?a;9?~?gr jy-j l1 nuurou p
/
..., K
,,j,g p.g g
~.
c::,g-
,,y
- ~
-- ~%'~'># Ik43
M l;' {.*...
y
'$I'+"""Y
'W Q
444 1
}
e st3
~
c) m
~&
'~~;-
y rry
&,,b tone d ee n,
' %wi-M
'O n l
om
% o 7
y2O 2O g ho N
WS iki 0
!~g c v, g
D *O me t--
Wg59 s
6 CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 CHAPTER 8 - ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF
,~
STATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION TABLE OF CONTENTS
(
x PAGE_
8 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF STATION 8.1-1 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 8.1 EFFECT OF CLINTON POWER ~ STATION OPERATING 8.1-1 STAFF ON SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES 8.1.~ 1
_ Anticipated Impacts on Affected 8.1-1 Communities from Workers' Residences 8.1.2 Anticipated Impacts on Affected 8.1-3 Communities from Clinton Power Station 8.2 RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8.2-1
't 4
4 p
O.
8-i
CPS-ER(OLS)
StJPPLFMENT 1 JUNE 1981 CHAPTER 8 - ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF STATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION LIST OF TABLES NUMBER TITLE PAGE 8.1-1 DeWitt County School Systems 8.1-5 8.1-2 Estimated Clinton Power Station Unit 1 8.1-6 Real Estace Taxes l
O 1
O 8-ii
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 CHAPTER 8 - ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF STATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Most information on the economic and social effects of station construction and operation As included in Chapter 8 of the Clinton Power Station - Units 1 and 2:
Environmental Report -
Construction Permit Stage (CPS-ER) and in Sections 4.4 and 5.6 of the Clinton Final Environmental Statement (FES) published by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in October 1979.
Only additional information is included in this chapter.
8.1 EFFECT OF CLINTON POWER STATION OPERATING STAFF ON SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES The presently authorized plant staffing level for one unit operation is 221.
Of this total 38% are involved in operations activities and 37% are involved in maintenance activities.
This number (221) does not include security guards, who should number about 80.
The size of the staff may increase somewhat as minor adjustments are made before fuel loading.
The two unit-staff is estimated to be 50% larger than the one-unit staff, and the contractor personnel required during outages will be consistent with the present industry use of contractor g-personnel during outages.
The estimated annual payroll for the first full year of operation for each unit is as follows:
1982 Dollars Unit 1-1984
$9,490,000 Unit 2-1996 5,160,000 These values represent the cost of labor if purchased in 1982.
8.1.1 Anticipated Impacts on Affected Communities from Workers' Residences Approximately 60% of the operating staff for the Clinton Power Station is already at the site.
It is expected that the current residential pattern of these workers will be the typical pattern for the total operating staff.
The residential location of present operating employees is as follows:
O l
8.1-1
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Clinton Power Station Employees k
Community Number Percent Decatur 57 42.5 Clinton 18 13.4 Maroa 9
6.7 Champaign-Urbana 8
6.0 Farmer City 6
4.5 Warrensburg 6
4.5 other Communities 30 22.4 Tith the exception of Bloomington, "Other Communities" include small towns and villages within a 25-mile radius of the Clinton Power Station.
Only from one to four employees reside in any one of these small communities.
Bloomington, which has three operating personnel residing there, is an SMSA located approximately 23 miles northwest of the station.
Assuming that the preceding residential pattern proves typical of the total operating staff, approximately 40% of the staff is expected to reside in Decatur.
Thus the number of additional workers expected to relocate to Decatur is about 30.
Decatur is an SMSA located approximately 23 miles southwest of the station, with a 1980 population of 94,081.
The additional workers and their families are not expected to have any significant impact on the city's services a
and facilities.
Similarly the small number of additional workers W
expected to relocate to Champaign-Urbana (which had a population of 94,111 in 1980) and Bloomington-Normal (which had a population of 79,861 in 1980) should have insignificant impacts on those cities services.
The town of Clinton (8,014 in 1980) is the only community near the station in which a significant percentage of the Clinton Power Station workers are expected to reside:
about 13%.
The additional residents should amount to approximately 10 workers and their families.
The additional residents should not require any addition to community services and facilities.
In 1980 Clinton had a total of 3,354 housing units (a 16% increase over 1970) of which 2,214 were owner occupied.
Of the 1,140 rental units 28% were single family units.
Between 1975 and 1979 DeWitt County (excluding Clinton) granted 235 permits for new single family homes, and 142 permits for mobile homes.
In the town of Clinton, between 1975 and 1979, permits were granted for 133 single family units and 91 multi-family units.
It is not expected that there will be a shortage of available housing in DeWitt County or the town of Clinton.
Educational and health facilities in Clinton snd the other nearby snall communities should experience little impact trom the Clinton Power Station staff and their families.
There are three school districts O
8.1-2
' CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEffENT 1 JUNE 1981 i.
f'i in-DeWitt County:.-Clinton School District, consisting of one high school, one junior high, and four grade schools; Wapella School District, consisting of a combined junior high and high school and one grade school; and the Farmer _ City-Mansfield School District, consisting of
~
one high school, one-junior high, and three grade schools.
Table 8.1-1 gives=the 1979-1980 enrollment, capacity,'and staff for each school district..The largest school district.is Clinton, which had a total of 2,'203 students in _ the 1979-1980 school-year.
The Farmer City-Mansfield. District had.914 students, and the Wapella District had 344' students in 1979-1980.
i
'The presenticapacity of each school district indicates that there-4 1-
_will be no need for additional school facilities to accommodate the school-age children of CPS operating personnel who. relocate to the area.- The.clinton School, District.is the only district whose 1979-1980 enrollment was near capacity.
Enrollment in the l
other two districts-was_approximately 50% of capacity.
Since a re'atively'small number of additional operating personnel with a relatively small number of school-age children ara expected to move'to the area, there should be no need for additional school facilities.
'The John ~ Warner Hospital, located in the town of Clinton approximately 3.8 miles from the station, has a capacity of 52 beds with a staff of'approximately 165.
Additional health care is provided at Crest View Nursing Home'- 98 residents and 65 staff members; DeWitt County Nursing Home - 72 residents'and 41 staff members, and k
DeWitt Mental Center - out patients only (10 to 50 per day) and 15 staff members.
No additional. health care facilities should be needed.
8.1.2
-Anticipated Impacts on Affected Communities from Clinton Power Station.
[
The Clinton Fire Department will provide fire protection'for the Clinton Power Station, and the DeWitt County Sheriff Department i
-will provide police protection.
As discusse l previously, the John Warner Hospital, the only hospital facility in the vicinity uof the station, will be-providing health care for station personnel.
In addition to the hospital, emergency health care assistance will be available from the following:
DeWitt County Fmergency Services Disaster Area Illinois State Department of Public Health State of Illinois Emergency Services Disaster Agency
' Illinois. Department of Conservation Clitdon Ambulance Service It is not anticipated that any of these five agencies will recuire expansion-to existing facilities or additional staff to meet the Clinton Power Station demand.
LO 1
!i 8.1-3 4
-.. m.--.
~,. - _.
_.. _. -. _, _. _. _ _.. _ _ -... - _. ~.. _ -. _ _ _... _. _ _. _. _. _. _.
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 From the experience of Illinois Power Company with an 1800 MW coal-fired generating station in central Illinois, annual local j
cxpenditures can be expected to average approximately $122,000 (1980 dollars).
Local purchases are expected to be made primarily in Decatur with smaller purchases being made in Clinton, Bloomington-Normal, and Champaign-Urbana.
The Clinton Power Station will be subject to locally assessed real estate taxes which are largely a matter of conjecture at this time.
Such taxes are levied annually based uoon the reauirements of the districts.
Assessed valuations beginning in the first full year of operation, which is now expected to be 1984, can only be estimated in a very general way.
A number of revisions in Illinois property tax law have occurred in recent years and can be expected to continue.
For example, Illinois farmland is now assessed at lower levels than other property, which has shifted some of the tax burden to non-agricultural properties.
Limited exemptions have been granted on residential properties to reduce taxes on such property.
In the corporate sector personal property taxes were abolished in 1979 and were replaced by a statewide income tax and a tax on the invested capital of public utilities.
An unresolved controversy exists over what property is currently assessable as real estate subsequent to the abolition of personal property.
It is therefore impossible to accurately forecast the tax liabilities requested.
The figures presented in Table 8.1-2 should be considered within these limitations.
These figures relate to Clinton Unit 1 (g) only since too many unsettled cuestions exist to allow tax estimates on Unit 2.
The taxing districts shown in the table will be the ones primarily effected by Clinton Unit 1.
The site including the lake crea is located in certain other taxing districts which are not materially effected and are therefore not listed.
O 8.1-4
O.
.O u
n-r
?!ABLE 8.1-1 2
DEWITT COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS-(1979-1980).
SCHOOL CAPACITY" ENROLLMENT STAFFc i
I Clinton School District ij' Clinton High. School
-900 694 51 Clinton Junior High. School 800 500
'34 Douglas Grade School 210 209 13 i
Lincoln Grade School
'210.
202 12 I
Washington Grade School 345 352 18'-
Webster Grade: chool
.245 246 15
)
Wapella School District (Piatt County).
Q-i Un j
Wapella Junior High and High School
'250 157.
17-E y
Wapella Grade School 225 187 13
o '
ui F~
Farmer City-Mansfield School Di'trict E~
s l
Farmer City-Mansfield High School 720 317 23 j
Farmer City-Mansfield Junior High 275
.135 9
Schneider Grade School 525
-140 9
I Franklin Grade School 350 150 8
Mansfield Grade School 375 172 12 3
1 1
i I
C.4 03 l
" Source:
Chaska (1980).
p@
gC Source:
Stoekel (1980).
I c
2 i
Source:
Corrigan (1980).
8 r
l l
TABLE 8.1-2 ESTIMATED CLINTON POWER STATION UNIT 1 REAL ESTATE TAXES ESTIMATED REAL ESPATE TAXES (in thousands)
ESTI?tATED PERCENTAGE 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 OF REAL ESTATE TAXES PAYABLE PAYABLE PAYABLE PAYABLE PAYABLE REPRESENTED BY TAXING DISTRICT IN 1985 IN 1986 IN 1987 IN 1988 IN 1989 CLINTON UNIT 1 a
DeWitt County
$1,600
$1,600
$1,600
$1,700
$1,700 50%-55%
Harp Township 300 400 400 400 500 90%-95%
O Unit 15 School 4,900 5,200 5,500 5,800 6,000 65%-70%
m Dis trict E
Y N
m Jr. College 500 500 500 500 500 20%-25%
o District 537 E
TOTALS
$7,300
$7,700
$8,000
$8,400
$8,700 aDeWitt County distributes their funds to the following categories:
general corporate fund, highway, health, mental health, Illinois municipal retirement fund, insurance, 4m matching federal aid (nighways), audit, bridges, extension education, tax assessments, E@
election, nursing home bonds, tax collection, civil defense, and tuberculosis.
My
=0 e
w O
O O
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 8.2 RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The; recreational development plan for Lake Clinton and its associated recreational area is discussed in Subsection 2.1.3.3.
The recreational activities provided include boating, swimming, fishing, camping, picnicking, hunting, hiking trails, and snowmobiling.
DeWitt County is in a 16-county Illinois Department of
' Conservation (DOC) administrative region (Region 3B) consisting of the following counties:
DeWitt, Platt, Macon,_Shelby,'Moultrie, Coles, Cumberland, Clark,. Edgar, Douglas, Champaign, Ford, McLean, Livingston, Iroquois, and Vermillion.
The DOC divides Illinois
~into seven regions and ranks each region by the adequacy of outdoor recreation opportunities available in the region in 1976.
The-DOC j
, ranking showed that Region 3B was inadequately supplied in most water-sports, and. ranked sixth or seventh in such activities as swimming, motorboating, canoeing, and sailing; all of which are offered at Lake Clinton. -In 1976 the 16-county region was served by 8 public and l'0 private beaches, and on lakes and ponds on which motorboating was allowed there were 11,100 acres for unrestricted motorboating and 12,710 acres for motorboating restricted to 10 horsepower or less.
There were 24,312 acres of lakes and ponds
'for fishing, and 6,978 acres of river fishing area (Illinois Department of Conservation 1978).
