ML15351A231

{{Adams | number = ML15351A231 | issue date = 10/31/2015 | title = Official Exhibit - NRC-009-MA-CM01 - NUREG-2183, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the Shine Medical Radioisotope Production Facility (October 16, 2015) | author name = | author affiliation = NRC/OGC | addressee name = | addressee affiliation = NRC/OCM | docket = 05000608 | license number = | contact person = SECY RAS | case reference number = Mandatory Hearing 2, RAS 28633, 50-608-CP | document type = Legal-Exhibit | page count = 449 }}

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility Final Report Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NUREG-2183 AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALSIN NRC PUBLICATIONSNRC Reference MaterialAs of November 1999, you may electronically access NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at NRC's Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins and information notices; inspection and investigative reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers and their attachments.NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations, and Title 10, "Energy," in the Code of Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one of these two sources.1. The Superintendent of Documents Mail Stop IDCC Washington, DC 20402-0001 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Telephone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-21042. The National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd., Alexandria, VA 22312-0002 www.ntis.gov 1-800-553-6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request as follows:Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Publications Branch Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: distribution.resource@nrc.gov Facsimile: (301) 415-2289Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted at NRC's Web site address www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs are updated periodically and may differ from the last printed version. Although references to material found on a Web site bear the date the material was accessed, the material available on the date cited may subsequently be removed from the site.Non-NRC Reference MaterialDocuments available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased from their sponsoring organization.Copies of industry codes and standards used in asubstantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at-The NRC Technical Library Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738These standards are available in the library for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from-American National Standards Institute 11 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036-8002 www.ansi.org (212) 642-4900Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical speci-views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this series are not necessarily those of the NRC.The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and adminis-trative reports and books prepared by the staff (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports resulting from international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors' decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations (NUREG-0750).DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this publication, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility Final Report

Manuscript Completed: October 2015 Date Published: October 2015

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NUREG-2183

iii COVER SHEET Responsible Agency: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The U.S. Department of Energy is a cooperating agency involved in the preparation of this environmental impact statement (EIS). Title: Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Final Report The proposed SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), facility would be located in Janesville, Wisconsin. Additional information or copies of this document are available through the following: Division of License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mail Stop O-11F1 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Phone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 6509 Fax: 301-415-2002 E-mail: Michelle.Moser@nrc.gov ABSTRACT The U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) in response to an application submitted by SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), for a construction permit for the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility. The EIS includes the analysis that evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action and considers the following three alternatives to the proposed action: (1) the no-action alternative (i.e., the construction permit is denied), (2) two alternative sites, and (3) one alternative technology. After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, the NRC staff recommends, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the issuance of the construction permit to SHINE. The NRC staff based its recommendation on the following factors: SHINE's Environmental Report; the NRC staff's consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; the NRC staff's independent environmental review; and the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ v FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. xi TABLES ................................................................................................................................. xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... xvii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................... xxi

1.0 INTRODUCTION

......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Molybdenum-99 ................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Iodine-131 ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.1.3 Xenon-133 ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Proposed Federal Action .................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action ........................................ 1-3 1.4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Review .......................... 1-4 1.5 Cooperating Agency ........................................................................................ 1-5 1.6 Consultation and Correspondence ................................................................... 1-6 1.7 Status of Compliance ....................................................................................... 1-7 1.8 References ...................................................................................................... 1-7 2.0 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION ................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Site Location and Layout .................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Construction Activities ...................................................................................... 2-4 2.3 Facility Operations ........................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.1 Proposed Technology ........................................................................ 2-7 2.3.2 Radioisotope Production Process Overview ...................................... 2-8 2.4 Power Requirements ..................................................................................... 2-11 2.5 Water Use, Treatment, and Discharges ......................................................... 2-12 2.5.1 Water Use ....................................................................................... 2-12 2.5.2 Water Treatment ............................................................................. 2-12 2.5.3 Water Discharges ............................................................................ 2-12 2.6 Cooling and Heating Dissipation Systems ...................................................... 2-13 2.6.1 Cooling Systems ............................................................................. 2-13 2.6.2 Heating Systems ............................................................................. 2-13 2.7 Storage, Treatment, and Transportation of Radioactive and Nonradioactive Waste .................................................................................... 2-13 2.7.1 Radioactive Wastes ......................................................................... 2-13 2.7.2 Nonradioactive Waste ..................................................................... 2-16 2.7.3 Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Program .................... 2-17 2.8 Facility Decommissioning ............................................................................... 2-18 Table of Contents vi 2.9 Related Actions .............................................................................................. 2-18 2.10 References .................................................................................................... 2-19 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources ...................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Land Use ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Visual Resources............................................................................... 3-8 3.2 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise ................................................................. 3-8 3.2.1 Meteorology and Climatology .......................................................... 3-10 3.2.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................ 3-12 3.2.3 Noise ............................................................................................... 3-16 3.3 Geologic Environment .................................................................................... 3-18 3.3.1 Site Geology .................................................................................... 3-18 3.3.2 Soils ................................................................................................ 3-21 3.3.3 Seismic Setting ................................................................................ 3-22 3.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 3-23 3.4.1 Surface Water ................................................................................. 3-23 3.4.2 Groundwater .................................................................................... 3-26 3.5 Ecological Resources .................................................................................... 3-29 3.5.1 Ecoregion ........................................................................................ 3-29 3.5.2 Site .................................................................................................. 3-30 3.5.3 Habitats in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site .................................... 3-31 3.5.4 Protected Species and Habitats ....................................................... 3-34 3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 3-38 3.6.1 Cultural Background ........................................................................ 3-38 3.6.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources ........................................... 3-40 3.7 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................. 3-40 3.7.1 Population Growth Rates and Projections ....................................... 3-40 3.7.2 Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................... 3-41 3.7.3 Transient Population ........................................................................ 3-42 3.7.4 Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment ............................... 3-42 3.7.5 Income and Wages .......................................................................... 3-44 3.7.6 Poverty Rates .................................................................................. 3-44 3.7.7 Housing ........................................................................................... 3-45 3.7.8 Local Employers .............................................................................. 3-45 3.7.9 Taxes .............................................................................................. 3-46 3.7.10 Education ........................................................................................ 3-47 3.7.11 Tourism, Activity Centers, and Recreation for the City of Janesville and Rock County ............................................................ 3-47 3.7.12 Public Services ................................................................................ 3-49 3.8 Human Health ................................................................................................ 3-50 3.8.1 Regulatory Radiological Requirements ............................................ 3-50 Table of Contents vii 3.8.2 Chemical Hazards ........................................................................... 3-52 3.8.3 Other Hazards ................................................................................. 3-52 3.9 Transportation Environments ......................................................................... 3-52 3.9.1 Roads .............................................................................................. 3-52 3.9.2 Airports ............................................................................................ 3-55 3.9.3 Rail .................................................................................................. 3-55 3.10 References .................................................................................................... 3-55 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AND DECOMMISSIONING .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources ...................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Land Use ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Visual Resources............................................................................... 4-4 4.2 Air Quality and Noise ....................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.1 Construction ...................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.2 Operations ....................................................................................... 4-10 4.2.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-14 4.3 Geologic Environment .................................................................................... 4-17 4.3.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-17 4.3.2 Operations ....................................................................................... 4-18 4.3.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-19 4.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 4-19 4.4.1 Surface Water ................................................................................. 4-19 4.4.2 Groundwater .................................................................................... 4-22 4.5 Ecological Resources .................................................................................... 4-25 4.5.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-25 4.5.2 Operations ....................................................................................... 4-26 4.5.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-27 4.5.4 Federally Protected Species ............................................................ 4-27 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 4-28 4.6.1 Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................... 4-28 4.6.2 Proposed Action .............................................................................. 4-28 4.6.3 Consultation .................................................................................... 4-28 4.6.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................... 4-29 4.7 Socioeconomic Impacts ................................................................................. 4-31 4.7.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-31 4.7.2 Operations ....................................................................................... 4-34 4.7.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-35 4.8 Human Health ................................................................................................ 4-36 4.8.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-36 4.8.2 Operations ....................................................................................... 4-37 4.8.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-39 Table of Contents viii 4.9 Waste Management ....................................................................................... 4-41 4.9.1 Radioactive Waste ........................................................................... 4-41 4.9.2 Nonradioactive Waste ..................................................................... 4-43 4.10 Transportation ................................................................................................ 4-43 4.10.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-43 4.10.2 Operations ....................................................................................... 4-44 4.10.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-45 4.11 Accidents ....................................................................................................... 4-46 4.11.1 Maximum Hypothetical Accident ...................................................... 4-47 4.11.2 Hazardous Chemical Accidents ....................................................... 4-49 4.12 Environmental Justice .................................................................................... 4-52 4.13 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-61 4.13.1 Land Use and Visual Resources ...................................................... 4-62 4.13.2 Air Quality and Noise ....................................................................... 4-63 4.13.3 Geologic Environment ..................................................................... 4-66 4.13.4 Water Resources ............................................................................. 4-67 4.13.5 Ecological Resources ...................................................................... 4-69 4.13.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................... 4-71 4.13.7 Socioeconomics .............................................................................. 4-71 4.13.8 Human Health ................................................................................. 4-72 4.13.9 Waste Management ........................................................................ 4-73 4.13.10 Transportation ................................................................................. 4-75 4.13.11 Environmental Justice ..................................................................... 4-76 4.13.12 Summary ......................................................................................... 4-77 4.14 References .................................................................................................... 4-79 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 No-Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Alternative Sites ............................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.1 Description of Alternative Site-Selection Process .............................. 5-2 5.2.2 Chippewa Falls Site ........................................................................... 5-6 5.2.3 Stevens Point Site ........................................................................... 5-48 5.3 Alternative Technologies ................................................................................ 5-92 5.3.1 Identification of Reasonable Alternatives ......................................... 5-92 5.3.2 Neutron Capture Alternative ............................................................ 5-93 5.3.3 Aqueous Homogenous Reactor Alternative ..................................... 5-93 5.3.4 Linear-Accelerator-Based Alternative .............................................. 5-94 5.4 Cost-Benefit Comparison ............................................................................... 5-99 5.4.1 Benefit and Costs of Alternatives ................................................... 5-103 5.4.2 Cost Benefit Conclusions ............................................................... 5-105 5.5 Alternatives Summary .................................................................................. 5-106 5.6 References .................................................................................................. 5-106 Table of Contents ix 

6.0 CONCLUSION

S .......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action ................................................ 6-1 6.2 Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................. 6-4 6.3 Resource Commitments ................................................................................... 6-5 6.3.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts .................................... 6-5 6.3.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ................................................................... 6-11 6.3.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ................. 6-12 6.4 Recommendation ........................................................................................... 6-13 6.5 References .................................................................................................... 6-13 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................... 7-1 8.0 INDEX ......................................................................................................................... 8-1 9.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ARE SENT .............................. 9-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SHINE MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .............................. A-1 APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... B-1 CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE .................................................................................. C-1 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE ..................................................... D-1

Table of Contents xi FIGURES Figure 1-1. Environmental Review Process .......................................................................... 1-6 Figure 2-1. Region Surrounding the Proposed SHINE Facility .............................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2. Proposed SHINE Facility and Surrounding Area Within a 1-mi (1.6-km) Radius ................................................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-3. Proposed SHINE Facility Conceptual Site Layout .............................................. 2-4 Figure 2-4. Conceptual View of the Proposed SHINE Facility ............................................... 2-6 Figure 2-5. Cutaway Conceptual Interior View of the SHINE Device .................................... 2-7 Figure 2-6. Conceptual Model of an Irradiation Unit.............................................................. 2-8 Figure 2-7. SHINE Radioisotope Production System Flow Diagram ..................................... 2-9 Figure 3-1. Aerial View of the Proposed SHINE Site ............................................................ 3-2 Figure 3-2. Cities and Major Roadways Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site ..................................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Proposed SHINE Site ......................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4. Visual Setting of the Proposed SHINE Site ........................................................ 3-9 Figure 3-5. Annual Average Wind Rose as Measured at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport ............................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-6. Proposed SHINE Facility Map Showing Noise Sources and Receptors ............ 3-18 Figure 3-7. Geologic Cross-Section of the Proposed SHINE Site and Vicinity .................... 3-20 Figure 3-8. Surface-Water Features in the Vicinity of the Proposed SHINE Site ................. 3-24 Figure 3-9. Existing Transportation Network Near the Proposed SHINE Facility ................ 3-53 Figure 4-1. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed SHINE Facility ............................................ 4-5 Figure 4-2. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site in Janesville ......................................................................................................... 4-55 Figure 4-3. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville.......................................................................................... 4-57 Figure 5-1. Population Centers and Transportation Features in Chippewa County, Wisconsin ........................................................................................................... 5-7 Figure 5-2. Chippewa Falls Site............................................................................................ 5-8 Figure 5-3. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site .................. 5-32 Figure 5-4. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site ........... 5-35 Figure 5-5. Population Centers and Transportation Features in Portage County, Wisconsin ......................................................................................................... 5-49 Figure 5-6. Stevens Point Site ............................................................................................ 5-50 Figure 5-7. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site .................... 5-77 Figure 5-8. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site ............. 5-78