The DOC statistics indicate that the Lake Clinton recreational facilities will fill a need and improve the adequacy of outdoor recreational opportunities in the region.
l l
l l
i' l
O 8.2-1
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1
~
JUNE 1981
-(])
CHAPTER 13 - REFERENCES TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 13.1 References for Chapter 1 13.1-1 13.2-References for Chapter 2 13.2-1 13.3. References for Chapter 3 13.3-1 13.4 References for Chapter.4 13.4-1
~ 13. 5' References for Chapter-5 13.5-1 13.6 References for Chapter 6 13.6-1 13.7 References for Chapter 7 13.7-1 13.8 References for Chapter 8
-13.8-1
]
.O 4
4 O
13-i
CPS-ER(OLS) i
13.1 REFERENCES
FOR CHAPTER 1
[h s/
Brauer, G.
E.,
W.
Kelley, C. Dav.,nerty, 1972
" Interconnection Agreement between Central Illinois Public Service Co.,
Illinois Power Company, and Union Electric Co.," dated February 18.
Edison Electric Institute, 1977, " National Energy Watch."
Gerstner, W.
C.,
and R. E. Erb, 1976, " Facility Use Agreement between Illinois Power Co., and Western Illinois Power Cooperative, Inc.," dated September 30.
Gerstner, W.
C.,
and W.
R. Smith, 1976, " Facility Use Agreement between Illinois Power Co., and Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc.," dated October.
Illinois Power Company, 1978, " Native Electric Peak Load Forcast 1979-1988," Technology Assessment Planning Department, dated September.
arious dates, working papers.
Mid-America Interpool Netwcrk (MAIN], 1970, " Appendix A Report."
1971, " Reply to Appendix A of Order No. 383."
3 s) 1972, " Reply to Appendix A of Order No. 383."
1973a, " Reply to Appendix A-1 of Order No. 383-3."
1973b, " Reply-to Appendix A of Order No. 383."
1974, " Reply to Appendix A-1 of Order No. 383-3."
1975, " Reply to Appendix A-1 of Order No. 383-3."
1976, " Reply to Appendix A-1 of Order No. 383-3."
,- 1977a, " Reply to Appendix A-1 of Order No. 383-4."
1977b, " Supplement to MAIN's 1977 Reply to Appen'ix A-1 of j
l Order No. 383-4."
i 1978, " Reply to Appendix A-2 of Order No. 383-4 Docket R-362."
f 1979, " Regional Reliability Council Coordinated Bulk Power l
Supply. Program."
I rm 13.1-1 i
I
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 1981, " Regional Reliability Council Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program."
4 O
O 13.1-2
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
(~i
Johnson, E.,
1977, Little Galilee Christian Assembly Church Camp,
'~
telephone conversation of October 7 with A. Kleinrath, Sargent-& Lundy, Cultural Resource Analyst.
Menufacturer's News, Inc., 1978, Illinois Manufacturer's Directory, 1978. Manufacturer's News, Inc., Chicago Illinois.
National Publishing Corp., 1978, Chicaac Cook County and Illinois Industrial Directory, National Publishing Corp., Des Plaines, Illintic.
Nernuh, P.,
1977, Clinton C. U. School District 15, Administration Center, telephone conversation of October 18 with A. Kleinrath, Sargent & Lundy, Cultural Resource Analyst.
Rogers, R.,
1979, Illinois Department of Conservation, telephone conversation of September 26 with S. A.Hallaron, Sargent &
Lundy, Cultural Resource Analyst.
Selburg, R.,
1977, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, telephone conversation of December 20 with R.
Pahati, Sargent
& Lundy, Supervisor, Civil Design, Section, Water Resources and Site Development Division,
Smith, M.,
1977, DeWitt County Planning Agent, DeWitt County g-)s Zoning Office,. telephone conversation of December 14 with R.
q, Pahati, Sar< 7t & Lundy, Supervisor, Civil Design Section, Water Resot.
s and Site Development Division.
Smith, M.,
1978, DeWitt County Planning Agent, DeWitt County Zoning Office, personal communication of February 8 with A.
Kleinrath, Sargent & Lundy, Cultural Resource Analyst.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1971a, 1970 Census of Population - General Population Characteristics, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
I U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1971b, 1970 l
Census of Population, Final Population Counts, Illinois, U.S.
j Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
l l
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975, Population Estimates and Proiections, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1977, 1974 Census of Agriculture, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wasnington, D.C.
().
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1981, 1980 Census of Population, Final Population Counts, Illinois, U.S.
' Department of Ccmmerce, Washington, D.C.
13.2-3
CPS-ER(OLS)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977 "U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory g
Commission Regulatory Guide 1.109," Table E-15, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
O O
13.2-3a
CPS-ER(OLS) 13.2.2 References for Section 2.2_
O
Bohlen, H.D.,
1978, 3n Annotated Check-List of the Birds of Illinois," Illinois State Museum Popular Science Series Volume IX.
Cholnoky, B.J.,
1954, "Diatomeen aus Sud-Rhodesian," Portugalia Acta Biologica, Ser. B, Sist.
4, p.-197-228.
1955, "Diatomeen aus Salzhaltigen Binnengewassern des westlichen Kaap-Provinz in Sudafrika," Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft 68:11-23.
1958, "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Sudafrikanischen Diatomeenflora II.
Einige Gewasser im Waterberg-Gebeit,"
Transvaal.
Portugalia Acta Biologica, Ser. B, Sist. 6,
p.99-160.
1962, "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Sudafrikanischen Diatomeenflora III.
Diatomeen aus Kaap-Provinz.
Revista
'Biologia (Lisboa) 3(1):1-80.
1966, " Die Diatomeen in Unterlaufe des Okawangoflusses,"
Beihefte zur Nova Hedwigia 21:1-122.
Cleve-Euler, A.,
1952, " Die Diatcmeen aus Schweden und Finnland,"
Teil V.
Schluss.
Kingliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens
_O~
Handlingar, Fjarde-Serien 3(2):1-153.
Drouet, F.,
1968, " Revision of the Classification of the Oscillatoriacea," Monograph 15, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.
Hasle, G.R.,
and D.L. Evensen, 1976, " Brackish Water Species of the Diatom Genus Skeletonema," II. Skeletonema potamos comb.
nov. Journal of Phycology 12(1):73-82.
Hoffmeister, D.F.,
and C.O. Mohr, 1957, Fieldbook of Illinois Mammals, Illinois Natural History Survey Division Manual.
Hohn, M.H.,
and J.
Hellerman, 1963, "The Taxonomy and Structure of Diatom Populations from Three Eastern North American Rivers Using Three Sampling Methods," Trans. Am. Microsc.
Soc. 82(3):250-329.
Hustedt, F.,
1930, "Bacillariophyta (Diatomeae)," In Pascher, ed., Die Susswasser Flora Mitteleuropas, Heft 10, Gustav Fisher, Jena.
1937a, " Die Kieselalgen Deutschlands, Osterreichs und der Schweiz unter Berucksichtung der ubrigen Lander Europas sowie der angrenzenden Meersgebiete," In L. Rabenhorst, ed.,
.({)
Kryptoaamen-Flora von Deutschland, Osterreich und der 13.2-4
)
f
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 (l
13.5 REFERENCES
FOR CHAPTER 5 v
13.5.1 References for Section 5.1 G.E. Harbeck, et al.,
1958, " Water-Loss Investigations:
Lake Mead Studies," Geological Survey Professional Paper 298, U. S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Texas Water Development Board, 1971, " Simulation of Water Quality in Streams and Canals," Report 128.
Water Resources Engineers Inc., 1968, " Prediction of Thermal
. Energy Distribution in Streams and Reservoirs," Prepared for the Department of Fish and Game, State of California.
3.5.2 References for Section 5.2
Bradley, E.W.,
1979, " Gamma and Beta Dose to Man from Noble Gas Release to the Atmosphere," GEMAN Program, NEDO-25132.
Engelhardt, C.,
1981, Logan County Extension Officer, Lincoln, Illinois.
Telephone Conversation of June 15 with S.A.
Hallaron, Cultural Resource Analyst, Sargent & Lundy,
-Chicago, Illinois.
(3 Falkerson, H.,
1981, DeWitt County Extension Officer, Clinton,
(_)
Illinois.
Telephone Conversation of June 15 with S.A.
(
Hallaron, Cultural Resource Analyst, Sargent & Lundy, Chicago, Illinois.
.Fritz, W.,
1981, Commercial Fishery Biologist, Illinois Department of Conservation, Carlyle, Illinois.
Telephone l
Conversation of June 10 with S.A. Hallaron, Cultural Resource Analyst, Sargent & Lundy, Chicago, Illinois.
Hardy, L.,
1981, U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Mason City, Illinois.
Telephone Conversation of June 16 with S.A.
Hallaron, Cultural Resource Analyst, Sargent & Lundy, Chicago, Illinois.
Nguyen, V.D.,
1976, " Milk Ingestion Dose Code for Routine Releases of Gaseous Effluents for BWR Reactors," ONEAA Computer Code, NEDO-21289.
Stamcavage, P.P.,
1976, " Liquid Discharge Doses," LIDSR Code, i
NEDM-20609-01.
l
TeRonde, R.,
1981, U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service, Petersberg, Illinois.
Telephone Conversation of June 16 with S.A.
Hallaron, Cultural Resource Analyst, Sargent & Lundy, Chicago, Illinois.
~s
-(V
\\
l I
13.5-1 1
l
.m
CPS-ER(OLS)
Thompson, S.E.,
et al.,
1972, " Concentration Factors of Chemical gg)
Elements in Edible Aquatic Organisms," U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Lawrence Livermere Laboratory, California.
13.5.3 References for Section 5.3 Becker, C.D. and T.D.
Thatcher, 1973, " Toxicity of Power Plant Chemicals to Aquatic Life," compiled for the U.S. AEC, Batelle Pacific Northwest Labs, Richland, Washington.
Mace, H.H.
1953, " Disposal of Wastes From Water Treatment Plants," Journal of Public Works, p.
73.
McKee, J.E. and H.W. Wolf, (eds), 1963, Water Quality criteria, California State Water Resources Control Board Publ. No.
3-A.
Roundsefell, G.A.,
and W.A. Everhart, 1953, Fishery Science Its Methods and Applications, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
O O
13.5-2
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
13.8 REFERENCES
FOR CHAPTER 8 O' '
13.8.1 References for Section 8.1
Chasta, C.,
1980, Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield, Illinois.
Telephone Conversation of June 27 with S.A.
Hallaron,-Cultural Resource Analyst, Sargent & Lundy,
-Chicago, Illinois.
Corrigan, D.P.,
1980, Statistician, Research and Statistics Section, Illinois State Board of Education, Springfiled, Illinois.
Letter.of July 9 to S.A.
Hallaron, Cultural
-Resource Analyst, Sargent & Lundy, Chicago, Illinois.
Illinois Department of Conservation, 1978, " Outdoor Recreation Illinois:
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan,"
Springfield, Illinois.
Stockel, C.,
1980, Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield, Illinois.
Memo of June 27 to S.A. Hallaron, C:lltural Resource Analyst, Sargent & Lundy, Chicago, Illinois b3 i
o e
d 13.8-1
CPS-ER(OLS)
. SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES This section contains the NRC requests'for additional information-followed by the response to the question, which in some cases includes a reference to the applicable updated sections of the text.
Pag'es S.1-l'and S.1-2 respond to-NRC questions submitted in the letter of August 29, 1980, and pages S.1-3 through S.1-69 respond in numerical order to NRC questions submitted in the letter of May 22, 1981.
t i
(
l t
O i
S.1-i
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT-1 i
JUNE 1981-
_.O QUESTION.
Section 2.2 of the Environmental Report should be modified to include the following:information.-
1.
' Provide' descriptions-of the-floodplains of all water
-bodies, including intermittant water courses; within or adjacent to the site.
On'a, suitable scale map provide' delineations of those areas that.will be-flooded during the' one-percent chance flood in the absence of plant effects _ (i.e., pre-construction floodplain).
2.
-' Provide'det$ils of~the methods use'd to determine the floodplains in response to 1. above.
Include your-assumptions of and bases for the. pertinent parameters used11n the computation _of'the~one-percent flood flow and' water' elevation.
If studies approved by Flood Insurance Administration ' (FIA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD)' or the Corps of-Engineers are available for-theLsite or adjoining; area, the. details of analyses need not.be supplied. _You.can instead provide the reports from which you obtained the
{
floodplain information.
Identify, locate on a map,'and describe all structures, 3.
1-construction activities and topographic alterations in I
the floodplains.
Indicate the status of each structure, l
construction activity and topographic alteration (in terms of start and completion dates) and work oresently l
i-1 completed.
p l
4.
Discuss the hydrolog'ic' effects of_all items identified I
in 3. above.
Discuss the potential for altered flood l
. flows and levels, both upstream and downstream.