Table of Contents xiii TABLES Table ES-1. Summary of NRC Conclusions on the Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, and Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE Facility ................................................................................................................. xix Table 2-1. Estimated Construction Material Requirements .................................................. 2-5 Table 2-2. Gaseous Radioactive Effluents ........................................................................ 2-14 Table 2-3. Summary of Major Chemical Inventory and Quantity at the Proposed SHINE Facility .................................................................................................. 2-17 Table 3-1. Summary of Land Use and Land Cover Within the Proposed SHINE Site and Vicinity ......................................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2. Crop Production Estimates for the Proposed SHINE Site and Within Rock County, Wisconsin ............................................................................................. 3-6 Table 3-3. Land Use in the City of Janesville....................................................................... 3-7 Table 3-4. Annual and Seasonal Precipitation and Temperature Data for the City of Janesville, Wisconsin ....................................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-5. National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................ 3-13 Table 3-6. Regional Air Emissions Inventory ..................................................................... 3-14 Table 3-7. Sound Levels and Human Response ............................................................... 3-16 Table 3-8. Wildlife Observed On or Near the Proposed Site .............................................. 3-30 Table 3-9. Common Fish Species in the Rock River and Tributaries Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed Site .............................................................................. 3-34 Table 3-10. Federally and State-Listed Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Proposed SHINE Site ....................................................................................... 3-36 Table 3-11. Resident Population for Rock County (1970-2050) .......................................... 3-41 Table 3-12. Race and Ethnicity for the City of Janesville and Rock County, Wisconsin, in 2010 ............................................................................................................. 3-41 Table 3-13. Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment Rates in the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin ....................................... 3-43 Table 3-14. Employment by Industry in Rock County for 2012 ............................................ 3-44 Table 3-15. Median Family Income and Per Capita Income for City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin ......................................................... 3-44 Table 3-16. People Living Below U.S. Census Poverty Thresholds for the City of Janesville, Rock County, and State of Wisconsin ............................................. 3-45 Table 3-17. Housing Unit Characteristics for the City of Janesville and Rock County .......... 3-45 Table 3-18. Ten Largest Employers in the City of Janesville (2014) .................................... 3-46 Table 3-19. Ten Largest Employers in Rock County (2014) ................................................ 3-46 Table 3-20. State-Owned Natural Areas in Rock County ..................................................... 3-48 Table 3-21. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site ......... 3-54 Table 3-22. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic Counts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site-Number of Vehicles .......................................... 3-55 Table 4-1. Acres of Land Required for Construction of the Proposed SHINE Facility .......... 4-3 Table 4-2. Equipment Used During Construction ................................................................ 4-6 Table of Contents xiv Table 4-3. Annual Air Emissions During Construction ......................................................... 4-7 Table 4-4. Fuel Combustion Sources ................................................................................ 4-11 Table 4-5. Fuel Combustion Emissions During Operations ............................................... 4-11 Table 4-6. SHINE Air Dispersion Modeling Results ........................................................... 4-12 Table 4-7. Vehicle Emissions During Operation ................................................................ 4-13 Table 4-8. Diesel Equipment Used During Decommissioning ............................................ 4-14 Table 4-9. Air Emissions During Decommissioning ........................................................... 4-16 Table 4-10. Water Requirements for SHINE Facil .................................... 4-23 Table 4-11. Water Requirements for SHINE ....................................... 4-24 Table 4-12. Comparison of SHINE Work Force Estimates by Occupation with Employment by Occupation in ROI ................................................................... 4-32 Table 4-13. SHINE Hazardous Chemical Source Terms and Concentrations...................... 4-50 Table 4-14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site in Janesville ......................................................................................................... 4-56 Table 4-15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville.......................................................................................... 4-58 Table 4-16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis .................................................. 4-61 Table 4-17. Cumulative Air Emission Effects Summary During SHINE Operation ............... 4-65 Table 4-18. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of the Proposed Project .................................................................................... 4-77 Table 5-1. Proposed SHINE Site-Selection Scoring Criteria ................................................ 5-6 Table 5-2. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the Chippewa Falls Site ..................................................................................................................... 5-9 Table 5-3. Federally and State-Protected Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Chippewa Falls Site .................................................................................... 5-20 Table 5-4. Annual Average Daily Traffic CountsVicinity of Chippewa Falls Site ............. 5-28 Table 5-5. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic CountsVicinity of Chippewa Falls SiteNumber of Vehicles ................................................... 5-28 Table 5-6. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site .................. 5-33 Table 5-7. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site ........... 5-34 Table 5-8. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions Within a 5-mi (8-km) Radius of the Chippewa Falls Site....................... 5-38 Table 5-9. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the Stevens Point Site ....... 5-51 Table 5-10. Vegetation on the Stevens Point Site ............................................................... 5-62 Table 5-11. Federally and State-Protected Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Stevens Point Site ...................................................................................... 5-63 Table 5-12. Annual Average Daily Traffic CountsVicinity of Stevens Point Site ............... 5-71 Table 5-13. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic CountsVicinity of the Stevens Point SiteNumber of Vehicles ................................................ 5-72 Table 5-14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site .................... 5-76 Table 5-15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site ............. 5-78 Table of Contents xv Table 5-16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Within a 5-mi (8-km) ROI of the Stevens Point Site ................................................................ 5-82 Table 5-17. Costs and Benefits of Constructing, Operating, and Decommissioning the Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville, Wisconsin, Site ............................ 5-100 Table 5-18. Comparison of Impacts for the Proposed SHINE Facility, Proposed Alternative Sites, and No-Action ..................................................................... 5-104 Table 5-19. Comparison of Technologies at the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville .... 5-105 Table 6-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from Construction, Operations, and Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville Site ............ 6-2 Table 6-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts .................................................... 6-5 Table 7-1. List of Preparers ................................................................................................. 7-1 Table 9-1. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of This Environmental Impact Statement Are Sent ......................................................... 9-1 Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Scoping Comment Period .............. A-2 Table A-2. Issue Categories ................................................................................................ A-2 Table A-3. Individuals Providing Comments During the Draft EIS Comment Period .......... A-18 Table A-4. Issue Categories .............................................................................................. A-19 Table B-1. Potentially Applicable Federal Statutes, Regulations, and Orders ...................... B-2 Table B-2. Potentially Applicable Wisconsin State Requirements ........................................ B-6 Table B-3. City of Janesville and Rock County, Wisconsin, Ordinances and Plans ............. B-8 Table B-4. Permits and Approvals Required for Construction and Operation ....................... B-9 Table C-1. Environmental Review Correspondence............................................................. C-1 Table D-1. Section 7 Consultation Correspondence ............................................................ D-3 Table D-2. NHPA Correspondence ...................................................................................... D-4

xvii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND By letter dated March 26, 2013, SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), submitted Part 1 of a two-part application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a construction permit for the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) in Janesville, Wisconsin. To issue a permit, the NRC is required to consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., herein referred to as NEPA). The NRC's environmental protection regulations that implement NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51 describe several types of actions that would require an environmental impact statement (EIS). The regulation at 10 CFR 51.20 does not specifically identify construction permits and operating licenses for production and utilization facilities as an action that would require an EIS. However, for the SHINE environmental review, the NRC staff determined that an EIS was appropriate to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC staff made this determination because of the potential for significant environmental impacts and the unique considerations of a first-of-a-kind application for a medical radioisotope production facility with a unique application of technologies, as well as to allow public involvement in the environmental review process. Upon acceptance of Part 1 of SHINE's application, the NRC staff began the environmental review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (78 FR 39343) to prepare an EIS and to conduct scoping activities. In preparation of this EIS, the NRC staff performed the following: conducted public scoping meetings on July 17, 2013, in Janesville, Wisconsin; conducted a site audit at the proposed SHINE site and alternative sites from July 30, 2013, to August 1, 2013; conducted public meetings on the draft EIS on June 10, 2015, in Janesville, Wisconsin; reviewed SHINE's Environmental Report; consulted with Federal, State, and local agencies; conducted a review of the guidance in Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors; and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria"; and considered public comments received. PROPOSED ACTION The proposed Federal action is for the NRC to decide whether to issue a construction permit under 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE facility, which would include up to eight utilization facilities and a production facility. If the NRC were to issue a construction permit, SHINE could build the proposed facility on a 91-acre (37-hectare) site in Rock County, Executive Summary xviii which is located about 4 miles (6 kilometers) south of the city center of Janesville, Wisconsin. The SHINE facility would produce, package, and ship medical radioisotopes, specifically molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. The U.S. Department of Energy is a cooperating agency on this EIS. If the NRC issues the required permits and licenses, the proposed Federal action for the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration is to decide whether to provide cost-sharing financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate the commercial production of medical radioisotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium. The funding would help accelerate activities, such as construction, purchase of equipment, and initial operation using a subcritical fission process. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose and need of this proposed Federal action is to provide a medical radioisotope production option that could help meet the need for a domestic source of molybdenum-99. The determination of need and the decision to produce radioisotopes are at the discretion of applicants or other medical radioisotope production decisionmakers. This definition of purpose and need reflects the NRC's recognition that, unless there are findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or findings in the environmental analysis under NEPA that would lead the NRC to reject a construction permit application, the agency does not have a role in the planning decisions as to whether a particular radioisotope production facility should be constructed and operated. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AND DECOMMISSIONING The EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. The environmental impacts from the proposed action are designated as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The following definitions of these three significance levels, as presented in the final interim staff guidance to NUREG-1537, apply: SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. In assessing radiological impacts, the NRC has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the agency's regulations are considered SMALL. MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource. LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. Table ES-1 summarizes the NRC staff's findings on the level of impacts on environmental resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. Executive Summary xix Table ES-1. Summary of NRC Conclusions on the Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, and Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE Facility Resource Area Impacts Land Use and Visual Resources SMALL Air Quality and Noise SMALL Geologic Environment SMALL Water Resources SMALL Ecological Resources SMALL Historic and Cultural Resources SMALL Socioeconomic Impacts SMALL Human Health SMALL Waste Management SMALL Transportation SMALL to MODERATE Accidents SMALL Environmental Justice See note below.(a) Cumulative Impacts Land Use and Visual Resources SMALL Air Quality and Noise SMALL Geologic Environment SMALL Water Resources SMALL Ecological Resources MODERATE Historic and Cultural Resources SMALL Socioeconomics Impacts SMALL Human Health SMALL Waste Management SMALL Transportation SMALL to MODERATE Environmental Justice See note below.(a) (a) There would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations and subsistence consumption from the proposed action and from cumulative impacts. ALTERNATIVES The NRC staff considered the environmental impacts associated with the following alternatives to constructing the SHINE facility at the Janesville site: the no-action alternative; construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site (Alternative Site No. 1); construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site (Alternative Site No. 2); and construction, operations, and decommissioning of a linear-accelerator-based facility at the SHINE site (alternative technology). The NRC staff evaluated each alternative using the same resource areas that were used in evaluating impacts from the proposed action. The NRC staff determined that the no-action alternative would result in SMALL impacts to all resource areas. However, the no-action alternative does not fulfill the purpose and need of the project. The environmentally preferred Executive Summary xx alternatives are the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility at the Janesville site. The impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternative technology would be SMALL for all resource areas with the exception of traffic, which would incur SMALL to MODERATE impacts. The NRC staff determined that the construction, operations, and decommissioning of building the SHINE facility at the alternative sites would likely result in greater impacts than the proposed action. RECOMMENDATION After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, the NRC staff recommends, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the issuance of the construction permit to SHINE. The NRC staff based its recommendation on the following factors: SHINE's Environmental Report; the NRC staff's consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; the NRC staff's independent environmental review; and the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received. xxi ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS C degree(s) Celsius F degree(s) Fahrenheit ac acre(s) ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level AERMOD American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable APE area of potential effect AQCR air quality control region BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act bgs below ground surface BIA U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics BMP best management practice B.P. before present Bq becquerels bu bushel(s) CAA Clean Air Act Ci curie CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CH4 methane cm centimeter CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2eq carbon dioxide equivalent CRMP cultural resource management plan CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel(s) dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale Abbreviations and Acronyms xxii DBA design-basis accident DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOL U.S. Department of Labor DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EA environmental assessment ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online (air data search tool) EIA Energy Information Administration EIS environmental impact statement EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ER Environmental Report ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ESA Endangered Species Act ES&H Environment, Health, and Safety (Manager) FAA U.S. Federal Aviation Administration FEMA U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA U.S. Federal Highway Administration FR Federal Register ft foot (feet) ft2 square foot (feet) FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GAI Golder Associates, Inc. gal gallon(s) GHG greenhouse gas GM General Motors gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute GTCC greater than Class C GWP global warming potential ha hectare(s) HAP hazardous air pollutant HEPA high-efficiency particulate air HEU highly enriched uranium hp horsepower hr hour(s) Abbreviations and Acronyms xxiii HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency in. inch IOM Institute of Medicine JBWI Rockford, Illinois-Janesville-Beloit, Wisconsin, Interstate K kindergarten km kilometer(s) kph kilometer(s) per hour km2 square kilometer(s) L liter(s) LDN day-night sound intensity level Lpd liter(s) per day m meter(s) m2 square meter(s) m3 cubic meter(s) m3/day cubic meter(s) per day m3/min cubic meter(s) per minute mi3/s cubic mile(s) per second mg/L milligram(s) per liter mg/m3 milligram(s) per cubic meter mgd million gallon(s) per day m/s meter(s) per second MAR material at risk MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mgd million gallons per day MHA maximum hypothetical accident mi mile min minute mph mile(s) per hour mi2 square mile(s) µg microgram µm microns µg/m3 microgram per cubic meter MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity MOA memorandum of agreement Abbreviations and Acronyms xxiv MOI maximum offsite individual mrem milliroentgen equivalent man MSL mean sea level mSv millisievert MT metric ton(s) NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC noise abatement criteria NCDC National Climatic Data Center NCES National Center for Education Statistics NEA Nuclear Energy Agency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS U.S. National Park Service NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NUREG NRC technical report designation (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PAC protective action criterion/criteria PGA peak ground acceleration PM particulate matter ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PSAR preliminary safety analysis report PSD prevention of significant deterioration RCA radiation-controlled area RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROI region of influence RM river mile Abbreviations and Acronyms xxv SER safety evaluation report SHINE SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIL significant impact level SNM Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging SO2 sulfur dioxide SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure SSC species of special concern TDS total dissolved solids TEEL Temporary Emergency Exposure Limit TIF Tax Increment Finance TMDL total maximum daily load TNM traffic noise model TPY tons per year TSP total suspended particles TSV target solution vessel µg microgram(s) µm micron(s) U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code USCB U.S. Census Bureau USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDOI U.S. Department of Interior USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program USGS U.S. Geological Service VOC volatile organic compound(s) WAC Wisconsin Administrative Code WDOA Wisconsin Department of Administration WDATCP Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources WDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation WDPI Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction WDR Wisconsin Department of Revenue WDWD Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development Abbreviations and Acronyms xxvi WGNHS Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey WHS Wisconsin Historical Society WI Wisconsin WPDES Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System WTP Wastewater Treatment Plant yd3 cubic yard(s) Y-12 Y-12 National Security Complex 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated March 26, 2013, SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), submitted Part 1 of a two-part application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a construction permit under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) in Janesville, Wisconsin (SHINE 2013). The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) authorizes the NRC to issue construction permits for production and utilization facilities. To issue a construction permit, the NRC is required to consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., herein referred to as NEPA). The NRC's environmental protection regulations that implement NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51 describe several types of actions that would require an environmental impact statement (EIS). Construction permits and operating licenses for production and subcritical utilization facilities are not specifically identified in 10 CFR 51.20 as an action that would require an EIS. Such activities may require an environmental assessment (EA) or an EIS, depending on their potential for significant impacts that may affect the quality of the human environment (NRC 2012). An EA is used to determine whether the impacts from the proposed action may be significant and whether a finding of no significant impact can be made. If, based on the EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action could result in significant impacts to the human environment, the agency should prepare an EIS. In some cases, the NRC may decide to environment or the proposed action involves a matter that the Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, has determined should be covered by an EIS. For the SHINE environmental review, the NRC staff determined that an EIS was appropriate to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC staff made this determination because of the potential for significant environmental impacts and the unique considerations of a first-of-a-kind application for a medical radioisotope production facility with a unique application of technologies, as well as to allow public involvement in the environmental review process. 