~
Include the potential effect of debris accumulating on the plant structures.
Additionally, discuss the.
effects of debris generated from the site on downstream facilities.
I
?
[
5.
Provide the' details of~your analysis used in response I
to;4. above.-'The level of detail ~'is~similar to that l
i L
identified in item'2. above.
6.-
Identify non-floodplain alternatives for each of the items-(structures, construction activities and topographic alterations) identified in 3. above.
Alternately, justify why a specific item must be in j
.he floodplain.
?p/ '
[
.w
~
7.
For each item in 6. above that cannot be justified as having to be in the floodplain either show that all S.1-1 t-i
~.. - -
,_J.,..
-._ __ _.......-._ _,~..._.
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMEHT 1 JANUARY 1981 non-floodplain alternatives are not practicable or commit to re-locating the structure, construction activity or topographic alteration out of the floodplain.
RESPONSE
Figure 2.4-10A in the ER-OLS shows the once-in-100-year flood prone area that would exist in the vicinity of Clinton Power Station without Lake Clinton in place (preconstruction flood prone area), as outlined by the U.S.
Geological Survey (1974).
The details of the deternination of the once-in-100-year flood elevation with the lake in place are given in Subsection 2.4.1.4.3.
Figure 2.4-10C shows that the once-in-100-year flooded area with Lake Clinton in place is well within the station property.line.
Beyond the property line, in the upper reaches of Salt Creek and the North Fork of Salt Creek, the lake does not increase the flooded area as compared to the once-in-100-year flood.
Flood flows downstream of the Lake Clinton dam are lowered compared to preconstruction flood flows; hence, the once-in-100-year flood levels are lower.
No station structures were built in the preconstruction once-in-100-year flood prone area except for the dam that was built across Salt Creek to create Lake Clinton.
Obviously, there was no alternative location for the dam outside of the flood prone area.
Several structures have been built along the edges of the post-construction flood prone area (with Lake Clinton in place).
These include the intake and discharge structures, modified highway bridges, a marina, and seven boat ramps.
Again, there was no feasible location for these structures outside of,the flood urone area.
Construction of these structures is complete, and their presence will not cause any alteration in flood levels that will extend beyond the site property lines.
There will be no effect on downstream facilities of debris generated from the site during floods.
This response is incorporated into the text of the report in greater detail in Subsection 2.4.1.4.3 O
S.1-2
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 100.1 In addition to responses to other specifically reque'sted information, provide a summary and.brief discussion in table form, by section, of differences between currently projected environmental effects of the nuclear power station (including those that would degrade, and those that would enhance environmental conditions) and the effects discussed in the environmental report submitted at the construction stage.
Response
The environmental effects _of the CPS are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and_7 of the Environmental Report
_ Operating Licensing Stage (ER-OLS).
The differences from the construction permit stage report (ER-CP) that are :aot addressed in the answers to specific NRC questions are summarized in Table 100.1-1.
Chapter 8 of the ER-CP addresses socioeconomics effects.
Since this chapter was not rewritten for the ER-OLS, any differences in currently projected impacts will be discussed in the answers to NRC Questions 310.1, 310.2, 310.3, 310.4, 310.5, and 310.6.
1 J
1 1
[
4 O
f S.1-3
. _ _ _ _ _. ~.
TABLE 100.1-1 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CURRENTLY PROJECTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS (CPS ER-OLS)
AND EFFECTS DISCUSSED IN THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ER-CP Eh-OLS SECTION ITEM DISCUSSED General discussion of site 4.1 Site Preparation Specific data presented for the following:
1.
Acres of land need for the lake and associrted facilitics, 2.
Numbers of construction workers employed o
by crafts; and
'o 3.
Mitigative measures associated with building y
to the lake and associated facilities, and N
(A sice preparation.
y Section 4.1.3 discusses specific programs for Monitoring program absent. t3 terrestrial and aquatic monitoring.
4.3 Resources Committed Table 4.3-1 was added to give comparisor. of Not discussed.
preconstruction and present station land use.
Not discussed.
4.4 Radioactivity Table 4.l.-1 added to show person-rem exposures to unit 2 construction workers with Unit 1 operating.
4.5 Construction Impact Details presented on control measures for Not required by Reg. Cuide Control erosion, dust, noise, transportation, rain-4.2 at the time the ER-CP fall runoff, channel blockage, and ground-was prepared, water.
Specific discussion of tree planting program 'inder " Habitat Improvement Program."
4 tn gC G%r HW CD HZ
-3 9
f%
f p,
C d
TABLE 100.1-1-(Cont'd)
SECTION ITEM DISCUSSED ER-OLS ER-CP 5.1 Thermal Effluen'c Limit There is now a thermal effluent limit
' lot discussed.
for 1 unit operation. The rationale for this is discussed in the Thermal Demonrtration Report, which as been submitted to the NRC (see question 240.7).
5.2 Radiological lapact Section 5.2' discusses the following:
With the exception of X/Q values and wind deposition 1.
New site boundary X/Q values and rela-rates ( able 2
none tive deposition rates (Table 5.2-1) 4
, g 2.
Relative deposition values by downwini included in the ER-CP.
sector (Table 5.2-3)
Calculations were given f r t tal-body dose rates 3.
Expected individual doses from< gaseous m
effluents (Table 5.2-4) fr m liquid and gase ns W
effluents.
i h
4.
Estimated annual population dose from E
ui direct radiation (Table 5.2-10) 3 5.
E.stimated whole-body doses to the general N
~
j population within.50 miles of the site from CPS operatica (Table 5.2-12) 6.
Estimated whole-body doses to the
{
popciation within 50 miles of the site resulting from the natural background i
and man-made radiation sources (Table 5.2-13) 4 i
7.
Dose from all CPS-related sources and i
natural and man-made background radiation.
4 7.1 Plant Accidents Radioactivity released to the environment for Values pr(sented were some-Involving Radioactivity the different classes of accidents have been what lower than recalcu-recalculated and presented in Table 7.1-2.
lated values.
1 cc
~
Values for population exposure from natural yy and man-made background compared with nuclear ta radiological effects were also recalculated.
7.3/7.5 Chemicals to be Stored The quantities cf H2SO4 of NaOH have been Quantities of H SO4 and NaOH N 2
on Site reduced to 9500 gal each.
were given as 15,000 gal.
g each.
s
CP-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 240.1 P.
2.1-11, Sec. 2.1.3.2.
The consumptive water use of the station was calculated based on a two-unit operating condition at 70% load factor.
However, it is indicated in Sec. 3.4.1 (p. 3.4-1) that the 80%
plant loading schedule will be 92% during June, July and August, during January, September and December, and 70% during the other six ntonths.
Please provide the consumptive water use for an appropriate loading schedule.
Question 240.2 P.
2.1-11, Sec. 2.1.3.2.
Please ind'icate for the year 1955, the rates of downstream water releases with 1 unit and 2 units operating at an appropriate loading schedule.
Response
The consumptive water use of the station (Question 240.1) and down-stream water releases (Question 240.2) are shown on Table 2.1-24.
This response is incorporated into the text on page 2.1-11 and a revised Table 2.1-24 is provided.
O O
S.1-6
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 240.3 O,.
Page 3.4-1, Section 3.4.1 and Page 5.1-2, Section 5.1.2.
It is stated that the load factor in December will be 80%.
However, in Tables 5-4 and 5-7~(in Appendix 5.lA), the load factor used in December for predicting Clinton Lake temperature is 70% rather than 80%.
Please clarify this discrepancy.
Response
The 70% figure in Tables 5-4 and 5-7 is a typographical error.
An 80% load factor was used in predicting the lake temperature for December.
The correction is made to these tables in the text.
O S.1-7
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 240.4 O
3.4-2, Sec. 3.4.3 and P.
5.1-1, Sec. 5.1.2.
Please indicate the P.average depth for the portion of the lake between the cooling water discharge and intake. structures.
Response
At 690 ft MSL, the effective volume of the lake is 66,300 acre-ft and the effective area is 3,880 acres.
These values result in an average depth of 17.09 ft.
This response is incorporated'into the text on page 5.1-2.
O O
S.1-8 l
.=
.~
~ CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 240.5 Page 3.4-4, Section 3.4.5.
The year 1955 is stated as a 1-in-50 year drought year in this section, but is stated as a 1-in-100 year drought year in Section 5.1.2 (Page 5.1-2).
Please clarify this discrepancy.
Response
The drought in 1955'is considered to be the 1-in-50 year drought.
The 1-in-100 year statement is an error. -The correction is made on page 5.1-2.
O M
'O S.1-9
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 240.6 Page 3.4-4, Section 3.4.5 and Page 5.1-2, Section 5.1.2.
It is in-llk dicated that the maximum temperature during the summer of an average year (such as 1962) will be approximately 92* F.
However, the
~
temperature data shown in Tables 5-4 and 5-5 (in Appendix 5.lA) show that the water temperature will be higher than 92* F in some areas of the lake.
Please clarify this discrepancy.
Response
All of the tables shown in Appendix 5.lA are reproduced from the 316(a) thermal variance demonstration that was prep red for Clinton Power Station in 1975.
The lake temperature modeling that was done at that time assumed a discharge temperature from the discharge canal to the lake of 96* F, the maximum allowable temperature.
The more recent study that is reported in Subsection 3.4.5 used discharge temperatures based on the use of cooling sprays in the discharge canal.
The difference in discharge temperature accounts for the discrepancy.
Appendix 5.lA is included solely for additional in-formation.
This response is incorporated into the text on page 3.4-4.
O O
S.1-10
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 240.7 O -
Page 3.4-4, Section 3.4.5.
Please provide.the lake temperature data predicted by the Laterally Averaged Reservoir Model (LARM) and also provide a copy of the manual describing the LARM model.
Response.
This requested information was provided to the NRC by letter dated August 27, 1980, from G. W. Wuller, IPC, to Ronald L.
Ballard, NRC.
This information was also provided to the NRC and to Argonne National Taboratory at the site visit on April 28, 1981.
An additional four copies of the report that presents the LARM model are provided to the NRC for use in preparing the
' Environmental Impact Statement.
I"T
- V O
S.1-ll
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 240.8 P.
5.1-1, Sec. 5.1.2.
Please calculate for the cases with 1 unit and 2 units operation, the extent of the thermal plume intrusion into the region upstream from the discharge point on Salt Creek and also provide the basis for the calculations.
Response
The Salt Creek inflow enters Lake Clinton at Segment 23 on the included figures as defined by the LARM model.
These figures, obtained from the Clinton Power Station Thermal Demonstration, July 1980 to the Illinois Pollution Control Board, indicate that the temperatures at this point resulting from unconstrained one-unit operation (see Figure 5.1-0A) and two-unit operation con-strained to 95* F (see Figure 5.1-0B) are within 2' F of ambient lake temperatures (see Figure 5.1-0C).
These temperature profiles, calculated by the LARM model, clearly indicate that the effects of thermal plume intrusion on Salt Creek are minimal.
There will be an increase in temperature above ambient in the region upstream from the discharge canal, within Lake Clinton, i.e., Segments 16 through 22.
However, the included temperature profiles and the temperature data listed in_ Appendix B.1 of the Thermal Demonstration show a sharp vertical temperature gradient in regions near the canal discharge, indicated that the effects of the thermal plume are confined primarily to the surface of the lll lake.
This response is incorporated into the text on page 5.1-3.
O S.1-12
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 240.9 n
Page 5.1-2, Section 5.1.2.
Please explain why the meteorological ss records at Peoria, Illinois, station rather than the Springfield, Illinois,-station were used in the LAKET model to predict lake surface temperatures.
These two stations are located at about the same distance (%50 miles) to the plant site.- However, it appears that the Peoria station is very~close to the Illinois
' River which could significantly affect the meteorological condition at the station and thus make it less similar'to the meteorological condition at plant site than the Springfield station.
Response
The decision was made in 1972 to use data from the Peoria station for environmental studies such as the LAKET model for the following reasons:
(1) it was reasonably near to and representative of the Clinton site;-(2) it had a sufficiently long period of detailed surface records available for environmental studies; and (3) it was also the site of an upper-air station for which a long period of record of measurements were available, should they be required.
The Springfield surface station did not have a coincident upper-air measurement station.
The data set used was recorded at the surface station at the Peoria airport, which is located on a flat tableland, set back a mile from the rim of the Illinois River valley and about 200 feet above
()
the river, and the. instruments are well exposed.
This separation of the station.from the river and its valley suggested that there would not be a significant effect of the river on the Peoria air-port weather records.
This response is intcrporated into the text on page 5.1-2.