1.1 Background Nuclear medicine practitioners frequently use a variety of radioisotopes to diagnose and treat illnesses in patients. Out of the many radioisotopes in use, three are relevant for this EIS-molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. 1.1.1 Molybdenum-99 Molybdenum-99 is the radioisotope currently in highest demand (NRC 2012) for medical use. Molybdenum-99 decays with a 66-hour half-life to technetium-99m, which in turn decays with a 6-hour half-life to technetium-99. Technetium-99m is the most commonly used medical radioisotope in the world. It is used in about 20 to 25 million medical diagnostic procedures annually, or about 80 percent of all diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures (IAEA 2013). Uses for technetium-99m include the following (SHINE 2015): bone scans, lung perfusion imaging, kidney scans and functional imaging, Introduction 1-2 liver scans, sentinel lymph node localization, cardiac perfusion imaging, brain perfusion imaging, gall bladder function imaging, blood pool imaging, thyroid and salivary gland imaging, and Meckel's scans. Molybdenum-99 is commonly produced through the neutron activation of naturally occurring molybdenum or as a by-product of uranium-235 fission. No U.S. domestic producers of molybdenum-99 exist. Almost the entire U.S. supply of molybdenum-99, as well as about 85 percent of the world's supply, is produced at the National Research Universal reactor in Chalk River, Ontario, Canada, or at the High Flux Reactor in Petten, the Netherlands (National Research Council 2009). The only other international producers are located in South Africa, Australia, Belgium, Poland, Czech Republic, and France. Serious domestic and international shortages over the last decade resulted from planned and unplanned maintenance shutdowns at these facilities (National Research Council 2009). In addition to issues of production reliability, global demand for the radioisotope is increasing, and transporting the radioisotope across international borders is becoming more difficult (National Research Council 2009). 1.1.2 Iodine-131 Iodine-131 is produced for medical use through irradiation of tellurium-130 or as a by-product of uranium-235 fission. Iodine-131 has a half-life of about 8 days. Uses of iodine-131 include the following: (1) radiation therapy and (2) radioactive labeling for diagnostic pharmaceuticals (SHINE 2015). Three companies-DRAXIMAGE, Covidien, and MDS Nordion-supply iodine-131 for the U.S. market (Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) 2011). As with molybdenum-99, reactor shutdowns have caused recent shortages in iodine-131. For example, in November 2013, the National Research Universal reactor shutdown led to a global shortage of a variety of medical isotopes (NEA 2011; Bloomberg 2013). 1.1.3 Xenon-133 Xenon-133 is produced as a by-product of uranium-235 fission. Its half-life is about 5 days. Uses of xenon-133 include the following: (1) lung imaging, (2) diagnostic evaluation of pulmonary function, and (3) assessment of cerebral blood flow (SHINE 2015). The domestic supply of xenon-133 also has been susceptible to shortages because of production and availability issues (Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNM) 2013). 1.2 Proposed Federal Action The proposed Federal action is for the NRC to decide whether to issue a construction permit under 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE facility, which would include up to eight utilization facilities and a production facility. If the NRC were to issue a construction Introduction 1-3 A curie (Ci) is a unit of measurement describing the radioactive disintegration rate of a substance; 1 Ci is 3.700x1010 disintegrations per second (Institute of Medicine (IOM) 1995). The term "6-day Ci" comes from producers to determine the number of curies present in a shipment 6 days after it leaves the production facility (National Research Council 2009). permit, SHINE could build the proposed facility on a 91-acre (37-hectare) site in Rock County, which is located about 4 mi (6 km) south of the city center of Janesville, Wisconsin. The issuance of a construction permit is a separate licensing action from the issuance of an operating license. If the NRC issues a construction permit, then SHINE must submit a separate application for an operating license, pursuant to the NRC's requirements, and must obtain NRC approval before it can operate the SHINE facility. If the NRC were to issue an operating license, SHINE could operate the proposed SHINE facility and produce radioisotopes, including molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133 (SHINE 2015). To conduct an efficient and effective environmental review, this EIS covers the potential impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning. If SHINE were to submit an application for an operating license, the NRC staff would prepare a supplement to this EIS in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(b). As described in Section 1.6, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a cooperating agency on this EIS. If the NRC issues the required permits and licenses, the proposed Federal action for the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is to decide whether to provide additional cost-sharing financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate the commercial production of medical radioisotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium. The funding would help accelerate activities such as construction, purchase of equipment, and initial operation using a subcritical fission process. Funding of these activities is a different action from the lease and takeback of uranium by DOE/NNSA. If SHINE were to request that NNSA provide it with low-enriched uranium or take back waste for which SHINE has no other disposal path, such activities would require a review under NEPA before DOE/NNSA could make any decision about these activities. 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action The purpose of and need for this proposed Federal action is to provide a medical radioisotope production option that could help meet the need for a domestic source of molybdenum-99. For the past 2 decades, the United States has relied on imported medical radioisotopes, such as molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. Molybdenum-99, for example, is used to perform about 50,000 medical procedures daily in the United States. Global shortages of medical radioisotopes in 2009 and 2010 have highlighted the need for prompt action to ensure a reliable domestic supply. Demand in the United States for molybdenum-99 is approximately 5,000 6-day curies (Ci) (2x1014 6-day becquerels (Bq)) per week. This demand is expected to increase about 0.5 percent per year (OECD 2014). In recent years, U.S. policy has aimed to ensure a reliable supply of medical radioisotopes while minimizing the use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes through, among other things, supporting commercial projects that produce medical radioisotopes domestically without the use of highly enriched uranium (NNSA 2011; White House 2012). In response to these shortages, and pursuant to the January 2013 enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013, Title XXXI, Subtitle F, known as the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065 et seq.), DOE/NNSA has entered into cooperative agreements with domestic commercial firms. These agreements enable DOE/NNSA to engage in cost-sharing activities to accelerate domestic endeavors to demonstrate and produce a reliable supply of molybdenum-99 using technologies that do not Introduction 1-4 rely on the use of highly enriched uranium, in accordance with Section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352) (NNSA 2011). The proposed action for the NRC is to decide whether to issue a construction permit, which would allow SHINE to construct a facility that uses low-enriched uranium to produce molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. If the construction permit is granted, SHINE would then have to apply for an operating license. The NRC would conduct a separate review to decide on issuing an operating license. If the facility is licensed to operate, SHINE expects to produce up to 8,200 6-day Ci (3.0x1014 6-day Bq) of molybdenum-99 per week (SHINE 2015). 1.4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Review The NRC's process to review applications for construction permits consists of two separate, parallel reviews. The safety review evaluates the applicant's ability to meet the NRC regulatory safety requirements. The NRC staff documents the findings of the safety review in a Safety Evaluation Report. The environmental review, governed by the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51, evaluates the environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed action. This final EIS presents the results of this evaluation. The NRC considers the findings in both the EIS and the Safety Evaluation Report in its decision to grant or deny the issuance of a construction permit. To guide its assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed action or alternative actions, the NRC established a standard of significance for impacts using the Council on Environmental Quality terminology for "significantly" (40 CFR 1508.27). Because the significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, both "context" and "intensity," as defined in CEQ regulation 40 CFR 1508.27, were considered (see text box). Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE, as defined below. SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource. LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. In March 2013, SHINE submitted its Environmental Report (SHINE 2013) with Part 1 of its application for a construction permit. After reviewing Part 1 of the application for sufficiency, on July 1, 2013, the NRC staff published a Notice of Acceptance for Docketing in the Federal Register (78 FR 39342) and a separate Federal Register notice of its intent to prepare an EIS and conduct a scoping process (78 FR 39343). The July 1, 2013, scoping notice began the 60-day scoping period. Significance indicates the importance of likely environmental impacts and is determined by considering two variables: context and intensity. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects will occur. Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, in whatever context it occurs. The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 directs DOE to improve the reliability of a domestic supply of molybdenum-99 by carrying out a technology-neutral program to support non-Federal entities in the United States in developing capabilities to produce molybdenum-99 without the use of highly enriched uranium. Introduction 1-5 On July 17, 2013, the NRC held two public scoping meetings in Janesville, Wisconsin. The NRC's report entitled, "Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility," presents the comments received during the scoping process (NRC 2015a). In July and August 2013, the NRC staff conducted a site audit at the proposed and alternative SHINE facility sites to verify information in SHINE's Environmental Report. During the site audit, the NRC staff met with SHINE personnel; reviewed specific documentation; toured the proposed and alternative sites; and met with interested Federal, State, and local agencies. Figure 1-1 shows the major milestones in the public review of an EIS. After the scoping period and site audit, the NRC staff compiled its findings in a draft EIS (NRC 2015b). The public comment period for the draft EIS was from May 22, 2015, through July 6, 2015 (80 FR 29701). The draft EIS was available for public comment for 45 days, which is the minimum required by 10 CFR 51.73. During this time, the NRC staff hosted two public meetings (NRC 2015c) and collected public comments (see Appendix A.2 for comments received and NRC responses). Based on the information gathered, the NRC staff amended the draft EIS findings as necessary and then published this final EIS. 1.5 Cooperating Agency NEPA lays the groundwork for coordination between the lead agency preparing an EIS and other Federal agencies that may have special expertise on an environmental issue or that have jurisdiction by law. These other agencies, referred to as "cooperating agencies," are responsible for assisting the lead agency through early participation in the NEPA process, including scoping. The cooperating agencies provide technical input to the environmental analysis and provide staff support, as needed, to the lead agency. The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 directs DOE and the NRC to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that environmental reviews for facilities to produce medical radioisotopes are complementary and not duplicative. The NRC makes license decisions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and DOE makes funding decisions under the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352). The NRC is required to conduct an environmental review under NEPA to decide whether to grant SHINE a construction permit. DOE is required to conduct an environmental review under NEPA for providing financial support to SHINE. The NRC and DOE decided to develop a Memorandum of Agreement to make the most effective and efficient use of Federal resources in reviewing SHINE's proposal. On December 1, 2014, and February 3, 2015, the NRC and DOE signed a Memorandum of Agreement on the review of the SHINE application (DOE and NRC 2015). The goal of this agreement is to develop one EIS that serves the NRC licensing process and the DOE funding process. Although both agencies must meet NEPA requirements, they also must meet mission requirements. As a cooperating agency, DOE/NNSA plans to adopt the final EIS in accordance with the DOE/NEPA implementing procedures in 10 CFR 1021.103. The Memorandum of Agreement designates the NRC as the lead Federal agency and DOE as a cooperating agency in developing an EIS for the proposed SHINE facility. Under Federal law, each agency has jurisdiction related to parts of the proposed project as major Federal actions that could significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Introduction 1-6 Figure 1-1. Environmental Review Process 1.6 Consultation and Correspondence The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) require Federal agencies to consult with applicable State and Federal agencies and groups before taking actions that may affect endangered species, fisheries, and historic and archaeological resources. In addition to correspondence, as part of formal consultation requirements, the NRC staff contacted Federal, State, regional, local, and tribal agencies with environmental expertise in the areas that the proposed project could potentially affect. Agencies contacted during the formal consultation processes and the SHINE environmental review process included the following: NRC staff reviews application Staff conducts site environmental audit NRC issues draft EIS Application submitted to NRC *Scoping process *Draft EIS process NRC issues final EIS NRC makes decision on whether to issue a construction permit or license *Opportunities for public involvement Introduction 1-7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, Iowa Tribe, Forest County Potawatomi Community, Hannahville Indian Community, Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, Sac and Fox Nation, Lower Sioux Indian Community, Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Prairie Island Indian Community, Santee Sioux Nation, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Spirit Lake Tribe, Upper Sioux Community, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office. Chapter 9 provides a list of those who received a copy of this EIS. Appendix C contains a chronological list of all correspondence sent and received during the environmental review. 1.7 Status of Compliance SHINE is responsible for complying with applicable NRC regulations and other Federal, State, and local requirements. Appendix B to this EIS includes a list of the permits and licenses that Federal, State, and local authorities must issue to SHINE before construction or operation of the proposed facility. 1.8 References 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." Introduction 1-8 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions." 10 CFR Part 1021. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 1021, "National Environmental Policy Act implementing procedures." 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1508, "Terminology and index." 78 FR 39342. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. [Notice; Acceptance for Docketing]." Federal Register 78(126):39342-39343. July 1, 2013. 78 FR 39343. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. [Intent to prepare environmental impact statement and conduct scoping process; public meeting]." Federal Register 78(126):39343-39344. July 1, 2013. 80 FR 29701. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability." Federal Register 80(99):29701-29702. May 22, 2015. American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 42 U.S.C. §2065 et seq. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §2011 et seq. [Bloomberg] Bloomberg News. 2013. Global Medical Isotope Shortage Follows S. Africa Plant Leak. November 15, 2013. Available at <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/global-medical-isotope-shortage-follows-south-africa-plant-leak.html> (accessed 21 February 2014). [DOE and NRC]. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. "Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Department of Energy-National Nuclear Security Administration and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, on the Environmental Review Related to the Issuance of Authorizations To Construct and Operate SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc., Facility." ADAMS No. ML13304B666. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. Energy Policy Act of 2005. 42 U.S.C. §16352. [IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 2013. Coordinated Research Projects (CRP) on Production of Mo-99 from LEU or Neutron Activation. Available at <http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/Technical_Areas/RRS/mo99.html> (accessed 13 June 2013). [IOM] Institute of Medicine. 1995. Isotopes for Medicine and the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. February 10, 1995. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq. [NEA] Nuclear Energy Agency. 2011. The Supply of Medical Radioisotopes-The Path to Reliability. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at <http://www.oecd-nea.org/med-radio/reports/med-radio-reliability.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2013). [NNSA] National Nuclear Security Administration. 2011. NNSA Works to Minimize the Use of HEU in Medical Isotope Production. NNSA Fact Sheet 20100125. November 1, 2011. Available at <http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/factsheets/factsheet20100125> (accessed 14 June 2013). Introduction 1-9 National Research Council. 2009. Medical Isotope Production Without Highly Enriched Uranium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12569> (accessed 13 June 2013). [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. October 17, 2012. ADAMS Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015a. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility. ADAMS No. ML15062A111. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015b. Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Draft Report for Comment. NUREG-2183. Rockville, MD. May 2015. ADAMS No. ML15127A241. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015c. Summary of the Public Meeting to Discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility. July 7, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15170A262. [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-Nuclear Energy Agency. 2014. The Supply of Medical Radioisotopes-Medical Isotope Supply in the Future: Production Capacity and Demand Forecast for the 99Mo/99mTc Market, 2015-2020. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at <http://www.oecd-nea.org/med-radio/reports/sen-hlgmr2014-2.pdf> (accessed 26 February 2015). [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. March 26, 2013. ADAMS No. ML14052A349. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SNM] Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2013. Xenon-133 Shortage Information. Available at <http://interactive.snm.org/index.cfm?PageID=11637> (accessed 14 June 2013). White House. 2012. Fact Sheet: Encouraging Reliable Supplies of Molybdenum-99 Produced without Highly Enriched Uranium. Office of the Press Secretary. June 7, 2012. Available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/07/fact-sheet-encouraging-reliable-supplies-molybdenum-99-produced-without-> (accessed 14 June 2013).