C i
O S.1-13
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 290.1 W
To provide continuity between construction and operational phases of the plant, questions remain about the fate of the spoil place-ment areas.
Several spoil placement areas were designated in Fig. 4.1 of the FES-CP.
How much of these spoil areas remain, where, and what is their composition?
If these' spoil piles remain during the operation phase, how does the applicant intend to protect spoil areas from erosion?
Response
Only one active spoil area remains.
This spoil area is located just northwest of the station.
All other spoil areas have been used for construction or have been contoured, and revegatation is pro-ceeding.
The composition of the only active spoil area is glacial till composed largely of silts and clays.
If this spoil area remains during operation, proper erosion control measures will be employed.
These control measures would likely include terracing and/or seeding with appropriate grasses.
It.is planned, however, to retire this active spoil area and use it as a parking area.
O O
O S.1-14
(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 290.2 O
The drainage tile system outlets of certain-farms bordering Lake Clinton are at or very close to the_690 ft MSL'of the lake.
A 10-year frequency flood condition has the potential of reducing crop production in these areas if blowouts occur.
This may also result in soil erosion of the cropland and sedimentation buildup along the lake banks.
What specific corrective measures has the applicant undertaken to reduce or prevent these possibilities?
(FES-CP 4.2).
Response
Danner & Associates, Inc., consulting engineers for Illinois Power Company conducted an investigation of field tile and drainage pipes around the Clinton Plant Site beginning in 1974.
They used infra-red aerial photography, interviews, existing records, and field surveys to locate and document all known facilities so that tiles or pipes'below the.698' elevation could be opened to the atmosphere.
This study was supplemented in 1977 with Company questionnaire survey mailed to all adjoining landowners.
We received a 92%
reply to our inquiry about existing drain tile.
We have had only one complaint about interference with field tile.
The damage was caused by construction, and it was repaired.
O O
S.1-15
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 290.3 9ome of site habitat improvements are to be a cooperative effort between the Illinois Department of Conservation and Illinois Power, such as mentioned in Subsection 4.5.3.11.
What are the plans for What are continuing, discontinaing or broadening such efforts.
the plans for maintaining the Silphium Prairie?
Please provide an Illinois Power and/or Illinois Department of Conservation Wild-
)
life Management plan if'available.
Response
Habitat improvements have been taken over.by the Illinois Department of Conservation.
The Silphium Prairie was burned in the spring 1980, and 1981.
Maintaining the Silphium Prairie is of 1978, also the responsibility of the Illinois Department of Conservation.
This agency did conduct the burn in 1981 and will continue to do so as needed in the future to maintain this prairie, i
A specific Wildlife Management plan is being developed by the Illinois Department of Conservation and should be available in early 1982.
Annual meetings between Illinois Power and the Illinois Department of Conservation are conducted to discuss the effective-ness of existing management techniques and to make any modifications that are deemed necessary for lands under control of the Illinois Department of Conservation.
O O
S.1-16
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
~
Question 290.4 b'-
With the creation of. Lake Clinton, the numbers of waterfowl utilizing the site are expected to increase markedly.
In addition to the cooperative waterfowl survey (Illinois Department of Con-servation and Illinois Natural History) of in-season monthly aerial sightings what other type of monitoring is planned, especially in regard to wa'eerfowl disease?
Although conditions favoring the development of botulism and the transmittal of blood parasites are not prevalent, these are subject to change with the operation of the plant, and elevated temperatures of the lake.
Response
A wildlife management plan is being developed and should be avail-ab.le in early 1982.
Contingency plans for waterfowl disease will be addressed in this management plan.
Also, the Illinois Department of Conservation has established a hunter check station for monitoring hunting effort and success.
During 10 years of operation of IP's Baldwin Power Station and its associated 2000-acre cooling. pond, no outbreak of waterfowl disease has been experienced.
The Baldwin cooling pond is also under.the management of the Illinois Department of Conservation and experiences a heavier thermal loading than is expected at Lake Clinton.
Based on experience at Baldwin it is not expected that waterfowl disease will be of concern at Lake Clinton.
t O
S.1-17
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 1
Question 291.1 The OL-ER includes aquatic sampling results for May 1974 through April 1978.
Please update ER-OL data by providing additional data relative to the abundance and distribution of plankton, benthic invertebrates, and fishes.
These data should include North Fork
)
und Salt Creek sample sites as well as Lake Clinton.
Also, include a figure showing sample sites.
Response
Illinois Power Company has included copies of the Thermal Demonstra-tion Pursuant to Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regula-ations Chapter-3, Rule 203 (i) (10).
Section 4.4.1 of this report contains data on the abundance and distribution of fish from the summer of 1978 (August) through the winter of 1979 (February).
Station 5 is located in the North Fork just upstream of Lake Clinton and is a stream habitat.
Station 17 is located on'the Salt Creek at the upper end of Lake Clinton.
Two of the four substations for electrofishing at Station 17 are stream habitats, the other two are more representative of the upper c.nd of the lake.
Subsections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 contain information on the benthic invertebrates and zooplankton, respectively.
Data is presented on the abundance and distribution of these organisms from the spring of 1978 (May) through the fall of 19,78 (November).
Subsection 4.4.4 contains information on the abundance and distribution of phytoplankton from the winter of 1978 (February) gW through the fall of 1978 (November).
A short discussion of each community is presented in each subsection along with the information on abundance and distribution.
Figure 4-5 on page 4-21 of the. report illustrates the sample sites on Lake Clinton.
The 1980 data is in the early stages of report preparation and is not available at this time.
O S.1-18
.I CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
-Question 291.2 O
Please provide information describing Lake Clinton with respect to morphometry and substrate.
Also, provide information as to where bulldozing occurred and where trees were simply left standing priorito inundation.
Response
The topography or shape of the lake bottom is shown on Figure 2.4-5 of the CPS Environmental Report-Operating License Stage [ CPS-ER(OLS)].
The contours shown on this figure indicate that the landform.of the lake bottom is primarily a floodplain of Salt Creek.
This landform
.is a recent modification of Quaternary landforms due to flooding.
A discussion of the agricultural soil associations is presented 4
in-Subsection 2.5.3.1.1 of the CPS-ER(OLS)..The locations of the agricultural soil associations are shown on Figure'2.5-3.
The soil associations of the lake bottom are the Huntsville-Sawmill Association, the Alexis-Littleton-Camden Association,.and the
-Strawn-Hennepin Association.
Subsection 2.5.3.1.1 discusses the
-geologic units from which the soils developed.
The agricultural soils are' generally developed in the upper 5 feet of the Quaternary deposits-(Smith and Smith 1940).
The Huntsville-Strawn Association shows little or no profile develop-ment and varies in character according to the recent sediments of which it is composed.
The Alexis-Littleton-Camden Association has s
an upper layer 3 to 8 inches thick composed of silt loam.
The subsoil begins at 10 to 15 inches and is composed of yellowish-brown clay loam.
Below 40 to 60 inches, stratified sands and t
gravels are found.
The Strawn-Hennepin Association has an upper soil layer of silt loam.
The subsurface is a grayish-yellow silt loam, and the subsoil, which begins at a depth of about 10 to 12 inches, is a yellow silty clay loam that often contains considerable gravel.
Below 20 to 40 inches, friable calcareous till is found.
The Strawn-Hennepin Association makes up less than 400 acres of the entire lake bottom.
Below the agricultural soils are various Quaternary
. Jits over-lying Pennsylvanian-age. bedrock.
Figures 2.5-278 and 2.5-279 from the CPS Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) have been included in this response to show the typical relationship of the Quaternary units.
A complete discussion of site stratigraphy is presented l
in FSAR Subsection 2.5.1.2.2.
In constructing Lake Clinton, Illinois Power conducted extensive clearing and bulldozing only as required near the dam site, where roads and bridges were relocated, in the ultimate heat sink area, crib house area, discharge canal area, gravel pit area, and the Trinkle Slough area.
Several farmsteads were also cleared and
- O e
S.1-19
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 some grading occurred for construction and maintenance of haul and logging roads within the lake basin.
Approximately 60% of the g
lake basin was in agricultural production before impoundment and required minimal clearing.
Areas above the 690-foot MSL level were left in a natural condition
~
as much as possible to minimize impact and because the lake was planned to be a recreation area.
This action has produced a lake with the appearance of a natural shoreline.
Numerous coves were left with standing timber to provide as much habitat as possible for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.
This technique also provides an aestethically pleasing appearance.
In general, small coves (less than 125 feet wide) were left timbered.
Coves larger than 125 feet wide were cleared at their opening to the lake to allow boat access but timber was left further up in the coves for-fish and wildlife enhancement.
O O
S.1-20 h
1
i i
h?.
-,.: c--
-,. e.n
-' " 8 8* *
~~' " l E
i f*---- SALf CREEx M 4
N 4}
= tv onsmo a l
t tass
.l, k
-:.:.?*. :,
l m
ALLUVIAL.ATEn TABLE i
r...
~
+ --
..en.i LE,
. 7..,.
St e,,
~
...co n ru.<..
7,..
^.
o a4
'D, it,,8, e#)...
"blfEn!s m R4,
i a W, S li
'T8d$i$$k% $$ ma ! k P
...L.c,.L our. e..::::.:at t;~...g f
. g a
w -
r....
=
o'?
!i
~$
a.
t;@.}
ses a
.w.
e inoi..
~,
= 4'?
4
.y.
a a
. u..; 1 o
, ?
.,r' t'cusvie g ;,3 Q s g y g {; g
..; @.g [
8"
(((
a
W r hi{!.!fyM:-usqu.y.
a--
"at 3.4v4g_.7,tj.fy %. utaciat ouT wam. c4 g'.ra c&$
fg,-. A
~
...,*s.,..,,,
g,j gyp i'hf.
c D L-
[ '7,<
7 V*
. t,,,.bbI4pA. J $ ~%,
V b65hi
,Eh.i..,v *M.',$s
lm. n& & W T h!
A'.,
hsik'YN$i?
t
.~w oa: wO ' i Q
\\aint t
v.. n.
n
?:O, ee : ;,;.;il:.z-M.ny;. 9 St3 W[,I;'*/ $:j.((.,i
-l$.hE.Nr.[h,E'fN.*,N,h'.! [
N.
i www y%&wy *
. _ g. 2., :.=..;ts ::
r.-
c.
w
.?ly;-
,3
.%0 l
,==
l
n
, G@:!
'N f.[I
- gn
-fys.
425 t
s 4
MI '
Top or eEonocx h;,n.
o 3
Win.?:::
.n 3"
we==========
===i=s=i===i=i=i=ea=i=i=isim====w==-
T
'~i!
i j 1
c'nl b
i i
i iii lilliliii,u
}
I co.L P00RBRHL
k SUPPLEMENT 1 1
t JUNE 1981 p
LEGEND
!!1n E'
.g= =..g,; g.gg7 =,.gg.,,.g gg.;g, j
%lF
{
WrR eas saw an e.s came, sus A
l see. ms.=r as ws emeseass l
{
150 I E seau a.e.m.a =.es m.es.p
e. un not, sn. en is., am =
.m l
.......u
. -..n...e...
.mmmmmumlill LBESS IlllllllllllIIllllIllll];}M...M.,..
E UE' U.I sm.s tusue U U!I'.uE*I'UE"E** EE'EIE*A',
7ts a
mmeru
'"'%,;s%
M*,.... ;.. : 3',.,- s -~.~ ~ ~ ? s~
r
,,'ATEiTAe'[E"'
I L
Mi "M'"#Us.W EU*" M" ?4"='.*3".f "c".E'"J."
coNsimeAN GLACIAL Td
. a 'f. :,
. wiSCONSmAN Tiu. u O ;.4 700 1.
~
4: ij i i qki p
, i i j m! l l i di
,,[ $,,mTcaet pa'.
W 3
ns... s..c.= vs..
... = s n
s. en. u.s i
m....a.
i O=;L".a" '=.',".' ".E'.J7,:l;=" " ""'"
(,d.ii,i I
^
i routs 3
1 i
i
's
- c7s 1
]i3 g '"O"."*"#,.' =r3= 3.r.".J C'.'r' "XJ3" a
A)
,i W.N"? :.=0 irO:#a ";O '.OT=
eso
?
"' m:P.'03M"Jl ' :. ='Or":." '=.'.". 'J=,:',
4
.r ei
1'.o*;.,O.';f.l.; ;:TT;*a"JM'a'k"a"A'"""
E g
u tA iAdd~
Y.;
U.h j
a*='r.3=,= " Ors==',,; /==l,= tra.r-i ass
...g
= r.=<'1"Pf=;t.JT.: *.=.t*llr".".=.:;
3
,;;llltr,f;;'4,y.g;*;,rgyp== a====
~ * -
""d'd, P M E # Ed'EI E 'O N2
?.
F.
' g.. ;
3 e
W*/
- 'a*I W g
==r,*,,.;,3.,=.a,==;rgas...;.;;.'sy".: = m';',==*
.o o
.m
' '"[
UEYI IJ'.*Iw*e.s El"a IesEEE'E E"'*'
.= a
.o g
!!.I?I N Js'I.5 "sNUsE*Es. E "e Y m"= "vE """" "
o.
- sso y f$iMME.g.A l
1 "T"-i. m : 'a:f==C =W'"*'"'
I M h N k k..? J [.,v,m [ " pt [
M I
N SLACidL TILL
_ y,
[W.c. '.,.S. :/sQ.s # COQjige.D w
g 4,.,I W :
n. f. g 9
vg.
.' i e
.yl v p i T ;.,...,t g
,me s :
9 W f- ++ ;...
n1 3o
..r r.3 W.wn,7,,,yi,. 2* h ;y.y Vp.CM
-8 ql N.g.
,p,;j T % W a#,.
ba 3.
amma uvris inicAiro a T.F sonst er Art r %;q.g g., try Q
p*h. D.. c.. j[, ', (*{..I' suTros war osTAtun u tr*rpPouTisc 44 M.., r.
umn es wm nuwna<. iuravTim t w.;
4*
on AcTtAt. amma uvns Exisi rett AT s -N yd
But!% LDs Al to.tS blTM P!UOutTF45. IT 15 8%e %'*" *,
sq1gg klin P!!!os*LTYes *.AY %Aa,ntTWE ra
.)% ISLE TilAT dtf'l V4 Art B LEFLS Ft:m Tuost gg INDR At t?.
b M. h) /
5 E,
W 8-2.
T11 Dt.FTE AND THUE!tt.54 Of 5d!L AND R'X1 Y
.Fg-//. 6;'/;. 4 ' ' "hQ, * $,,
I>
9../j/4
y F g f, STRATA INDIC ATED ON ThE E15t kF Ad $f CTlen a
h%s y
s,,
httE 09! ATME3 BT INTFMP%ATING BETWEf'5 P6Bl#(.4.
8 Q
......;...1.-
P~
, L:
thPORMTIN OR ArTTAL Soll AND pt.WW CONDITIM EXIST oustY AT 8d1% terat 10%5.
1T 11 POSSISLE
-4s0 ThAT Soil AN? EtR R COttDITICai% NAT VAFY FW.M h...-
'5'
[:@$
~
f k:(outwASW DEP0 Sat g,.
v,'
TNSF IWICAMD.
1.
TFE DI1(T'illdW I4 TFT Yt rT in NU f 54ARY Fou FFGPER CtLERSTAMDInc CF TNE RATL AE PF fitt t
'Y
(
st ggt.3 F A(3 pTERI ALS.
I
'"1 3
,,5 i
6.
EID ATIONS GEFEli YO C.5.G.S. Daft'Pt.
(+
f
/
8 z.%
^
w s _,-
y S.
REFf t To FICtkE 2.5--271 rot LOCATIOM OF
. I SLB5I RF ALE P94!LF1.
, J w"
h -
6.
FOR Dt1 AILED IUTil LHLL DAT A FFFYR Tu g
M/
i.
f t
t
_g FIGttf 5 2.4-17, 2.6 14, 2.6-41 AJET) 2. 4-4 L
'~
'~
't
r '. : *s n m,msm>.
s J
7.
PeATli.pAPwiC m.uFNs LAtt at OF bee G AfinhARY s
v -
7:
,,' e8888"'.
[.G TMAT CSED og T4Is FICLNE AfsD 005 TMI MR f %
.. A
/.'.
r J I idP%1TS t%FS in TWE F4AR Tf RT DIFFER 5 F RI *q i
U-m* g' ; m, - g c-Me p
Uw.s. ANa is ones n nas m.ts a rv.t u L w
~'
l. :S==**"" W-
.._~.~-+E
^
NS 4
-C
.,... > ~ :-E&c<
_.z
-; 1.ca c =
s x-n.. _.
m_,cx..,... a.. -
_= = -
d50 CLINTON POWER STATION FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT i
seDne20ania6 Sc4LE sen FEET E
FIGURE 2 5-278 l
w i
GEOLOGIC SECTION E-E' - ALONG NORTH

._ _,oo FORK 0F SALT CREEK i
i P00R BRGINAL e ~1
l F
h w 77*t ~
3 rso -
onomAL encumo sunract g.i '.hi:{hQj ~W.
2 its-
u rgfa O YYN.....NMy. b'*
j#* -
'd? k
.i.
<f Q. /..
satt cattu vaLLtv 3
1, Nm
."arra h i W"Gd.-,f
?e.t.
inim atAciAL
-!Awiscoensinan tiyL ; l':4D*. _ m.
f)gyxyg'.Ji};j TiLL n
A.
100 - $
J -
gp y
g.
n, M a
L
-<v g
fg;s,"illM M$ ES C I
sat sso-i l
-m uscan oLaciat vi i
r x 2__ KU, p
I E
6-210 - -
Ds l
pet. iL U MO.aM L
ene..t u oiam attuwat on L acusT ain t ot rosi
(_:,. j:j,fj},4.. " ;
3 475 -
g(+:
n.
'- ?:.
y W.
i
- :;.i...
, T;j:::y.,...-.:.. '
c i'... ;. c.:. :: b
, My%s,.a. m.
r ' :.;
-4 q 3h": {Wg,,.:p%9 4
' ;f
'):,:.....2.d. l,g:;.,2MAti;4;iiM i.-
gg eromocx wttry outwasu otrosir L.<:
ll 7,. " ' *,y, n.' f,3gggd
?"- - - - - - -*E w'.::. fbs M.' A
,,,Jm'... "
f.fe; -'
.r.
c 437._
v wcs:";gg" w
.:p..
n
(..
NkfffI
~ ~ ~ ~ C ~_ _'-[_ __ ~ E
- c.a? A l
4ts -
-3==~-~~~~
LEGEND c.c...
400 -
y_~_
g
~
j VW *'d:at: PA:"I"o; ='"J.ful";'J."%i'I"
~ - -- -.m..
.==-
1
,,;;";;/,Tr;n;1;;; ;;;,; -"
1.
srs-
~3
l,'*"? =0 /Z"J:" ".: *%"*
g lllllll **: a.". ;".J'?1=:.*" " "** ' "
~ ~ ~ ' N"I 53E,.5.>l5[555,$'$.
I "...
m.,,u
-a
= - n. -
<rgy =,..::::.nm., ~' ~;=;m :;;;;y ye m
_ _ _ -._ =_
p
m..
.-.,,,,,s.,,,e.,.m.
' :"2tr'.? ? "' /AL':G:
T' J
-- ~
y Eis unuma tj B
,,,,.,,,m m,w c.; = =.,,-....=.- ,
=.,,, n:.:..r.=...:.=.,.r..r. =.u. <.
==
D
.i
....m
.u
.v y_
.,,,m.;,,,;.7gy;.;...,,,.,, m..- -.,...
j-A,,,J,::;:' /:yy,,*::::,m'y;;;.";;,,:;~ =-
(
i :
g
,,m,-.,-.m.,,
i ME:2.:Z gpb======ea q
.!N./.*I..*E 'IIrd =.sSE. e.I.e"((.a".".Ifx
.... -. 5 CU,. fdI/E,*8..d$.."/,C, '.'E7 j
u..--.
PC[R ORGEL
!~
I SUPPLEMENT 1
=
JUNE 1981 F'
DentChow.CMamet
)
u 90*t 4
m
<k I
b P
)
o#caim amoue svarace
~w
.g y
-no
'$R
^e
)f,meeme== aucm y
wa' %c n
-> R,!f,g.% :f... $J.
W T: T :
yn:'
o
)i.
am a
5,
t 4
arar 3
m
?
.__a_
ses
)
m
- tam, a 4t's m
%Y
&~:-
Q&~::- M: -
y z-::::
s m
sontcurret etas a etti E ~E.2.y=,.:i.d..E.iI:E:5. E"3.JE.03:
iU'I.5EY' ge=,.
" :".::'g' rat:a*.J".1"."?.T.T 1.;."J'=
= =/="M.m.g;;a'u'r.=."..f.=.*Jutit' N
boo..
,7; egy,y,;
, f -~. - -=
l 4:
e.e.e =~:J:T'::rro"*::.; r:/AP::::r.:::llJ;*.".
9" 4. ;. a
.n m
i h a;,.,y,
"""'.: =.. :.::.::l.'#J".41."m=@,. !..::: :=Y=""
CLINTON POWER STATlON I
m.
g ""Ef:::r.?.= **.:::ll:4 ".." =ri:i:::;y.=,
FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT
}
g '"t..T.:.::.::"J't:J:1'r::",.::* "J,t::""' """ "
FIGURE 2.5-279 t
" " ~ "
[==
EED ~ n i.=:: ::= <= ~
= :r""~'
3:....
IEMB - - ~. ~..
GEOLOGIC SECTI0ff F-F' - SITE VICIfJITY dE..
~
'N& {QlQ
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 291.3 Please provide information on the survival of fishes at elevated temperatures based on operational. experiences at the applicant's j
Baldwin power plant..
Response
Two copies of the testimony presented at a public hearing on the Thermal Demonstration Pursuant to Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations Chapter 3, Rule 203 (i) (10) is provided for the
~
NRC.
This testimony provides operational infor ation on the survival of fishes at elevated water temperatures in Baldwin cooling pond.
O O
S.1-25
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 291.4 O
Please provide a copy of Page 3.4-2A of'the CP_-ER as well as Figure 3.4-4 of the CP_-ER.
Response
Two copies each of Page 3.4-2A and Figure 3.4-4 are provided for the NRC.
O O
S.1-26 i
[
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 291.5 Please provide a copy of the C1'nton Thermal Demonstration report prepared by EIA consultants.
' Response Four' copies of the Clinton Thermal Demonstration report are,
.provided for use by the NRC.
}
4 O
1 l
l l
O S.1-27
- _.... _. _.. _.... _, _,. _ _. _ -. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -.. _ _ _.. _..,.... _. _ _... ~ _. _. _ _ _ _. _ _, _.... -. _. _
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1
{
JUNE 1981 Question 291.6 Please protride a copy of the NPDES permit and 316 (b) plan of' study.
ggg
Response
Two copies of the NPDES permit which is currently in effect as well as the application for the new permit is provided for the NRC.
Page 20 of the current permit has guidelines for the monitoring program associated with a 316 (b) study.
We will conduct a study to comply with~the conditions of the new permit.
O O
S.1-28
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 291.7 The preoperational water quality analysis, quoted in the ER-OL, does not include the common mineral ions (calcium, magnesium, sodium, sulfate, chloride, etc.), which were reported at the CP stage.
Please provide complete analyses, including these ions, on-a maximum, average and minimum basis, for the lake water com-position expected under operating conditions.
If not available individually, calcium and magnesium concentrations may be combined
as a hardness value.
Response
Ca, Mg, Na, SO4, and C1'were not included in the scope of pre-operational whter quality analysis.
Calculations have been made for water quality compositions expected under operating conditions in order to properly size the deminer-alizers for the' station.
Water quality parameters used for this
' determination are as follows:
ca 270 mg/l as CACO 3 NO3 6 mg/l Mg 210 mg/l as CACO 3 pH 7-8 Na 35 mg/l as CACO 3 COD 15 mg/l SO4 43 mg/l as CACO 3 SiO2 10 mg/l C1 85 mg/l as CACO 3 TDS 630 mg/l Alk 381 mg/l as CACO 3 Fe 1.2 mg/l Turbidity 50-200 NTU
- s 5
Because of the variability of the inputs to Lake Clinton, average composition of parameters from all of our sam'ple sites would not be very useful.
Until circulating water pumps go into service, analyses at the condenser inlet (heat sink) will reflect mostly water from North Fork and will not necessarily represent average lake quality.
O 1
S.1-29
_,. - ~ _ _. _. _ _ _. _.. - _ __
. - ~
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Quest. ion 291.8 It was stated at the CP stage that condenser scaling is not expected g W
and that no plans have been made for chemical to be a problem, treatment to control it, beyond possible condenser cleansing on an intermittent basis.
If this statement 's still applicable, please confirm it.
Response
The only No plans have been made to chemically control scale.
chemical treatment of the circulating water will be periodic chlorination to control biological growths and slime buildup.