2-1 2.0 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION The proposed Federal action for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is to decide whether to issue a construction permit that would allow SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), to construct the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) that would produce, package, and ship medical radioisotopes, specifically molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. This facility would employ a new medical radioisotope production technology that uses a nonreactor-based subcritical fission process. The proposed Federal action for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is to decide whether, if the NRC grants a permit(s) and license(s), to provide cost-sharing financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate the establishment of the commercial production of medical radioisotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU). The funding would help to accelerate activities such as construction, purchase of equipment, and initial operation using a subcritical fission process if the NRC were to give SHINE a construction permit and operating license. 2.1 Site Location and Layout SHINE would construct and operate the proposed facility on land annexed by the City of Janesville, Wisconsin, which is located approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) south of the city center of Janesville, 13 mi (21 km) north of the Wisconsin-Illinois border, and 63 mi (101 km) west of Lake Michigan. The proposed site encompasses approximately 91 acres (ac) (37 hectares (ha)) of undeveloped land that is currently bordered by U.S. Highway 51 and the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport to the west and cultivated crop lands to the north, south, and east (Figures 2-1 and 2-2) (SHINE 2015a). The SHINE facility would comprise five main buildings with associated support structures (e.g., storage sheds, storage tanks, and water tanks) and other engineered features (e.g., stormwater swales and parking lots) (Figure 2-3) (SHINE 2013, 2015a). The five main buildings in which SHINE would conduct the majority of its operations are: (1) Production Facility Building, (2) Support Facility Building, (3) Waste Staging and Shipping Building, (4) Diesel Generator Building, and (5) Administration Building. The five main buildings would be concentrated in the central portion of the SHINE site and would collectively cover approximately 91,000 square feet (ft2) (about 8,500 square meters (m2)). The largest of the proposed buildings would be the Production Facility Building, which would extend approximately 284 ft (87 m) in length and 194 ft (59 m) in width and would have an estimated height of approximately 58 ft (18 m) above grade (SHINE 2014a). The tallest exhaust vent stack would be slightly higher, extending approximately 66 ft (20 m) above grade (SHINE 2014a). Other features associated with the proposed SHINE facility include support structures, such as storage sheds, storage tanks, and water tanks, and engineered features, such as a new paved entrance road, parking lots, an engineered stormwater swale, berms, ditches, culverts, fences, and a rolling gate. Site improvements to accommodate the five main buildings, support structures, and additional engineered features would result in a total estimated facility footprint Proposed Federal Action 2-2 of approximately 350,000 ft2 (about 32,500 m2) (SHINE 2013, 2014a). The new road would extend east from a proposed main entrance along U.S. Highway 51 and would provide commuter and commercial vehicle access to the site. The nearest major intersection to the proposed site is located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) north where U.S. Highway 51 connects with State Trunk Highway 11 (SHINE 2015a). Figure 2-1. Region Surrounding the Proposed SHINE Facility Source: SHINE 2015a Proposed Federal Action 2-3 Figure 2-2. Proposed SHINE Facility and Surrounding Area Within a 1-mi (1.6-km) Radius Source: SHINE 2015a Proposed Federal Action 2-4 Figure 2-3. Proposed SHINE Facility Conceptual Site Layout Source: SHINE 2013, 2015a 2.2 Construction Activities The construction period for the proposed SHINE facility would extend for 18 months and would require a peak construction workforce of approximately 451 workers (SHINE 2014a). Construction activities would include earthmoving, excavation, pile driving, facility build-out, installation of roads and parking areas, and delivery of construction-related materials and components. Materials needed to construct the SHINE facility would include concrete, structural steel, miscellaneous steel, steel liner, asphalt, stone granular material, and roofing materials (SHINE 2015a). Table 2-1 presents the estimated amounts needed for each of these materials. Commercial trucks would be used for shipping construction materials to the project site (SHINE 2013, 2014a). Rather than operating an onsite batch plant, ready-mix concrete supplied by commercial vendors would be delivered to the site. SHINE estimates that the facility would require, on average, approximately 420 truck deliveries and 9 offsite waste shipments each month during construction (SHINE 2014a). Proposed Federal Action 2-5 Table 2-1. Estimated Construction Material Requirements Material Amount Concrete 27,700 yd3(a) (21,178 m3(a)) Structural Steel 140 tons (127 MT(a)) Miscellaneous Steel 30 tons (27 MT) Steel Liner 100 tons (91 MT) Asphalt 2,200 yd3 (1,682 m3) Stone Granular Material 16,000 yd3 (12,233 m3) Roofing 150 tons (136 MT) (a) yd3 = cubic yard(s), m3 = cubic meter(s), and MT = metric ton(s). Source: SHINE 2015a Although most building foundations would be excavated to a depth of 5 ft (1.5 m) below grade, portions of the Production Facility Building would require excavation to a depth of approximately 40 ft (12 m). Areas of the site would also be excavated to support installation of sanitary sewer and natural gas pipelines, an underground electrical distribution line, a municipal water line, and an underground diesel storage tank. In addition, drainage ditches and swale areas would be excavated to manage stormwater runoff. SHINE estimates that approximately 278,000 yd3 (213,000 m3) of material would be excavated to support construction activities (SHINE 2015a). All excavated material would be used on site or disposed of off site (SHINE 2013). SHINE projects that construction equipment necessary to support these activities would consume approximately 295,000 gallons (gal) (1,117,000 liters (L)) of diesel fuel (SHINE 2013). Overall, construction activities would disturb approximately 41 ac (17 ha) of the proposed SHINE site. Of this total, SHINE projects that approximately 15 ac (6 ha) would be temporarily disturbed by construction activities, and approximately 26 ac (11 ha) would be permanently converted to industrial use (SHINE 2014a). Figure 2-4 presents a conceptual illustration of the completed SHINE facility. Before full commercial operation, SHINE may conduct some preoperational testing activities. During this time, the SHINE facility equipment would undergo a thorough commissioning phase, which would involve a series of test operations designed to ensure that the facility is functioning as designed (SHINE 2014, 2015a). For the purposes of this environmental analysis, the NRC staff included the activities and impacts of preoperational activities as part of the construction phase in the impacts assessment in Chapter 4. Proposed Federal Action 2-6 Figure 2-4. Conceptual View of the Proposed SHINE Facility Source: Modified from SHINE 2014b, 2015 2.3 Facility Operations The proposed SHINE facility would commence full operations upon completion of construction and preoperational startup activities. This environmental impact statement (EIS) considers SHINE's activities over its proposed 30-year operating period (SHINE 2014a). During operations, SHINE anticipates obtaining LEU metal or oxide for use as fuel (target material) from the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12 facility) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (SHINE 2015a). For the purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff assumed that the Y-12 facility would obtain the necessary agreements and approvals to provide fuel (target material) to SHINE. The fuel would be transported 650 mi (1,046 km) by truck from Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, Wisconsin. SHINE would temporarily store LEU metal or oxide in the target solution preparation area. SHINE would produce and ship several batches of molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131 per week, with production schedules normally staggered to accommodate customer requirements. Operational activities would require an average of 150 workers and a monthly average of 36 inbound truck deliveries and 39 outbound medical radioisotope product shipments. Facility operations would also require an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year, and 1 nonradioactive (i.e., domestic and/or industrial) waste shipment per month (SHINE 2013, 2014a, 2015a, 2015b). Proposed Federal Action 2-7 2.3.1 Proposed Technology The SHINE process would involve a new nonreactor-based technology to manufacture medical radioisotopes using a subcritical fission process (SHINE 2015a). The main components designed and developed by SHINE to support this approach are (1) a neutron driver assembly in which a deuterium ion source would be accelerated into a tritium gas target chamber to generate neutrons and (2) a subcritical operating assembly in which these neutrons would bombard a target solution to produce radioisotopes. See Section 2.3.2 below for additional details. A light-water pool would surround the target solution vessel to provide shielding and to act as a neutron reflector. Figure 2-5 shows a conceptual cutaway view of these components. An individual irradiation unit would be comprised of the neutron driver, subcritical operating assembly, light-water pool, and surrounding biological shielding; the SHINE facility would operate up to eight of these irradiation units in concert to meet radioisotope production design objectives (SHINE 2015a). The irradiation units would each interface with associated cooling, off-gas, and tritium recycle support systems. Figure 2-6 depicts a conceptual model of an irradiation unit showing the ion accelerator configured above the subcritical operating assembly. Figure 2-5. Cutaway Conceptual Interior View of the SHINE Device Source: Pitas et al. 2013 Proposed Federal Action 2-8 Figure 2-6. Conceptual Model of an Irradiation Unit Source: Pitas et al. 2013 2.3.2 Radioisotope Production Process Overview The SHINE production process would use an accelerator and neutron multiplier to produce neutrons that would enter a tank containing a target solution with the fissile uranium-235 isotope. As these neutrons collide with the uranium-235, the uranium splits and forms other radioisotopes, including molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131. For descriptive purposes of this EIS, SHINE's overall process can be divided into four primary stages: (1) neutron production, (2) radioisotope production through uranium fission, (3) radioisotope extraction and purification, and (4) packaging and distribution. Most of these activities, other than during product distribution, would take place within a radiologically controlled area. This area includes the irradiation facility and radioisotope production facility, both of which are collocated within a single building, the Production Facility Building, on the SHINE site, as described in the SHINE Environmental Report (ER) (SHINE 2015a). As illustrated in Figure 2-7, several sub-processes would occur within each of these primary activities. The following sections present an overview of the key factors associated with each of these processes. Proposed Federal Action 2-9 Figure 2-7. SHINE Radioisotope Production System Flow Diagram Source: Modified from SHINE 2013 Proposed Federal Action 2-10 Low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel means fuel in which the weight percent of U-235 in the uranium is less than 20 percent. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel means fuel in which the weight percent of U-235 in the uranium is 20 percent or greater (10 CFR 50.2). The United States encourages the use of LEU or other non-HEU-based technologies to produce medical radioisotopes because of the additional proliferation concerns associated with HEU (White House 2012). 2.3.2.1 Neutron Production The first stage in the SHINE radioisotope production process is the production of neutrons, which induce the fission of uranium, resulting in the formation radioisotopes. During the irradiation stage, a neutron driver affixed above a subcritical operating assembly would accelerate deuterium ions into a chamber filled with tritium gas. This chamber would be centered within the subcritical operating assembly in a vessel containing LEU target solution in the form of uranyl sulfate. The resulting ion beam would strike the tritium gas and produce helium nuclei and neutrons. These additional neutrons would pass through a neutron multiplier, which would produce additional neutrons. The neutrons then pass into the LEU target solution, causing the uranium-235 in the solution to fission (split) and produce byproduct materials, including molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131 (SHINE 2015a). The target solution vessel would be surrounded by a light-water pool. This pool would be used to control the temperature of the target solution vessel, reflect neutrons back into the vessel, and absorb radiation and heat resulting from the fission process (SHINE 2015a). 2.3.2.2 Radioisotope Production Though Uranium Fission The next stage in the SHINE radioisotope production process would involve irradiating an aqueous LEU target solution with neutrons using one or more of the irradiation units, as described in Section 2.3.1. During the radioisotope production stage, SHINE proposes to maintain the target solution in each irradiation unit at a subcritical level (i.e., a level at which the uranium-235 fission and the consequent neutron production in the target solution vessel would not be self-sustaining). Molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131 production would occur within the target solution from fission during the irradiation cycle. An off-gas system would be used during this stage to handle and contain radiolytic and fission product gases released from the target solution. At the end of the irradiation cycle in each irradiation unit, the target solution would be removed from the target solution vessel and transferred through piping to one of three hot cells (shielded nuclear radiation confinement chambers) located within the Production Facility Building in which the molybdenum-99 would be selectively extracted and purified (SHINE 2013, 2015a). 2.3.2.3 Extraction and Purification Extraction and purification would occur within the hot cell area. Molybdenum-99 extraction would occur as a batch process in which the irradiated uranyl sulfate target solution would be passed through an adsorption column to extract the isotopes. The extracted isotopes would then undergo dissolution and evaporation processes to yield a crude molybdenum-99 product. The purification process would remove impurities through small-scale additions of reagents and through precipitation, filtration, and boiling. LEU remaining in the target solution would be recycled and would undergo cleanup for use as the target solution for subsequent cycles because only a small amount of uranium-235 is used up during each production run. Preparation and cleanup of the target solution, radioisotope extraction and purification, and any tanks containing target solution generate radioactive off-gases that a radioactive gas treatment system captures. Radioactive waste materials removed from the target solution would be stored temporarily pending offsite disposal. Proposed Federal Action 2-11 Similarly, captured deuterium and tritium would be returned for reuse in the neutron generation process (SHINE 2015a). Section 2.7 discusses radioactive effluents and wastes and transportation of these materials. In addition, Table 19.2.5-1 in the SHINE ER (SHINE 2015a) provides estimates of the type and quantity of radioactive wastes associated with the proposed SHINE facility. 