O O
S.1-30
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 J
- Question 291.9 O
In the absence of water treatment for scale control, what methods of condenser cleaning will be used, and how frequently will cleaning be-necessary?
If chemical methods are used, please quote the volume and composition of the chemical waste generated by condenser cleaning,
- and the methods proposed for treatment and disposal of this waste.
Please include a discussion of land (amount and location) required for additional disposal pits, etc. required for condenser cleaning waste disposal.
Response
(a)
Based on our experience at fossil plants, we predict that condenser cleaning will.not be required until after 5 to 7 years of operation.
(b)
The need for cleaning will be assessed by condenser performance tests and calculation of the Langelier and Ryznar indexes of the cooling water.
i (c)
The current state-of the art uses sulfuric, phosphoric, or formic acid'for condenser chemical cleaning in strengths
~
ranging from 5% to 15% of acid.
The choice of acid will depend on analysis of the tube deposit and trial cleaning of a few selected tubes.
(
(d)
One chemical cleaning will produce about 500,000 gallons of acid waste plus rinse water.
(e)
We believe that our existing waste treatment ponds will be of adequate size to hold and treat these wastes.
Treatment would consist of neutralization, precipitation, and settling of any heavy metals and sand filtration before discharge to the lake.
(f)
If the tests of paragraph (b) show that we are developing scale problems or reduction in cooling capacity sooner than expected, we would pursue and evaluate the options of chemical
(
scale control.-
m 9
O S.1-31
. -. -...~ -.. ~. -. -
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.l' Provide an estimate of the average annual number of worNers (plant employees and contractor employees) that will be reauired during operation of the two units.
Response
The presently authorized plant staffing level for one unit operation is 221.
Of this total 38% are involved in operations activities and 37% are involved in maintenance activities.
This number (221) does not include security cuards, who should number about 80.
The size of the staff may increase somewhat as minor adjusbnents are made before fuel loading.
The two-unit staff is estimated to be 50% larger than the one-unit staff, and the contractor personnel required during outages will be consistent with,the present industry use of contractor personnel during outages.
This response is incorporated into the text on page 8.1-1.
O O
S.1-32
. CPS-ER (OLS ) ~
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.2 Identify.the likely residential _ location (i.e., names of communities, counties) of the workers.
Response
Approximately 60% of the CPS operating staff is already at the site.
It is expected that the current residential pattern of
'these workers will be the. typical pattern for the total operating staff..The residential location'of present CPS operating employees is as'follows:
CPS Employees Community Number Percent Decatur 57 42.5 Clinton 18 13.4 Maroa 9
6.7 Champaign-Urbana 8
6.0 Farmer City.
6 4.5 Warrensburg 6
4.5 Other Communities 30 22.4 With the exception of Bloomington, "Other Communities" include
(
small towns.and villages within a 25-mile radius of the CPS.
Only from one.to four employees reside in any one of these small communities.
Bloomington, which has three operating personnel residing _there, is an SMSA' located approximately 23 miles northwest of the station.
This response is incorporated into the text on pages'8.1-1 to 8.1-2.
O S.1-33
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.3 Identify any anticipated impacts on the affected communities facilities and services (i.e.,
schools, hospitals, water and waste treatment fire,. police) that would result from the workers residence.
List facilities and services that would require expansion or additions to capacity.
Provide the same information for any Clinton Power Station demands on community services.
Response
A.
Anticipated Impacts on Affected Communities from Workers Residence Assuming that the residential pattern given in response to Question 310.2 proves typical of the total operating staff, approximately 40% of the CPS staff is expected to reside in Decatur.
Thus the number of additional workers expected to relocate to Decatur is about 30.
Decatur is an SMSA located approximately 23 miles southwest of the station, with a 1980 population of 94,091.
The additional workers and their families are not expected to have any significant impact on the city's services and facilities.
Similarly the small. number of ac0*.tional workers txpected to relocate to Champaign-Urbana (which had a population of 94,111 in 1980) and Bloomington-Normal-(which had a population of 79,861 in 1980) should have insignificant impacts on those cities services.
llh The town of Clinton (8,014 in 1980) is the only community near the station in whien a significant percentage of the CPS workers are expected to reside:
about 13%.
The additional residents should amount to approximately 10 workers and their families.
The additional residents should not require any addition to community services and facilities.
In 1980 Clinton had a total of 3,354 housing units (a 16% increase over 1970) of which 2,214 were owner occupied.
Of the 1,140 rental units 28%
were single family units.
Between 1975 and 1979 DeWitt County (excluding Clinton) granted 235 permits for new single family homes, and 142 permits fv mobile homes.
In the town of Clinton, between 1975 and 1979,,
,mits were granted for 133 single family units a..d 91 multi-family units.
It is not expected that there will be a shortage of available housing in DeWitt County or the town of Clinton.
Educational and health facilities in Clinton and the other nearby small communities should experience little impact from CPS staff and their families.
There are three school districts in DeWitt County:
Clinton School District, consisting of one high school, one junior high, and four grade schools; Wapella School District, consisting of a combined junior high and high school O
S.l.34
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 and one grade school; and the Farmer City-Mansfield School
{~/'y District, consisting of one high school, one junior high, and three grade schools.
Table 8.1-1 gives the 1979-1980 enrollment, s
capacity, and staff for each school district.- The largest school district is-Clinton, which had a total of 2,203 students in the 1979-1980 school year.
The Farmer City-Mansfield District had 914 students, and the Wapella District had 344 students in 1979-1980.
The present capacity of each-school district indicates that there will be no-need.for additional school facilities to accomodate the school-age chi.',dren of CPS operating personnel who relocate to the area. -The Clinton School District is the only district whose 1979-1980 enrollment was near capacity.
Enrollment in the other two' districts was approximately 50%
of-capacity.
Since a relatively small number of additional
-operating personnel with a relatively small number of school-age children are expected to move to the area, there should be no need for additional school facilities.
The John Warner Hospital, located in the town of Clinton approximately 3.8 miles from the station, has a capacity of 52 beds with a. staff.of approximatelycl65.
Additional health care is provided at Crest View Nursing Home - 98 residents and'65 staff members; DeWitt County Nursing Home - 72 residents and 41 staff members; and DeWitt Mental Center - out patients only (10 to 50 per day) and 15 staff members.
No additional
()
health care facilities should be needed.
B.
Anticipated Impacts on Affected Communities from Clinton Power Station The Clinton Fire Department will provide fire protection for the CPS and the DeWitt County Sheriff Department will provide police protection.
As discussed in Part A of this response, the John Warner Hospital, the only hospital facility in the L
vicinity of the station, will be providing health care for station personnel.
In addition to the hospital, emergency i
health care assistance will be available from the following:
DeWitt County Emergency Services Disaster Area l-Illinois State Department of Public Health
. State of Illinois Emergency Services Disaster Agency l
Illinois Department of Conservation l
Clinton Ambulance Service It is not anticipated that any of these five agencies will require expansion to existing facilities or additional staff to meet CPS demand.
This response is incorporated into the text on pages 8.1-2 to 8.1-3.
O S.1-35
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.4 Provide an estimate of the average annual workers payroll for k
.the two units (give the year in which the dollars are stated).
Response
The estimated annual payroll for the first full year of operation for each unit is as follows:
1982 Dollars Unit 1-1984
$9,490,000 Unit 2-1996 5,160,000 These values represent the cost of labor'if purchased in 1982.
\\
This response is incorporated into the text on page 8.1-1.
O O
S.1-36
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.5 Provide an. estimate of.the average annual dollar amount of local purchases of materials and supplies resulting from the operation of the two units.
Include a-definition of the local arca in preparing the estimate (i.e., counties, major towns,.SMSA).
Give the year in which the dollars are stated.
Response
From the experience of Illinois Power Company with an 1800 MW coal-fired generating station in central Illinois, annual local expenditures can be expected to average approximately $122,000 (1980 dollars).
Local purchases are expected to be made primarily in Decatur with smaller purchases being made in Clinton, Bloomington-Normal, and Champaign-Urbana.
This response is incorporated into the text on page 8.1-3.
O o
4 S.1-37
~. - _. _ _, -
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.6 In tabular form provide a dollar estimate of the taxes attributable to the two units of Clinton Power Station.
For each of the units first five full years of operation, provide the dollar estimates by type of tax and by taxing jurisdictions.
Estimate what percent of the jurisdictions total tax revenues are represented by the taxes attributable to the Clinton Power Station ',give the year in which the dollars are stated).
Response
o The Clinton Power Station will be subject to locally assessed real estate taxes, which are largely a matter of conjecture at this time.
Such taxes are levied annually based upon the require-ments of the districts.
Assessed valuation beginning in the first full year of operation, which is now expected to be 1984, can only be estimated in a very general way.
A number of revisions in Illinois property tax law have occurred in recent years and can be expected to continue.
For example, Illinois farmland is now assessed at lower levels than other property, which has shifted some of the tax burden to non-agricultural properties.
Limited exemptions have been granted on residential properties to reduce taxes on such property.
In the corporate sector personal property taxes were abolished in 1979 and were replaced by a statewide income tax and a tax on the invested capital of public utilities.
An unresolved controversy exists over what property is currently ll) assessable as real estate subsequent to tne abolition of personal property.
It is therefore impossible to accurately forecast the tax liabilities requested.
The figures presented in Table 8.1-2 should be considered within these limitations.
These figures relate to Clinton Unit 1 only since too many unsettled questions exist to allow tax estimates on Unit 2.
The taxing districts shown in the table will be the ones primarily effected by Clinton Unit 1.
The site including the lake area is located in certain other taxing districts which are not materially effected and cre therefore not listed.
This response is incorporated into the text on pages 8.1-3 and 8.1-4.
O S.1-38
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.7 pU Are there any substantial changes in the stai. ion external appearance or layout which have been made subsequent to the description in Sections 2.1 and 3.1 of the CP-FES?
If so, please describe.
Response
.There are no substantial changes.
The current site layout is discussed in Subsection 2.1.1 of the Environmental Report-Operating License Stage (ER-OLS) and shown in ER-OLS Figures 2.1-1 through o
2.1-7.
The current design and appearance of.the station is discussed in ER-OLS Section 3.1.
ER-OLS Figure 3.1-1 shows a new color. rendering of how the station will look when it is completed.
I O
O
.S.1-39
CPS-ER (OL)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.8 Using the 1980 census count, update the population figures
~
presented in Table 2.1-2 and Table 2.2-3 of the ER-OL.-
Response
Table 2.1-2 has been revised to show the 1980 population of cities, towns, and villages within 50 miles of the Clinton.
Power Station.
The 1980 population of DeWitt County was 18,108.
The breakdown of the 1980 population into age groups, needed to update Table 2.1-3, will not be prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the census until the fall of 1981.
Table 2.1-2 has been changed in the text.
O O
S.1-40
s CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 Jt'NE 1981 Question 310.9 Using the 1980 census count, update the projected population figures presented in Figures 2.1-11, 2.1-12, 2.1-13 and describe the methodology used for updating.
Response
The 1980 census counts which are currently ~available (P.'-94 taoes) are not used as input-data to the projections shown in Figures 2.1-11, 2.1-12, and 2.1-13.
The U.S. Bureau of the census are currently preparing the MARF tapes which are used as input to the computer program used for projecting the population.
The MARF tapes will not be ready until the fall of.1981.
I j
i
.O l
l l
S.1-41 l
., _.,. _ _, _... _... _ _ _, _ ~... _ _,. _....., _,.. _. _,... _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _...... _ _ _ _.,.. _ _ _. _... _.. _.
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.10 Provide the 1980 transient population use of the Lake Clinton ggg recreation area and the projected use for the next five years.
Response
The Illinois Department of Conservation has estimated that in 1980 the site was visited by 520,212 people.
Their projected estimates for the next five years are as follows:
650,000 1981 1982 750,000 (includes campers) 1983 and beyond - 1,000,000 This response is incorporated into the text on page 2.1-12.
O O
S.1-42
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.11 Provide a current listing of recreation facilities which have been completed in the Lake Clinton recreation area.
Provide a list of additional facilities that are expected to be completed and the estimated times of. completion.
Provide a copy of the latest Management Plan which relates to the lease agreement.
Response
Figure 2.1-15A shows the status of development of the recreational facilities at Lake Clinton.
A copy of the lease agreement between IP and IDOC that describes the management arrangements was previously submitted to the NRC.
k i
i l
l l
I i
s i
S.1-43
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.12 Update the recreation information provided in the CP-FES on gg(5 pages 5-45 and 5-46 relating.to Section 5.6.5 Impact on Recreational Capacity of Area.
Provide a copy of reference 79 cited on page 5-49 of the CP-FES entitled " Illinois Department of Business and Economic Development, Priority and Planning Elements for Developing Illinois Water Resources" May 1970 or the most current revision.
Response
The recreational development plan for Lake Clinton and its associated recreational area is discussed in Subsection 2.1.3.3 of the CPS-ER(OLS).
The recreational activitier provided include boating, swimming, fishing, ca..fing, picnicking, hunting, hiking trails, and snowmobiling.
DeWitt County is in a 16-county Il'iinois Department of Conservation (DOC) administrative region (Region 3P) consisting of the following counties:
DeWitt, Platt, Macon, Shelby, Moultrie, Coles, Cumberland, Clark, Edgar, Douglas, Champaign, Ford, McLean, Livingston, Iroquois, and Vermillion.
The DOC divides Illinois into seven regions and ranks each region by the adequacy of outdoor recreation opportunities available in the egion in 1976.
The DOC ranking showed that Region 3D was inadeguately supplied in most water sports, and ranked sixth or seventh in such activities as swimming, motorboating, canoeing, and sailing; all of which are offered at Lake Clinton.
In 1976 the 16-county region was served by 8 public and 10 private beaches, and on lakes and ponds on which motorboating was allowed there were 11,100 acres for unrestricted motorboating and 12,710 acres for motorboating restricted to 10 horsepower or less.
There were 24,312 acres of lakes and conds for fishing, and 6,978 acres of river fishing area.1 The DOC statistics indicate that the Lake Clinton recreational facilities will fill a need and improve the adequacy of outdoor recreational opportunities in the region.
The Illinois Department of Business and Economic Development (BED) has been reorganized and is now the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Development.
The BED publication " Priority and Planning Elements for Developing Illinois Water Resources,"
May 1970, was not updated by the new department.
The publication is available from the Illinois State Library in Springfield, Illinois.
This response is incorporated into the text on page 8.2-1.
lIllinois Department of Conservation, Outdoor Recreation in Illinois:
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Springfield, Illinois, 1978.
S.1-44
CPS-ER(OLS)-
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1931 Question 310.13 i
( ).
During CPS construction which roads in the site vicinity were improved, -relocated or closed permanently?
Briefly describe the road mcdifications, identifying the road by its numerical designation and the approximate length of modification.
Include bridge changes in the response.
Response
During construction of the lake and Clinton Power Station it.was necessary to vacate certain roads and to-dedicate new roads.
Illinois Power Company negotiated with the State of Illinois, Department of Transportation to lay out and build new bridges and approaches across North Fork of Salt Creek (Route 54),-Salt Creek (Route 48), and raised the elevation of Route 10 at a location where the arm of the lake crosses under the highway.
All of the above work was designed, contracted for, supervised, and built by the Department of Transportation and paid for by Illinois Power Company.
A section of County Highway 14 was relocated and built which in-cludes three bridges (two over the lake and the other over the dis-charge flume) along with the connecting roads,-a distance of approximately 7,000 feet.
(Section 30 - Township 20 North, Range 4 East - 3rd Principal Meridian, DeWitt Township.)
The old section of County Highway 14 of approximately 4900 feet, along with the old bridge over Salt Creek, was vacated.
In Harp Township (Township 20 North, Range'3 East) we vacated approximately 8.6 miles of' road and dedicated and built approximately 3.6 miles of new roads which included one new bridge ove'r North Fork of Salt Creek and the removal of three old bridges (Section 15, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35 and 36).
In Creek Township (Township 19 North, Range 3 East) we vacated approximately 1.9 miles of road and dedicated and built approximately two miles of new roads and the removal of one old bridge.
In DeWitt Township (Township 20 North, Range 4 East) we vacated approximately 4.9 miles of road and dedicated and build approximately 5.9 miles of new road.
We also built one new bridge and removed two old bridges.
In Nixon Township (Township 19 North, Range 4 East) we vacated' approximately 0.1 mile of road and dedicated and built approximutely 1.9 miles of new roads.
All of the above roads and bridges were built according to the State of Illinois Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction Manual, adopted July 2, 197?-
All roads vacated and right of way dedicated by the Company were by.the rules and regulation manual of Road and Bridge and other Related Laws of Illinois, published by the State of Illinois,
().
Department of Transportation, 1973 Edition.
We followed the general S.1-45
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 procedures which included Petition signed by legal voter, notice of public hearing in local paper, hearing on petition, surveys, 3
inducements, damages, and the Final Order of the County Superin-W tendent of liighways and/or the Township Road Commissioner accepting all the roads and bridges.
All of the above was done at no expense to the taxpayer of the township involved or the county.
O S.1-46
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.14
(')
Identify any impacts to cultural resources on the plant property
. which could potentially result from the operation and maintenance of the plant..
Response
-Although future development and related plant projects could impact the archaeological sites still remaining on the plant site, it
- should be noted that_the present plans do not call for any con-struction activity in the areas of these remaining sites.
Thus no adverse impacts are anticipated.
This response is incorporated into the text in Section 2.6.
O S.1-47
--_.,~__,c
,__y.s.
,y
,_.,,,_..,_-,,_,-..,___,,_,...-y__._m
.r.
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
\\<
Question 310.15 Provide a detailed description of the research design developed llh for cultural resource site identification on all plant properties and all methods utilized in the field reconnaissance.
Describe the kinds of field strategies utilized in areas with different topographic and vegetational settings, and include a discussion of the field conditions at the time of the field work.
Response
Bearing in mind that the initial correspondence and survey work was begun in 1971, there are no clear.research goals described for this project.
The initial survey by S. Lewis was simply to locate archaeological sites within the project limits and to record as many sites as possible.
This was derived from the fact that no scientific work had been completed in the survey area previous to undertaking this study.
Areas of high site probability were surveyed (S. Lewis - Progress Report No. 2).
Survey methods consisted of walking over major portions of the project area.
The survey was conducted during the spring and summer months when the project area had the best survey conditions.
Area coverage was guided by cultivated fields which covered a major portion.of the project area.
No subsurface testing was conducted during the initial survey.
It should also be noted that the upland prairie of central Illinois was an archaeological vacuum until the mid-1970's when various institutions began intensive archaeological investigntions within this natural area.
This response is ll) incorporated into the text in Section 2.6.
O S.1-48
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.16 f~h
()
Provide'a detailed' description of the criterion used to evaluate the cultural resource sites identified on the plant properties.
Describe each of these sites including the sites'_ structure, function, chronology, cultural. affiliation and current condition.
Which of these sites still remain on the plant property and what mitigative measures were used for those that do not remain?
Provide a locational map for-the remaining sites.
Response
Site significant was based upon three criteria:
1.
The presence or absence of culturally diagnostic material, 2.
The quantity of artifactual material present on a given site, and 3.
Pending destruction of any site with the above character-istics.
A description of each of the. eighteen sites discussed in the re-port by S.
Lewis (1973) along with known information about those sites was submitted with the ER-CP.
The large majority of these a
sites to be impacted by the plant and associated facilities were mitigated by further study.
Information obtained during this
()
additional archaeological work is reported by B. Lewis (1975).
It should be pointed out that this 1974 testing of DW-32, the Pabst site, indicated a site worthy of National Register status.
The site was nominated in 1974 and accepted in April, 1975.
Sub-sequently a detailed excavation was accomplished at this site in 1975 and is reported by B. Lewis (1976).
The following six sites and a brief description of their current condition follows:
1.
DW Grass covered.
2.
DW Tree area.
3.
DW Under transmission line.
4.
DW-104 - Tree area.
5.
DW-138 - Cultivated field.
6.
DW-140 - Cultivated field.
A locational map of these remaining six signif.iaant sites can be found in the report by S. Lewis (1973).
In ad6. tion to these six sites there are also 31 sites that are still remaining on IP property.
These other remaining sites were not deemed significant according to the above criteria.
Records concerning these sites (K J (and all other sites found during the Clinton studies) are on file
's at the Illinois State Museum.
This response is incorporated into the text in Section 2.6.
S.1-49
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 310.1.7 Provide a detailed description of the settlement-subsistence system llh for all cultural phases known in the nearby area and a correlation of site type, cultural-phase and environmental setting over time.
Response
The settlement-subsistence system for the two drainages are described by R. B. Lewis (1975, 1976).
The major utilization in this area was by archaic occupations, in particular the Late Archaic.
During this period, a system of "basecamps and short term seasonal procure-ment camps" seem to have formed the settlment system.
The sub-sistence system seem to be based upon terrestrial resources (rather than aquatic resources).
Such a system is unlike general archaic procurement systems in the large river drainage systems, which rely more upon aquatic resources.
The other occupations in the project area include Early, Middle, and Late Woodland and possibly Mississipple.,
The sites excavated were not intensive enough to furnish sufficient information to reconstruct their respective settlement-subsistence systems.
The presence of these occupations, albeit sparse, does indicate utilization by these groups in an area and environment not previously well known.
The extent and purpose is not known.
Since the original Clinton survey and exploration of the Pabst site, further research has been conducted in the Salt Creek drainage.
This work was done by R. B. Lewis (1979) and S. Murphy (1979).
(l)
(See " Hunter-Gatherer Foraging:
Some Theoretical Explorations and Archaeological Tests," Lewis,'May 1979; " Procurement Costs and U:,e - Life in Two Late Archaic Lithic Assemblages," Murphy, January 1979; and " Predictive Models in Illinois Archaeology - Report Summary," M. K.
Brown (ed.), 1981.)
This response is incorporated into the text in Section 2.6.
O S.1-50
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
-Question 310.18 k_).
What are the major research problems for this general region?
How do the nearby cultural resource sites relate to these problems?
How do the sites located on the plant property relate to these problems and do they provide information contributing to a better understanding of the local culture history?
Explain why.
Response
The major research problems for this region vary with different researchers but generally evolved around the time-specific cultural adaptations and in particular settlement-subsistence systems.
However, as previously indicated, this area of Illinois was not well known until relatively recently, thus, space-time studies are a prelude to more processual questions.
The studies conducted in the project area provide first scientific work and give some information on a poorly known and defined upland prairie drainage.
In this sense they provide space-time data, initial data on cultural utilization, and specific data on the Late Archaic occupation with a reasonable reconstruction of this cultural settlement-subsistence system.
This system is compared with similar cultural adaptations in the. major-drainage basins and is found to be significantly different in subsistence strategy.
This research fills a significant gap in the cultural history of central Illinois by providing the above data (see B.
Lewis 1975 and 1976).
O l
1 t
f l
t
{
t S.1-51
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 311.1 k
Table 2.1-1 lists 13 areas within the Clinton Power Station not owned.
Exception Areas 1 and 13 are residence areas.
All ex-ceptions are shown on Figure 2.1-4.
Response
Table 2.1-1 along with Figure 2.1-4 is correct.
This table lists tracts, not owned bv Illinois Power Company, of which areas 1 and 13 are improved by residences.
O O
S.1-52 w
w m
,--9 w
-,-ww
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 311.2 Paragraph 2.1.1.2 indicates there are four residential structures on the site property which are leased by IP.
These are shown on Figure 2.1-5.
Response
Paragraph 2.1.1.2 along w;.th Figure 2.1-5.is correct.
This para-graph states that four residential structures on site property are leas.1 by IP.
These residences are on property owned by Illinois Power Company.
4 O
i t
i l
i S.1-53
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 311.3 Please amend Tablo 2.1-1 and Figure 2.1-4 to correct any incon-lll sistency or explicitly identify which residences you own and their long-term usage.
Please identify the length of Illinois Power Company's lease on these residences and their intended usage.
Response
Table 2.1-1 and Figures 2.1-5 and 2.1-4 are correct.
Residences on Figure 2.1-5 are leased by Illinois Power Company on residence-and farm-leases which are for a term of one year and renewable by consent of both parties.
Two of the four esidences are located on property used in conjunction with our agricultural program.
The other two are houses located on lots near Farmer City and are leased for residence use.
O l
I i
l i
l l
O S.1-54 l
l
~-
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 i.
JUNE 1981
_ Question 320.1 Tables 1.1-1 thru 1.1-6 should be revised to show actual 1979 and 1980 data on peak load and energy consumption.
If the fore-casts for years.thru 1990 require revision as a result of the differences between actual and forecast for 1979 and 1980, these forecast revisions should also be made.
Respolise The revised Tables 1.1-1 thru 1.1-6 are included.
Other parts of Chapter 1 have also been updated to reflect current data.
4 e
k O
f O
S.1-55
_.,.. _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _., _.. _ _.. _ _.. _ ~., _ _.