2.3.2.4 Packaging and Distribution Following extraction and purification, the separated radioisotopes would be packaged and distributed. Because radioactive decay reduces the amount of the radioisotopes over time, the packaged material would be shipped to customers as soon as possible. The molybdenum-99 product would be packaged in stainless steel bottles (SHINE 2014a). The iodine-131 product would be packaged in solution vials (SHINE 2013). The xenon-133 product would be packaged in gas cylinders (SHINE 2013). These time-sensitive packages would use U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved containers for radioactive material (SHINE 2015a). SHINE intends to ship these radioisotopes to regional customers by air from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and by truck; both methods would use an exclusive use carrier (SHINE 2013). As discussed in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) 173.403, exclusive use means that sole use of the transport vehicle (i.e., airplane and truck) will be for shipment of the radioactive material and that personnel trained in handling radioactive material must follow special procedures for loading and unloading the material. At full operational capacity, the SHINE facility could produce up to 8,200 6-day curies (Ci 6-day) per week of the medical radioisotope molybdenum-99 and 2,000 Ci per week each of iodine-131 and xenon-133 (SHINE 2013, 2015a). To meet this production schedule, each irradiation unit would need to operate continuously for about 5.5 days with radioisotope production functions operating closer to 7 days per week (SHINE 2013, 2015a). 2.4 Power Requirements Wisconsin Power and Light Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of Alliant Energy) would supply electrical power to the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). Each irradiation unit is projected to use 62.8 kilowatts (SHINE 2013). Overall, the proposed SHINE facility would require a total connected capacity of approximately 2,900 kilovolt-amperes and annually consume approximately 17.5 million kilowatt-hours-an amount approximately equal to the annual electrical power consumption of 2,000 Wisconsin households (SHINE 2013; EIA 2009). SHINE would equip the facility with an uninterruptible electrical power supply system to power safety-related systems and equipment for safe shutdown of the facility in the event of a loss of offsite power. This system would use two independent 250-volt direct-current battery system trains along with the associated chargers, inverters, and distribution systems. SHINE would also maintain and test a standby diesel generator to provide longer term backup power to selected equipment. SHINE would use approximately 1,860 gal (7,000 L) of diesel fuel annually to maintain and test this standby diesel generator, as well as a diesel engine-driven fire pump (SHINE 2013). The diesel fuel oil for this equipment would be stored on site in an approximately 30,000-gal (114,000-L) underground storage tank (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would use pipeline-derived natural gas to supply a boiler and gas-fired heaters (See Section 2.6.2). SHINE estimates that total annual natural gas consumption would be 62,000 million British thermal units (SHINE 2013). Proposed Federal Action 2-12 2.5 Water Use, Treatment, and Discharges 2.5.1 Water Use The proposed SHINE facility would obtain water during construction and operations from the Janesville Water Utility (SHINE 2015a). To support this requirement, the City of Janesville is planning to construct a water main and sanitary sewer main along U.S. Highway 51 near the northwestern boundary of the proposed SHINE site (SHINE 2015a). During construction, water would primarily be needed for drinking (potable) and sanitary systems, and for supporting dust suppression activities (SHINE 2013, 2015a). During operations, this water would also be used for drinking and sanitary systems and for facility heating and cooling, fire suppression, and industrial purposes. During operations, SHINE would use most of its water for cooling and as process water in medical radioisotope production. A water-based fire protection system would be used throughout the proposed SHINE facility. An onsite, dedicated water tank would support the planned automatic fire suppression system and would provide an estimated flow of 390 gal per minute (1,480 L per minute). Section 4.4 discusses specific water requirements associated with the proposed action. 2.5.2 Water Treatment The SHINE facility would use three separate water treatment processes: a demineralization process, a cooling water treatment process, and a facility heating water treatment process (SHINE 2015a). Demineralization, also known as ion exchange, refers to the exchange of ions between a solid substance and an aqueous solution (makeup water). The demineralization treatment process would treat water to control the amount of chemicals in the water needed for the molydenum-99 purification process. Most of the water from the facility demineralized water system would be used for the primary closed-loop cooling system and the light-water pool system. During the cooling water treatment process, water would be treated with chemicals to reduce corrosion and scaling before its introduction to the closed-loop cooling water system. In addition, chemicals will be periodically added to maintain water chemistry to keep the system properly functioning. The types of chemicals added to this water could include biocides, corrosion inhibitors, and scale inhibitors. During the heating water treatment process, feedwater for the boiler used for building heating would be separately treated through demineralization or the addition of chemicals, or both, to reduce corrosion and scaling in the boiler (SHINE 2015a). 2.5.3 Water Discharges All wastewater generated outside the radiologically controlled area would be discharged directly to the City of Janesville sanitary sewer system and would be sent to the Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant in accordance with Janesville City Ordinance 13.16 (City of Janesville 2013; SHINE 2013, 2015a). All industrial or process wastewater generated in the radiologically controlled area would either be evaporated or solidified and disposed of in accordance with SHINE's waste management plan and applicable laws and regulations. The SHINE closed-loop chilled water system would require approximately 10,000 gal (38,000 L) of water that would be flushed once per year and discharged to the Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant in accordance with Janesville City Ordinance 13.16 (SHINE 2013). Proposed Federal Action 2-13 2.6 Cooling and Heating Dissipation Systems 2.6.1 Cooling Systems The SHINE cooling systems would remove unwanted heat from the target solution vessel and other heat-sensitive processes. Cooling systems would also control building ambient air temperature in association with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) needs. The irradiation units would have both primary and secondary cooling systems. The primary cooling system would include the primary closed-loop cooling system and the light-water pool system. The primary closed-loop cooling system would remove heat from the target solution vessel by actively circulating water along the exterior surfaces of the vessel. The light-water pool system would actively cool the neutron multiplier and tritium target chamber through forced convection and would passively cool the irradiation units. The secondary cooling system is a closed-loop system that would provide cooling to all of the process areas within the radiological controlled area and would transfer heat to the facility's chilled water supply and distribution system. The secondary cooling system would remove heat from the primary cooling system through a heat exchanger. The facility's chilled water supply and distribution system would then ultimately dissipate the heat to the environment (SHINE 2015a). 2.6.2 Heating Systems SHINE would use one natural-gas-fired boiler in the Production Facility Building to provide heating water to the HVAC handlers. Based on the rated capacity of the boiler, SHINE projects annual natural gas consumption at 7.67x107 standard cubic feet (2.17x106 standard cubic meters) (SHINE 2015a). Additionally, natural-gas-fired heaters would heat the Diesel Generator Building, the Waste Staging and Shipping Building, the Support Facility Building, and the Administration Building, for a total of four natural-gas-fired heaters. 2.7 Storage, Treatment, and Transportation of Radioactive and Nonradioactive Waste Construction, operations, and decommissioning would result in the accumulation of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes. SHINE does not anticipate any long-term storage of radioactive or nonradioactive materials, such as medical radioisotope products, target solution, reagents, or resulting wastes (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would treat and temporarily store the solid radioactive and nonradioactive waste generated as part of the radioisotope production process within the facility until it could ship the waste off site for disposal (SHINE 2015a). Subpart K and Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20 (NRC) and 49 CFR Part 172 (DOT) include regulations to protect public health and safety during transportation of radioactive fuel, radioactive wastes, and medical radioisotopes. The additional detailed information below describes the generation, storage, waste management activities, waste minimization and pollution prevention measures, and transportation of radioactive and nonradioactive waste. 2.7.1 Radioactive Wastes Operations of the SHINE facility would generate liquid, solid, and gaseous radioactive waste during the following activities: neutron generator operation (i.e., the neutron driver that would be periodically replaced); Proposed Federal Action 2-14 target solution preparation (i.e., used uranium metal transport containers, protective equipment used by facility workers, and spent filtration media); the target solution vessel waste gas removal system (i.e., spent filtration media); molybdenum-99 recovery system operation (i.e., spent filtration media and spent solutions); target solution cleanup (i.e., spent filtration media, spent solvent, and spent production solutions); radioisotope production and purification processes (i.e., laboratory glassware and liquid wastes); liquid radioactive waste volume reduction (i.e., evaporation and solidification process); and maintenance activities (SHINE 2015a). 2.7.1.1 Gaseous Waste Radioactive effluents from the radioisotope production process include both particulates and gas. The gaseous radioactive effluents would be routed through two separate, but connected, ventilation systems: the target solution vessel off-gas system and the process vessel vent system (SHINE 2015a). The facility ventilation system divides the operating areas into zones, each of which has a specific hazard and appropriate protection features (SHINE 2015a). This design protects the workers and members of the public by minimizing the potential spread of radioactive contamination within the facility and by controlling the amount of radioactive effluents released into the environment. SHINE would use high-efficiency particulate filters and carbon bed filters to treat gaseous radioactive effluents to reduce their radioactivity before they are released through a vent stack in the Production Facility Building (SHINE 2015a). SHINE expects the gaseous radioactive effluents released into the environment to contain measurable quantities of noble gases (i.e., xenon and krypton), radioactive iodine, and tritium. Table 2-2 lists the quantity of radionuclides that SHINE estimates the facility would release annually. Section 4.9 describes the monitoring of gaseous effluents and radioactive waste, NRC and other radiation protection requirements, and SHINE's waste management process to ensure occupational and public health. Table 2-2. Gaseous Radioactive Effluents Effluent Rate(a) krypton-85 (Kr-85) < 120 Ci/yr(b) iodine-131 (I-131) < 1.5 Ci/yr xenon-133 (Xe-133) < 17,000 Ci/yr tritium (H-3) < 4,400 Ci/yr (a) The rate is based on 50 weeks of operation. (b) Ci/yr = curie(s) per year. Source: SHINE 2015a Proposed Federal Action 2-15 2.7.1.2 Liquid and Solid Waste The NRC classifies low-level waste in 10 CFR 61.55 as Class A, Class B, Class C, or greater than Class C (GTCC) waste, depending on the types and concentrations of radionuclides in the waste. Class A wastes generally contain short-lived radionuclides at relatively low concentrations, whereas the half-lives and concentrations of radionuclides in the Class B and C wastes are progressively higher. Because of the higher half-lives and concentrations of radionuclides in Class B wastes, these wastes must meet more rigorous requirements with regard to their form to ensure stability after disposal (e.g., by adding chemical stabilizing agents, such as cement, to the waste, or by placing the waste in a disposal container or structure that provides stability after disposal). Class C wastes must meet the more rigorous requirements of Class B, and they require additional measures at the disposal facility to protect against inadvertent intrusion (e.g., by increasing the thickness and hardness of the cover over the waste disposal cell). GTCC wastes contain radionuclides at concentrations that are higher than that allowed for Class C wastes and that are not generally acceptable for near-surface disposal methods. Operation of the SHINE facility would generate radioactive waste ranging from NRC Class A waste to GTCC wastes (see Table 19.2.5-1 in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a)). SHINE would accumulate and temporarily store liquid wastes to allow for various activities such as radioactive decay, pH adjustment, and volume reduction using an evaporative process. In addition, SHINE would disassemble neutron generators to reduce the volume of low-level waste sent for disposal. SHINE would solidify some liquid wastes before disposal on site. For example, it would solidify evaporator bottoms and spent ion-exchange column media from the target solution cleanup system. Waste from proprietary processes may be solidified in a hot cell using Portland cement before shipment and disposal (SHINE 2015a). After SHINE treats, solidifies, and packages liquid radioactive waste, the waste would be temporarily stored on site only long enough for radioactive decay before offsite disposal shipment and for efficient frequency of disposal shipments (SHINE 2015a). Class A waste would be shipped approximately yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site. No liquid radioactive effluents would be released into the environment. After temporary storage, radioactive waste would be transported by truck to one of the following licensed low-level radioactive waste facilities for further treatment, long-term storage, or final disposal (SHINE 2015a): (1) EnergySolutions, Clive, Utah (1,450 mi) (2,220 km); (2) Waste Control Specialists, Andrews, Texas (1,305 mi) (2,088 km); or (3) Diversified Scientific Services, Inc., Kingston, Tennessee (660 mi) (1,056 km). When transporting waste, SHINE must adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 71 (NRC), the State of Wisconsin's Administrative Code, and 49 CFR Parts 172 and 173 (DOT) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure safety on the public roadways. The waste generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be one of three DOT packaging classifications: LSA, Type A, or Type B packages. An LSA package contains low levels of radioactive material. A Type A package contains higher radioactivity levels than those in an LSA package and meets additional integrity and shielding requirements. A Type B package contains a greater quantity of radioactive material than that of a Type A package and meets additional integrity and shielding Proposed Federal Action 2-16 requirements (49 CFR Part 173). The NRC staff notes that the lettering system for package types is not related to the lettering system for waste classification. A provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) states that DOE would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE) does not have access to a disposal path. For example, if a disposal pathway for GTCC waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its disposal. 2.7.2 Nonradioactive Waste The proposed SHINE facility would generate nonradioactive waste as part of construction, routine operations, maintenance, cleaning, and decommissioning activities. Liquid Waste Nonradioactive liquid waste would be generated during construction. For example, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, and grease might be necessary to assemble various pieces of equipment and systems. During operations, nonradioactive liquid waste would include hazardous waste, such as chemicals. Table 2-3 lists the expected inventory and quantity of chemicals that would be used during operation of the proposed SHINE facility. Some chemicals would be in liquid form and would be controlled and confined in containers, tanks, pipes, and hot cells. SHINE would release small amounts of nonradioactive chemicals into the city sewer system as a result of routine facility maintenance activities and routine laboratory analytical procedures using chemicals. SHINE would have administrative controls in place to ensure that its nonradioactive effluents meet the requirements pertaining to the types, quantity, and concentrations specified as acceptable for processing by the City of Janesville wastewater treatment facility (SHINE 2015a). Additionally, sanitary wastewater from the proposed SHINE facility would be sent to the City of Janesville wastewater treatment facility for treatment and disposal. Section 2.5 of this document contains more information on the liquid nonradioactive waste discharges from the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE does not intend to treat or permanently store hazardous wastes on site (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would dispose of hazardous wastes generated at the facility at a licensed hazardous waste disposal site. Because SHINE will not store or treat hazardous wastes on site, it will not require a hazardous waste treatment or storage permit from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, which has the permitting authority for hazardous wastes under Wisconsin Administrative Code 660. Solid Waste During construction, operations, and decommissioning, SHINE expects to generate the following nonradioactive solid wastes: wood from crates, packaging from receiving activities, used personal protective equipment, broken mechanical parts, metal shavings, piping, Proposed Federal Action 2-17 wires, batteries (alkaline and lithium), air filters, expired lights and fixtures, paper, hoses, empty plastic containers, and expired ink cartridges. SHINE would temporarily collect and store nonradioactive solid wastes on site and then transport nonhazardous solid wastes off site to either a landfill, storage facility, or recycling facility (SHINE 2015a). For example, scrap metal, batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment and bulbs, used oil, and antifreeze would be collected and stored temporarily and then recycled or recovered at an offsite permitted recycling or recovery facility, as appropriate. 2.7.3 Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Program SHINE's radioactive and nonradioactive waste management program is based on a pollution-prevention and waste-minimization framework. The program includes the following: waste minimization and recycling; employee training and education on general environmental activities and hazards associated with the facility, operations, and the pollution prevention program; and waste minimization requirements, goals, and accomplishments; employee training and education on specific environmental requirements and issues; designation of employees responsible for pollution prevention and waste minimization; recognition of employees for efforts to improve environmental conditions; and requirements for employees to consider pollution prevention and waste minimization in day-to-day activities and engineering (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Section 4.9 discusses the impacts associated with waste management activities at the proposed SHINE facility. Table 2-3. Summary of Major(a) Chemical Inventory and Quantity at the Proposed SHINE Facility Chemical Approximate Bounding Inventory (lb) Chemical Grouping nitric acid 17,600 Group 4-Acids, Organic/Mineral sulfuric acid 8,100 Group 4-Acids, Organic/Mineral calcium hydroxide 4,800 Group 5-Bases caustic (NaOH) 1,500 Group 5-Bases n-dodecane 1,600 Group 2-Flammable Liquids nitrogen 20,000 N/A Portland cement 20,000 N/A uranyl sulfate 3,100 N/A Proposed Federal Action 2-18 Chemical Approximate Bounding Inventory (lb) Chemical Grouping (a) In excess of 1,000 lb. Source: SHINE 2015a 2.8 Facility Decommissioning The SHINE facility would be decommissioned upon completion of its useful life. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, a licensed production or utilization facility that permanently ceases operations shall submit a decommissioning report. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.33(k) requires that a report indicates how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the facility. SHINE anticipates decommissioning of the facility to begin following a 30-year operating period (SHINE 2014a). SHINE estimates that the decommissioning period would extend for 6 months and would require a peak workforce of approximately 261 workers (SHINE 2014a). Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, because they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Decommissioning could include the removal of all nuclear facilities on site and the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license. Decommissioning of the SHINE facility would generate radioactive waste ranging from NRC Class A waste to GTCC waste (see Table 19.2.5-1 in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a)). Estimates of the types and quantity of radioactive waste that would be disposed of during decommissioning are not known at this time and would depend on the effectiveness of the radiological controls implemented during operation of the facility. However, the types of radioactive waste would be consistent with those listed in Table 19.2.5-1 in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would be required to conduct decommissioning activities in accordance with applicable NRC requirements and any additional Federal, State, and local requirements. For example, any radioactive equipment and materials will be disposed of according to local and Federal laws and regulations. After decommissioning activities are completed, the proposed site could remain industrial or could be converted back to agricultural land or open space. SHINE estimates that approximately 72 truck deliveries and 191 offsite waste shipments would, on average, be required each month during decommissioning (SHINE 2014a). Demolition and site-grading equipment supporting decommissioning activities are projected to consume a total of approximately 172,000 gal (650,000 L) of diesel fuel over this 6-month period (SHINE 2013). Table 19.2.5-1 in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a) provides estimates of the type and quantity of radioactive wastes associated with the proposed SHINE facility. 2.9 Related Actions In February 2011, DOE/NNSA issued a final sitewide EIS at the Y-12 National Security Complex (DOE 2011), which examined the potential impacts of the reasonable alternatives for ongoing and foreseeable future operations at the Y-12 National Security Complex. Included in the sitewide EIS was an evaluation of the mission (including operations and transportation impacts) associated with the supply of LEU for both domestic and foreign customers (e.g., Section 2.1.2, "National Security Programs," and Section 5.4, "Transportation and Traffic"). DOE/NNSA published a Record of Decision on July 4, 2011, which, among other things, selected the option Proposed Federal Action 2-19 to continue ongoing operations, including the supply of LEU to foreign and domestic customers. This sitewide EIS and Record of Decision may be viewed as relevant to the SHINE EIS because the Y-12 facility would supply the LEU used at the SHINE facility. 2.10 References 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." 10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, "Licensing requirements for land disposal of radioactive waste." 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and transportation of radioactive material." 49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, "Hazardous material table, special provisions, hazardous material communications, emergency response information, training requirement, and security plans." 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, "Shippers-general requirements for shipments and packaging." American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 42 U.S.C. §2065(c)(3)(A)(ii). City of Janesville. 2013. City Ordinance Book. Chapter 13, "Water and Sewers." Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us> (accessed 12 December 2013). [DOE] Department of Energy. 2011. Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Y-12 National Security Complex. DOE/EIS-0387. Washington, DC. Available at <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/EIS-0387-FEIS-01-2011.pdf> (accessed 12 February 2015). [EIA] Energy Information Administration. 2009. Household Energy Use in Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/state_briefs/pdf/wi.pdf> (accessed 17 November 2014). [IOM] Institute of Medicine. 1995. Isotopes for Medicine and the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 144 p. Available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4818.html> (accessed 25 September 2013). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. National Research Council. 2009. Medical Isotope Production without Highly Enriched Uranium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 220 p. Available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12569.html> (accessed 25 September 2013). Pitas KP, Piefer GR, Bynum RV, Van Abel EN, Driscoll J, Mackie TR, Radel RF. 2013. SHINE: Technology and Progress. Presented at Mo-99 2013 Topical Meeting on Molybdenum-99 Technological Development, April 1-4, 2013, Chicago, IL. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. Proposed Federal Action 2-20 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014a. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014b. "The Mo-99 Advantage." Presented at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Regulatory Information Conference, March 11, 2014, Bethesda, MD. Available at <http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/conference-symposia/ric/past/2014/docs/abstracts/pieferg-t9-hv.pdf> (accessed 6 November 2014). [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404. White House. 2012. Fact Sheet: Encouraging Reliable Supplies of Molybdenum-99 Produced without Highly Enriched Uranium. Office of the Press Secretary. June 7, 2012. Available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/07/fact-sheet-encouraging-reliable-supplies-molybdenum-99-produced-without-> (accessed 14 June 2013). 3-1 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The site proposed by SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), is located in Rock County, Wisconsin, south of the city center of the City of Janesville, Wisconsin. The first section of this chapter describes the location of the proposed SHINE site (proposed site), along with a description of the land use and visual resources, air quality and noise, the geologic environment, water resources, ecological resources, historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, human health, and transportation at and near the proposed site. Unless specified otherwise, the description of the environment includes the area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site, which is also referred to as the vicinity. This geographic range is in accordance with the Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors (NRC 2012). The following description of the affected environment is based on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's independent review of SHINE's Environmental Report (ER) (SHINE 2015a); SHINE's responses to the NRC staff's requests for additional information to clarify information in the Environmental Report (SHINE 2013, 2014, 2015b) or for information that did not appear in that report; the NRC staff's environmental site visit and audit (NRC 2013a); applicable information provided in public scoping comments (NRC 2015); comments and input provided by other Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local agencies; and the NRC staff's independent research of the environs surrounding the proposed SHINE site. 3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources This subsection describes the land use and visual resources at the proposed site and in the vicinity of the proposed site. The NRC staff assessed land use and land cover using the National Land Cover Database (USGS 2006). The NRC staff used the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDOI-BLM), Visual Resource Management System, to rate the visual resources at the proposed site; this system rates the visual appeal and the sensitivity of changes to an area (BLM 1984). 3.1.1 Land Use 3.1.1.1 Site The proposed site includes 91 acres (ac) (37 hectares (ha)) of land located about 4 mi (6 km) south of the city center of the City of Janesville (Figure 3-1). The proposed site is zoned as light industrial (City of Janesville 2012). Based on a review of the National Land Cover Database, 99.8 percent of the proposed site is cultivated agricultural land, and 0.2 percent is developed open space (USGS 2006; SHINE 2015a). U.S. Highway 51 borders the western boundary of the proposed site. The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport is located immediately to the west of U.S. Highway 51. Agricultural land surrounds the remaining portions of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). 3.1.1.2 Vicinity Table 3-1 lists the major land uses and land covers within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site (USGS 2006; SHINE 2015a). The list includes lands with cultivated crops (50 percent), pastures or hay (12 percent), and low-intensity development (12 percent). Two sand and gravel Affected Environment 3-2 mining operations and one crushed stone mining operation occur within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site (Find the Data 2014). The city center of Janesville is approximately 4.0 mi (6.4 km) directly north of the proposed site. The northern limits of the City of Beloit, Wisconsin, are about 3.7 mi (6.0 km) south of the proposed site. The City of Janesville and the City of Beloit are major population centers (more than 25,000 residents) within the 5-mi (8-km) vicinity of the proposed site, with 63,480 residents in the City of Janesville and 36,820 residents in the City of Beloit (Rock County 2013). Figure 3-1. Aerial View of the Proposed SHINE Site Source: SHINE 2015a The major transportation corridors in the vicinity include Interstates 39 and 90, U.S. Highway 14, U.S. Highway 51, and State Trunk Highway 11 (Figure 3-2). Chicago and Northwestern Railroad and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad own the major rail lines or rail systems in Rock County. The only public airport in Rock County is the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport in the City of Janesville. The airport is directly across U.S. Highway 51 from the proposed site. No major transportation waterways occur within the vicinity of the proposed site. Affected Environment 3-3 Table 3-1. Summary of Land Use and Land Cover Within the Proposed SHINE Site and Vicinity NLCD 2006 Land Cover Class SHINE Site Vicinity ac ha percent ac ha percent Open Water 796 322 2 Developed, Open Space 0.18 0.07 0.2 3,043 1,231 6 Developed, Low Intensity 5,858 2,371 12 Developed, Medium Intensity 1,968 796 4 Developed, High Intensity 992 401 2 Barren 43 17 <1 Deciduous Forest 3,298 1,335 7 Evergreen Forest 68 28 <1 Mixed Forest 1 0 <1 Shrub/Scrub 505 204 1 Grassland 1,049 425 2 Pasture/Hay 5,896 2,386 12 Cultivated Crops 91.09 36.86 99.8 25,236 10,213 50 Woody Wetlands 722 292 1 Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 787 318 2 Total 91.27 36.93 100.0 50,262 20,339 100 Key: ac = acre, ha = hectare. Sources: USGS 2006; SHINE 2015a 3.1.1.3 Special Land Uses The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) manages two parcels of land within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site. One site is a 112.0-ac (45.3-ha) parcel of land located 1.9 mi (3.0 km) southwest of the proposed site. This site does not have a designated use (WDNR 2013a). Rock River Prairie is a 37.0-ac (15.0-ha) State Natural Area located 3.5 mi (5.6 km) from the proposed site (WDNR 2013a). No military reservations, Federally designated wild and scenic rivers, national parks, national forests, Federally designated coastal zone areas, or Federal lands held in trust for an American Indian tribe occur within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a, WCMP 2007). 