, ~. - _,.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _. ~ _.. _. _ _,. _ _ _
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 320.2 What will the first year of commercial operation costs (fixed charges, fuel, O&M) be, in mills /kWh and dollars of the year in question?
Break out these costs by unit, indicating in what year each unit will be commercially operating.
Response
The following costs are expected for the first full year of operation of Clinton Unit 1 (commercial operation beginning August 31, 1983):
Millions of Dollars Mills /kWh Fixed Charges 371.2 70.30 Fuel 60.7 11.50 O&M 7.6 1.44 TOTAL 439.5 83.24 For planning purposes, the scheduled completion of Unit 2 is shown as 1995.
The following costs are expected for the first year of operation:
Millions of h
Dollars Mills /kWh Fixed Charges Undetermined Undetermined Fuel 190.1 19.13 O&M 28.4 2.86 O
S.1-56
CPS-ER(OLS).
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981
. Question-320.3 0)
What would the estimated economic impact be, in terms of replace -
' ment power cost,-interest on capital and capital cost, and fuel carrying charges of non-operation of Clinton Units 1 and 2?
Include assumptions made to develop these costs.
Response
In.Lhe event of non-operation of Clinton Unit 1, the following costs would be expected:
Costs in Millions of Dollars 1984 1985 Replacement power costs 77.2 172.1 Interest on capital 118.0 127.3 Fuel carrying charges 6.9 7.5 TOTAL 202.1 306.9 In the event of non-operation of Clinton Unit 2, the following costs would be expected:
O Costs in Millions of Dollars 1995 1996 Replacement power 343.4 421.8 Interest on capital Undetermined Undetermined Fuel carrying charges Undetermined Undetermined Notes and Assumption:
1.
The above costs are for IP's 80% share of the Clinton unit.
The total coats of a delay would be even greater because of costs to the owners of the remaining 20% of the unit.
2.
Installed costs of Clinton Unit 1 (IP's 80% share):
$1,455,537,000.
1 3.
AFDC rate:
7.75%
4.
Replacement power costs were calculated using the probabilistic
(
production cost model, PROMOD.
5.
Unit 1 Fuel carrying charges are only for the init'ial core.
Since a delay could also affect subsequent batches of fuel, h
the total impact may be much greater than.that shown above.
i S.1 L--
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 320.4 What is the applicant's estimate of fuel loading, date of criticality, 3
and date of commercial operation for Clinton Units 1 and 2?
(as W
of 1981).
Response
Unit 1 - Estimated fuel load date:
January 1983 Estimated date of criticality:
February 1983 Estimated date of commercial operation:
August 1983 Unit 2 - For planning purposes, the scheduled completion of Unit 2 is shown as 1995.
O O
S.1-58
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 t
JUNE 1981 Question 320.5 i
()
The Figures 1.3-1 and 1.3-2 portray the fuel use of the Illinois Power ~ system, but do not specifically indicate the effect of Clinton Units 1 and 2 on reducing base load consumption of coal and oil.
Please prepare such a table to so indicate.
Response
Table 320.5-l'shows the estimated fuel use of the Illinois Power system with and without Clinton Unit 1 in 1984 and 1985, and with and without Clinton Unit 2 in 1995 and 1996.
I' O
O S.1-59
.__-_,_._,___,.._,.___._..__,.__.___...___.._______...,.._____._.___._._.J_
SUPPLEMENT 1 CPS-ER(OLS)
JUNE 1981 TABLE 320.5-1 PROJECTED ILLINOIS POWER GENERATION BY FUEL TYPE (All Values in Gigawatt Hours) 1985 1984 WITHOUT WITH WITHOUT WITH CLINTON UNIT 1 CLINTON UNIT 1 CLINTON UNIT 1 CLINTON UNIT 1 011 and f,as 430 121 976 298 Coal 16,541 11,620 16,851 13,317 Nuclear 0
5,280 0
4,386" 1996 1995 WITHOUT WITH WITHOUT WITH CLINTON UNIT 2 CLINTON UNIT 2 CLINTON UNIT 2 CLINTON UNIT 2
-011 558 212 906 368-Coal 20,071 15,282 20,436 16,785 b
Nuclear 4,696 9,940 4,710 9,083 4
The above estimatec reflect the impact of IP's share of Unit 1 and Unit 2 Note:
only.
a linton Unit 1 energy in 1985 reflects the effect of a scheduled 9-week c
refueling outage.
Clinton Unit 2 energy in 1996 reflects the effect of a scheduled 9-week b
refueling outage.
S.1-60
CPS -ER (OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 320.6 What is applicant's estimate of the capital cost of Clinton Unita 1 and 2 bascJ on the dates from Question 2 above?
Separate capital costs for each unit (1 and 2).
Response
The installed cost of Illinois Power's 80% share of Clinton Unit 1.
is estimated to be $1,455,537,000.
This costs includes AFUDC and assumes a commercial operation date of August 31, 1983.
The projected installed cost of Illinois Power's 80% share of Clinton Unit 2 is undetermined at this time,
O 1
I 6
O S.1-61
,.. _ ~,_
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 320.7 Please provide a copy of the annual repetts for Illinois Power h
for years 1980, 1979, 1978.
Response
One copy of each annual report was given to the NRC and Argonne National Laboratories at the CPS site on April 28, 1980.
O O
S.1-62
CPS-ER(Obs)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 320.8 i( )
As a part of preparing an environmental impact statement in support of issuance of an operating license, we intend to compare uhe economics of system generation both with.and without the proposed nuclear addition.
To perform this analysis we will need the following information:
~A production cost analysis which shows the difference in system production costs associated with the availability vs. unavailability of the proposed nuclear addition.
Note, the resulting costs differential should be limited solely to the variable or incremental costs associated with generating electricity from the proposed nuclear addition and the sources of replacement energy.
If, in your analysis, other factors influence the cost differential, explain in detail.
The analysis should provide results on an annual basis a.
covering the period from initial operation of the first unit through five full years of cperation of the last unit.
b.
Where more than one utility shares ownership in the pro-posed nuclear addition, the analysis should include results for the aggregate nf all participants.
The analysis should assume electrical energy demand grows c.
/~T at (1) the system's latest official forecasted growth
\\l rate, and (2) zero growth from latest actual annual energy demand.
d.
All underlying assumptions should be explicitly identi-fied and explained.
4 e.
For each year (and for each growth rate scenario) the following results should be clearly stated:
(1) system production costs with the proposed nuclear addition available as scheduled; (2) system production costs with-out the proposed nuclear addition available; (3) the capacity factor assumed for the nuclear addition; (4) the average fuel cost and variable O&M for the nuclear addition and the sources of replacement energy (by fuel type) - both expressed in mills per kWh; and (5) the proportion of replacement energy assumed to be provided by coal, oil, gas, etc.
Response
Tables 1.3-3 through 1.3-8 have been included in Chapter 1 in response to this question.
v S.1-63
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 451.1 4
Please provide the sources of the meteorological data (particularly wind direction frequency distribution) used as inout to the analytical fog model (Section 6.1. 3. 2. 3).
Response
Five to ten years of surface meteorological data including wind direction from the Peoria, Illinoio, National Weather Service surface station were used as input to the analytical fog model.
Their period of record used was within the period of record used for the Lake Clinton temperature analyses (1949-1971).
After seven areas of interest were identified in the immediate vicinity of Lake Clinton, the Peoria meteorological data were screened for conditions that would significantly reduce visibi3ity at the seven locations.
Parameters considered in the screening process included wind direction, wind sneed, stability category, ani temperature-dew point difference.
The fog analysis was then conducted under the conditions that would affect the areas of interest.
This response has been incorporated into the text on page 6.1-20.
O S.1-64
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 451.2
()
Provide an assessmeInt of the predicted impact of steam fog / ice on'the County Road 14 bridge that crosses the discharge flume.
Response
While steam fog / ice could be a problem on the bridge, the severity of the problem cannot be predicted because of such variables as the distance between ground level and water level in the flume and the effect at the letdown structure near the bridge.
IP has committed to the Illinois Department of Transportation to install driver aides and warnings as necessary.
r 1
l O
i S.1-65
. _ _ _.. _ _... -,. -. -.... ~..... _ _ _ _ _ _. _.,. _ _ _ _ - -. _.. _
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 451.3 What specific measures will be taken to mitigate the effects of lll steam fog / ice on road (and bridge) conditions and traffic safety in the immediate vicinity of Clinton Lake?
Response
IP has committed to the Illinois Department of Transportation to install driver warnings and aids as necessary to minimize any hazardous impact of the lake on the driving public.
These may include warning lights, signs, covered bridges, etc.
O l
III S.1-66
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMhtiT 1 JUNE 1981 Ouestion 470.1
\\#
Provide the following additional information, which is necessary to estimate population doses and maximum individual doses, due to atmospheric releases.
(Information should reflect 1980-81 surveys.)
Response
1.
Fraction of the year leafy vegetables are grown.
Leafy vegetables can be grown between May and October, or up to 50% of the year.
2.
Fraction of the year cows are on pasture.
Milk cows are on pasture from May to October, about 50% of
,the year.
3.
Absolute relati<e (%) humidity over growing season (average value).
The average daily maximum relative humidity during the growing season (May-October) is.83.6%.
4.
Average temperature over the growing season.
The average temperature over the growing season (May-October) rw(,)
is 18.8' C.
5.
Fraction of the year beef cattle are on pasture.
Beef cattle can be outside year around.
Grass for grazing grows from May to October, 50% of the year.
6.
Annual milk production from site boundary out to 5 miles.
A survey taken in the last quarter of 1980 revealed no milking cows or goats within a 5-mile radius of the station.
7.
Annual mutton and lamb production from site boundary out to 5 miles.
There.is no mutton or lamb production within a 5-mile radius of the station.
8.
Annual vegetable production from site boundary out to 5 miles.
Provide separate values for leafy vegetables such as spinach and non-leafy types such.as corn or potatoes.
The estimated vegetable production within 5 miles of the plant is 38,000 kg/yr.
The fraction of leafy v getables is negligible.
~'
i S.1-67
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 9.
Separate Table 2.1-18 into leafy and non-leafy components.
-Leafy vegetables make up a very small fraction of the vegetables grown in this area.
The annual weight yield to leafy vegetables is insignificant compared to the values in Table 2.1-18.
10.
Describe the location of the nearest milk cow and nearest meat animal in each sector.
Our most recent survey showed no mil.i cows or goats (milk for human consumption) within 5 miles of the station.
Figure 2.2-9 in the CPS Environmental Report---Cor.struction Permit Stage shows the results of an older survey which is still valid for relative locations of dairy cows within 15 miles of the station.
Concerning meat animals, the data in the Environmental Report-OLS is the only information we have available.
11.
Reconfirm that the data in the following tables represent 1980-1981 values; 2.1-11, 2.1-14, 2.1-15, 2.1-16, 2.1-17, and 2.1-18.
The data in these tables has not changed significantly from the time when the information was gathered.
O l
r i
I l
t l
l S.1-68
CPS-ER(OLS)
SUPPLEMENT 1 JUNE 1981 Question 470.2 Provide the following additional information, which is necessary to estimate population doses and maximum individual doses due to radioactive releases to the hydrosphere.
(Information should reflect 1980-81 surveys.)
a.
Estimates of commercial fishing and sport fishing catch i
' downstream of the plant (to 50 miles).
Include bases for each estimate and' representative dilution values.
b.
Estimates of recreational use downstream including shore-line_use, boating use, and swimming use.
Units should be person-hours /yr.
The bases for each estimate should also be provided.
Include representative dilution values for each estimate.
c.
Reconfirm that no consumption or irrigation of downstream water is occurring, or is expected to occur in the near future.
Response
a.
The commercial fish harvert reported to the state of Illinois from the Sangamon River in 1979, the most recent available year, is as follows:
O' Buffalo 1,330 Catfish 850 Carp 820 Drum 100 Commercial fishing is not allowed on Salt Creek.
Quantitative data on recreational fishing in Salt Creek and the Sangamon River is not available.
b.
Quantitative data on the recreational use of Salt Creek and the Sangamon Rivcr is not available.
c.
There is no municipal or industrial use of Salt Creek downstream of the Clinton Power Station.
There is no known irrigational use of the creek, and none is expected in the near future.
Ths response is; incorporated into :he text on -page 5.2-4.
(
S.1-69
,- - -

ML19351A075

Text

Number of Residential Customers; BNC

=

-

=

=

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

13.1 REFERENCES

13.5 REFERENCES

13.8 REFERENCES

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

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