3.1.1.4 Agricultural Resources and Facilities Soils that may qualify as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance are located on the proposed site and in the vicinity (Figure 3-3). Prime farmland is defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) as "land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary [of Agriculture]." Farmland of statewide importance includes soils, other than those determined as prime farmland, with similar characteristics as prime farmland locally within the State. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with State and local agencies, defines and delineates the soils to consider as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance (Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 657). However, otherwise qualifying "farmland" soils do not include those on land already in, or committed to, urban development or water storage, as defined in 7 CFR 658.2. Affected Environment 3-4 Figure 3-2. Cities and Major Roadways Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site Source: SHINE 2015a Affected Environment 3-5 Figure 3-3. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Proposed SHINE Site Source: Modified from SHINE 2015a and NRCS 2013 Affected Environment 3-6 Warsaw silt loam is the prime farmland soil type in Wisconsin, and Lorenzo loam is the soil type of statewide importance, as further described in Section 3.3. About 41,900 ac (16,900 ha) of land with soils classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance are within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff notes that acres of land with soils that may qualify as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance exceed the number of acres of agricultural land because land with qualifying soil types classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide significance are employed for other purposes, such as development or light industrial uses. Principal agricultural products grown in the vicinity include corn, oats, winter wheat, soybeans, and corn silage (USDA 2013). Based on the average annual production (bushels) per acre harvested in Rock County, the NRC staff estimated the potential relative value of 91 ac (37 ha) of farmland acquired for the proposed site to be about 12,800 bushels (bu) of corn or 4,000 bu of soybeans annually (Table 3-2). Other agricultural resources in the vicinity of the proposed site include farms that raise dairy, beef, and other livestock (SHINE 2015a). MacFarlane Pheasants, Inc., which is about 0.9 mi. (1.4 km) north of the proposed site, specializes in raising a variety of game birds, including pheasants and Hungarian partridge (MacFarlane Pheasants 2012). 3.1.1.5 Land Use Plans The City of Janesville Comprehensive Plan characterizes current and future land use plans in the city (Vandewalle & Associates 2009). Table 3-3 summarizes the total percentage of land in the 2007 city limits that was classified in each land use category. The proposed SHINE site is part of a larger development project to create an industrial park in Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District No. 35 (City of Janesville 2012). The City of Janesville created the initial 226-ac (91-ha) parcel of TIF District No. 35 when the city approved the TIF District No. 35 Project Plan in August 2011, after the purchase of an initial parcel of 226 ac (91 ha) in 2004 (City of Janesville 2012). In February 2012, the City of Janesville amended the project plan to expand the district boundary to the southwest by 84 ac (34 ha) to include the proposed SHINE site. When the City of Janesville incorporated the initial TIF District No. 35 parcel, its zoning was changed from agricultural to M-1 (light industrial) with consideration given to subdividing the larger parcel into 16 lots ranging from 10.99 to 18.86 ac (4.45 to 7.60 ha) (City of Janesville 2011a, 2012). As of September 2015, this land has not been improved or industrially developed and the land cover remains cultivated crops. Table 3-2. Crop Production Estimates for the Proposed SHINE Site and Within Rock County, Wisconsin Planted Harvested Production Yield Year ac ha ac ha bu bu/ac Corn 2003 152,000 61,300 141,000 57,000 19,571,000 139 2004 155,000 62,700 141,000 57,000 23,124,000 164 2005 166,000 67,200 150,000 60,700 22,200,000 148 2006 152,000 61,500 141,000 57,000 22,419,000 159 2007 174,000 70,400 165,000 66,800 25,740,000 156 2008 161,000 65,200 152,000 61,500 22,192,000 146 2009 162,000 65,600 153,000 62,000 25,245,000 165 2010 159,000 64,100 142,000 57,500 24,680,000 174 2011 162,000 65,600 157,000 63,600 25,350,000 162 2012 166,000 67,200 146,000 59,100 15,000,000 103 Affected Environment 3-7 Planted Harvested Production Yield 10-year Average Rock County, WI 161,000 65,100 149,000 60,200 22,552,000 152 Site Estimate(a) 91 37 84 34 12,800 152 Soybeans 2003 101,700 41,200 101,400 41,000 2,535,000 25 2004 87,600 35,500 86,900 35,200 3,737,000 43 2005 88,600 35,900 87,400 35,400 4,020,000 46 2006 89,200 36,100 89,000 36,000 4,539,000 51 2007 71,900 29,100 71,700 29,000 3,370,000 47 2008 81,100 32,800 81,000 32,800 2,957,000 37 2009 80,000 32,400 79,900 32,300 3,875,000 49 2010 86,000 34,800 85,500 34,600 4,822,000 56 2011 80,100 32,400 79,900 32,300 4,272,000 54 2012 82,500 33,400 82,200 33,300 3,087,000 38 10-year Average Rock County, WI 84,900 34,300 84,500 34,200 3,786,000 45 Site Estimate(a) 91 37 91 37 4,000 45 (a) NRC staff extrapolated site production and yield estimates of corn and soybeans based on the size of the site and actual Rock County production and yields. Note: Estimated values in the table are rounded. Key: ac = acres, ha = hectares, and bu = bushels. Source: USDA 2013 Table 3-3. Land Use in the City of Janesville Land Use Category Percent Residential-Single Family Urban 24 Residential-Two-Family/Townhouse 2 Residential-Multifamily 2 Commercial 4 Office 1 Light Industrial 4 Heavy Industrial 4 Community Facilities 11 Parks and Open Space 11 Extraction 2 Vacant 16 Agricultural 0 Surface Water 2 Right-of-Way 17 Total 100 Source: Vandewalle & Associates 2009 The City of Janesville's future land use plan for the proposed site and for the land east of U.S. Highway 51 includes developing it for light industrial uses (Vandewalle & Associates 2009; City of Janesville 2012). Affected Environment 3-8 3.1.2 Visual Resources The visual setting of the area that would be affected by the proposed SHINE facility includes agricultural and light industrial viewsheds. The viewshed to the north and east of the proposed site is mainly flat or has slightly rolling cultivated fields (Figure 3-4). The viewshed to the south is similar, with mostly agricultural fields, although two large warehouses account for some light development. The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, which includes the airport control tower, runways, and several large warehouses and hangers, dominates a light industrial development landscape in the viewshed to the west. The proposed site would be within the viewshed of patrons visiting the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, which supports about 50,000 flight operations annually (Rock County 2009), and of people visiting Airport Park, located northwest of the proposed site across U.S. Highway 51. Trees and other vegetation that border the residential neighborhoods located north and northwest of the proposed site would obstruct the view of the proposed SHINE facility from these neighborhoods. The NRC staff rated the visual resources and scenic quality of the existing site using the USDOI-BLM Visual Resource Management System (BLM 1984). The scenic quality classification is the rating of the visual appeal of the land designated for the proposed site. This rating is based on an evaluation of seven key factors-landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications. Scenic quality is classified as A, B, or C, with A as the highest quality visual rating. The NRC staff gave the proposed site a C rating, with low scenic quality because of the uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, absence of water, mute colors, cultural modifications to adjacent scenery, commonality within the physiographic province, and lack of notable features. The NRC staff also analyzed the sensitivity level, which is a measurement of public concern for scenic quality, using six different indicators-types of users, amount of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, special areas, and other factors. The sensitivity level of public concern for scenic quality is assigned as high, moderate, or low. The NRC staff assigned the proposed site a low sensitivity level because it is located in an area with low scenic values, typical users have low sensitivity to changes in the area's visual quality, the amount of viewer use is low, public interest in changes to the visual quality of the proposed site is low, and the location has no special natural and wilderness areas. 3.2 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise The quality of air in a region depends on the types and quantities of pollutants that enter the atmosphere and the meteorological conditions that tend to alter the pollutants. Air pollutant concentrations result from complex interactions between the physical and dynamic properties of the atmosphere, land, and ocean. The local terrain, the presence of large bodies of water, and other surface features may influence meteorological conditions and may subsequently influence air quality. Air pollutant concentrations are sensitive to winds, temperature, humidity, and precipitation. Similarly, the locations and types of noise emitters primarily determine the noise levels in a region. However, meteorological conditions, terrain, and ground-surface types also may influence noise propagation and noise levels at a given location. This section discusses existing air quality and noise levels near the proposed site and the meteorology and terrain characteristics that may affect them. Affected Environment 3-9 Figure 3-4. Visual Setting of the Proposed SHINE Site Source: SHINE 2015a View of the Proposed SHINE Site from U.S. Highway 51 Looking Northeast View of the Proposed SHINE Site from U.S. Highway 51 Looking East View of the Proposed SHINE Site from Eastern Site Boundary Looking West Affected Environment 3-10 3.2.1 Meteorology and Climatology The proposed site is located in Wisconsin South Central Climate Division 8 near the boundary of the Wisconsin Western Uplands and the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands physiographic provinces (NCDC undated). Climate in this area is characterized by high humidity, warm summers, and snowy winters. Lake Michigan and Lake Superior have a moderating effect on Wisconsin's climate; however, the proposed site is about 60 mi (96 km) west of Lake Michigan, a location that is typically not affected by lake-effect snows. The nearest National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) station is the Afton Station located about 2.6 mi (4.2 km) from the proposed site. To characterize the region's climate, the NRC staff used climatological data collected at the Afton site. Data from the Afton Station indicate that the annual average precipitation for the past 30 years is about 35.0 in. (88.9 cm), of which 12.6 in. (32.0 cm) or about 36 percent of the total falls in summer. The average annual snowfall is about 35 in. (88.9 cm) (NCDC 2010). The minimum average seasonal temperatures during the past 30 years range from 13.8 °F (-10.0 °C) in winter to 59.3 °F (15.0 °C) in summer, and the maximum average seasonal temperatures range from 30.80 °F (-0.66 °C) in winter to 81.6 °F (27.0 °C) in summer (NCDC 2010). Table 3-4 summarizes the annual and seasonal precipitation and temperature data. Table 3-4. Annual and Seasonal Precipitation and Temperature Data for the City of Janesville, Wisconsin Description Time Period Annual Winter (Dec.-Feb.) Spring (Mar.-May) Summer (June-Aug.) Fall (Sep.-Nov.) Average precipitation (in.) 35.2 4.7 9.2 12.6 8.7 Number of days with 0.1-in. precipitation or more 67.8 14.1 18.7 19.6 15.4 Average snowfall (in.) 34.9 28.4 4.7 0.0 1.8 Number of days with 0.1-in. precipitation or more 21.8 17.2 3.2 0.0 1.4 Average temperature (°F) 47.5 22.3 47.1 70.4 49.8 Maximum temperature (°F) 57.8 30.8 57.7 81.6 60.7 Minimum temperature (°F) 37.3 13.8 36.6 59.3 39.0 Note: These are Rock County normals from 1981-2010 for Afton Station 205301. Source: NCDC 2010 Monthly average wind speeds range from 6.6 miles per hour (mph) (10.6 kilometers per hour (kph)) in August to 10.1 mph (16.3 kph) in April. Annual mean wind speed is 8.4 mph (13.5 kph). Prevailing wind directions are from the south-southwest every month except from December through February when prevailing winds are from the northwest (NCDC 2012). The wind rose diagram shown in Figure 3-5 illustrates the frequency of winds blowing from different directions and at different speeds on an annual average basis. The NCDC records identify the following extreme weather events in Rock County from 1996 to 2013: thunderstorms, lightning, hail, strong winds, funnel clouds, tornadoes, heavy rain, floods, and flash floods (NCDC 2013). Over the 17-year period of record, extreme events occurred on Affected Environment 3-11 158 days with deaths or injuries on 6 of those days and property damage on 87 of those days. The strongest tornado in the area, classified as an F21 with wind speeds of 113 to 157 mph (181 to 253 kph) occurred in 1998. Six other tornadoes of lesser intensity also occurred in Rock County from 1996 to 2013. Figure 3-5. Annual Average Wind Rose as Measured at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport Source: SHINE 2015a based on information from NCDC 2011. 1 There are five tornado classifications: F0 to F5. F0 tornadoes cause the least damage, and F5 tornadoes are the most dangerous and cause the most damage. Estimated wind speeds for an F2 tornado are 113 to 157 mph (181 to 253 kph) and cause moderate damage. Affected Environment 3-12 3.2.2 Air Quality In accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (CAA), EPA established National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR Part 50) for six pollutants (often referred to as criteria pollutants) to protect the environment and public health. These pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter includes PM less than 10 micrometers (µm) and PM less than 2.5 µm, which are particles with equivalent aerodynamic diameters less than or equal to 10 and 2.5 µm, respectively. Other air pollutants of concern include greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide and methane, and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as identified in Section 112 of the CAA. The State of Wisconsin regulates emissions of hazardous air contaminants that include the chemicals on the HAPs list and other chemicals (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 445, "Control of Hazardous Pollutants") and has adopted ambient air quality standards within State regulations (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 404, "Ambient Air Quality"). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) limit the concentrations of the six criteria pollutants established to protect human health and welfare. Table 3-5 shows the current NAAQS. Areas in which pollutant concentrations exceed these standards are designated nonattainment areas, because air quality levels do not meet the required standards. Attainment areas are areas in which recent monitoring data demonstrate that concentrations are lower than the NAAQS. If monitoring has been insufficient to determine whether an area meets the standards, the area is designated as an unclassifiable area. The CAA requires development of regulatory plans for nonattainment areas to reduce pollution levels until the area meets the NAAQS within a specified timeframe. State agencies typically complete these plans, which are called State Implementation Plans. After air quality has improved in an area to the point that monitoring data meet the NAAQS, the area is designated as a maintenance area. Air quality designations are generally made at the county level, but designations may also be made for smaller localized areas. For the purpose of planning and maintaining ambient air quality with respect to the NAAQS, EPA has created Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs). AQCRs are intrastate or interstate areas that share a common airshed (40 CFR Part 81). The proposed site is in the Rockford, Illinois-Janesville/Beloit, Wisconsin, Interstate (JBWI) AQCR comprising Boone, De Kalb, Ogle, Stephenson, and Winnebago Counties in Illinois and Rock County, Wisconsin (40 CFR 81.71). The proposed SHINE site is located in Rock County, which is designated as an attainment/unclassifiable area for all criteria pollutants (EPA 2013). The nonattainment areas nearest to the proposed site are the following: (1) McHenry County, Illinois, which is about 19 mi (30 km) south of the proposed site and is part of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin marginal nonattainment areas for the 8-hour ozone 2008 standard (EPA 2013), and (2) Kenosha County, Wisconsin, which is about 38 mi (61 km) east of the proposed site and is part of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin nonattainment area for ozone (EPA 2013). McHenry County and Waukesha County are also designated maintenance areas for PM less than 2.5 µm and the 8-hour ozone 1997 standard, respectively (EPA 2013). However, these nonattainmment and maintenance areas are not within the JBWI AQCR. The region of influence for purposes of the air quality analysis is defined as Rock County. The General Conformity Rule, established under Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA, ensures that Federal actions conform to State Implementation Plans. The Federal agency must conduct a conformity Affected Environment 3-13 analysis if the proposed action is in a designated nonattainment or maintenance area with respect to NAAQS and would result in the generation of air emissions that would exceed conformity threshold levels of pollutants (de minimis thresholds). Because the proposed SHINE facility would be located in a designated attainment/unclassifiable area, a conformity analysis is not required. Table 3-5. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Criteria Pollutant Primary or Secondary Averaging Time Level Description Carbon Monoxide (CO) primary 8 hours 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year 1 hour 35 ppm Lead (Pb) primary and secondary Rolling 3-month average 0.15 µm3(a) Not to be exceeded Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) primary 1 hour 100 ppb 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years primary and secondary Annual 53 ppb(b) Annual mean Ozone (O3) primary and secondary 8 hours 0.075 ppm(c) Annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years Particulate Matter (PM) PM2.5 primary Annual 12 µg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years secondary Annual 15 µg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years primary and secondary 24 hours 35 µg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years PM10 primary and secondary 24 hours 150 µg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) primary 1 hour 75 ppb(d) 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years secondary 3 hours 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year (a) The final rule was signed on October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3) as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except in areas designated non-attainment for the 1978 standard. The 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. (b) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 parts per million (ppm), equal to 53 parts per billion (ppb), shown here for clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard. (c) The final rule was signed on March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have continued obligations under that standard ("antibacksliding"). The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1. (d) The final rule was signed on June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked in this rulemaking. However, these standards remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except in areas designated as nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standard are approved. Source: EPA 2012a Affected Environment 3-14 Table 3-6 shows annual emission rates of criteria pollutants, carbon dioxide, and HAPs for the JBWI AQCR and for Rock County. These emission rates include both stationary and mobile sources (vehicular traffic). Section 3.9 presents data and assumptions regarding the amount of vehicular traffic. Gaseous chemicals that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases (GHGs). The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These pollutants are emitted from natural processes and human activities. As further discussed in Section 3.2.2.1, the GHG Tailoring Rule combines these and other GHGs into a single, representative "pollutant" called carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). Toxic air pollutants, also known as HAPs, are pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects, birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. Under the CAA, the EPA regulates a list of 187 HAPs. Examples of HAPs include benzene, which is found in gasoline; perchloroethylene, which is emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, which many industries use as a solvent and paint stripper. Table 3-6. Regional Air Emissions Inventory Description CO NOx Hydro-carbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 HAPs Quantity Emitted (TPY) in JBWI AQCR 122,608 23,781 30,872 1,337 50,268 12,208 4,789,168 11,521 Quantity Emitted (TPY) in Rock County 32,369 6,026 10,848 99 8,877 2,788 1,131,140 2,182 Key: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrous oxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter of 10 µm or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 µm or less; CO2 = carbon dioxide; HAP = hazardous air pollutants; TPY = tons per year; JBWI = Rockford, Illinois-Janesville-Beloit, Wisconsin, Interstate; and AQCR = air quality control region. Source: EPA 2014a EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule to improve and protect visibility in national parks and wilderness areas from haze that many diverse sources across a broad region may cause (40 CFR 51.308-51.309). Specifically, 40 CFR Part 81, Subpart D, lists mandatory Class I Federal Areas where visibility is an important value. The Regional Haze Rule requires states to develop State Implementation Plans to reduce visibility impairment at Class I Federal Areas. The nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, which is about 295 mi (475 km) from the proposed site (EPA 2012b). The nearest Class I area to the proposed SHINE facility is Rainbow Lake, Wisconsin, which is located approximately 250 mi (401 km) from the site.2 3.2.2.1 Federal New Source Requirements New facilities that emit air pollutants, such as the proposed site, could be subject to Federal requirements, depending on the location and the type and amount of emitted air pollution. The following discussions summarize these requirements. As described in Section 4.2, emission rates from the proposed site are expected to be below the thresholds triggering any of these requirements. The WDNR has regulatory jurisdiction over construction- and operation-related activities, and SHINE may be required to obtain air permits in accordance with Wisconsin 2 Rainbow Lake is a Mandatory Federal Class I area in which visibility is not an important air quality-related value. Affected Environment 3-15 Administrative Code NR 405, "Prevention of Significant Deterioration"; NR 406, "Construction Permits"; and NR 407, "Operation Permits." Prevention of Significant Deterioration Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) is a Federal permitting program that applies to sources classified as major sources (as defined in 40 CFR 52.21) under the PSD program and located in attainment areas. The purpose of the program is to prevent degradation of air quality in areas where air quality is good. New or modified sources of criteria pollutants that exceed de minimis emission rates are subject to the program. The PSD program establishes mandatory Class I areas in which air quality is most pristine and visibility is an important value, such as those near national parks and wilderness areas. For purposes of this air quality analysis, the 250 tons per year (TPY) of any criteria pollutant threshold (40 CFR 52.21) will be considered in determining the significance of air quality impacts for operations. Title V of the Clean Air Act Title V of the CAA requires a Federally enforceable operating permit program that applies to large, new, and existing sources of air pollution. Any facility with the potential to emit 100 TPY or more of any criteria pollutant, 10 TPY of any HAP, or 25 TPY of all HAPs combined is required to obtain a valid Title V permit and is considered a major air source. For purposes of this air quality analysis, the 100 TPY of any criteria pollutant threshold for a Title V operation permit will be considered in determining the significance of air quality impacts for operation. Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued a final rule for mandatory GHG reporting from large GHG emission sources in the United States (74 FR 56260). The purpose of the GHG Tailoring Rule is to collect and use comprehensive and accurate data on carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to inform future policy decisions. In general, the threshold for reporting is 25,000 metric tons or more carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) emissions per year, excluding mobile-source emissions. CO2eq is a metric used to compare the emissions of GHG based on their global warming potential (GWP). GWP is a measure used to compare how much heat a GHG traps in the atmosphere. GWP is the total energy that a gas absorbs over a period of time compared to carbon dioxide. CO2eq is obtained by multiplying the amount of the GHG by the associated GWP. For example, the GWP of methane is estimated to be 21; therefore, 1 ton of methane emission is equivalent to 21 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. On May 13, 2010, the EPA issued the GHG Tailoring Rule. This rule set the thresholds for a phase-in approach to regulating GHG emissions under the PSD and Title V permitting programs (75 FR 31514). Beginning on January 2, 2011,3 operating permits issued to major sources of GHG under the PSD or Title V Federal permit programs must contain provisions requiring the use of best available control technology to limit the emissions of GHGs, if those sources would be subject to PSD or Title V permitting requirements because of their non-GHG pollutant emission potentials and if their estimated GHG emissions are at least 75,000 TPY of CO2eq. 3 On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD or Title V permit but could continue to require PSD and Title V permits, which are otherwise required based on emissions of conventional pollutants. In July 2014, the EPA issued a memorandum in response to the Supreme Court's decision and acknowledged that, although the decision is pending judicial action, the EPA will no longer require PSD or Title V permits for GHG-emitting sources that are not sources subject to PSD or Title V permits based on emissions of conventional pollutants (e.g., nitrogen oxides and, carbon monoxide) (EPA 2014b). Affected Environment 3-16 3.2.3 Noise Noise is often defined as unwanted sound. Sound is created when a source vibrates in air, creating pressure pulses that move through the air or another medium away from the source in waves. When these pressure waves reach a receiver like the human ear, the receiver interprets these waves as sounds. The human ear interprets more forceful vibrations (higher pressures in the sound waves) as louder or more intense sounds. Sound intensity is measured in logarithmic units called decibels (dB). A dB is the ratio of the measured sound pressure level to a reference level equal to a normal person's threshold of hearing. Because of the way the dB is defined mathematically and because of the way human ears respond to sound intensities, comparing the "noisiness" of two sounds based on their dB values is not straightforward. Most people barely notice a difference of 3 dB or less. Another characteristic of sound is frequency or pitch. Noise may be composed of many frequencies, but the human ear does not hear very low or very high frequencies as well as it hears frequencies around 1 to 5 kilohertz. To represent noise as closely as possible to the noise levels people experience, sounds are measured using a frequency-weighting scheme known as the A-scale. Sound levels measured on this A-scale are given in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). Several different terms are commonly used to describe sounds that vary in intensity over time. The equivalent sound intensity level (Leq) represents the average sound intensity level over a specified interval, often 1 hour. The day-night sound intensity level (LDN) is a single value calculated from an hourly equivalent sound intensity level over a 24-hour period, with the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. This addition accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise. Table 3-7 compares common sound levels and ranks the sounds in terms of their effects on hearing. For example, a whisper is normally 30 dBA and is considered very quiet. An air-conditioning unit located 6.1 m (20.0 ft) away is considered an intrusive noise at 60 dBA. Noise levels can become annoying at 80 dBA and very annoying at 90 dBA. To the human ear, each increase of 10 dBA sounds twice as loud (EPA 1981). Table 3-7. Sound Levels and Human Response Noise Level (dBA) Common Sounds Effect 10 Just audible Negligible(a) 30 Soft whisper (4.6 m (15 ft)) Very quiet 50 Light automobile traffic (30.5 m (100 ft)) Quiet 60 Air-conditioning unit (6.1 m (20 ft)) Intrusive 70 Noisy restaurant or freeway traffic Telephone use difficult 80 Alarm clock (0.6 m (2 ft)) Annoying 90 Heavy truck (15.2 m (49.9 ft)) or city traffic Very annoying hearing damage (8 hours) 100 Garbage truck Very annoying(a) 110 Pile drivers Strained vocal effort(a) 120 Jet takeoff (61 m (200 ft)) or automobile horn (0.9 m (3 ft)) Maximum vocal effort 140 Carrier deck jet operation Painfully loud (a) This effect is extrapolated. Key: dBA = decibels A-weighted, and m = meters. Source: EPA 1981 Affected Environment 3-17 3.2.3.1 Noise Regulations There are no regulatory limits on noise levels in the area of the proposed action, but several Federal regulations establish noise guidelines to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and from other adverse physiological, psychological, and social effects associated with noise. Under the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration established workplace standards for noise. The minimum requirement states that constant noise exposure must not exceed 90 dBA over an 8-hr period. The highest allowable sound level to which workers can be exposed is 115 dBA. Exposure to this level must not exceed 15 min within an 8-hr period. If noise levels exceed these standards, employers are required to provide hearing protection equipment that reduces sound levels to acceptable limits (29 CFR 1910.95). The EPA recommends day-night average sound levels of 55 dBA as guidelines or goals for outdoors in residential areas (EPA 1974). However, these levels are not standards. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates noise levels in the vicinity of airports. FAA regulations regarding airport noise compatibility planning (14 CFR Part 150) define the requirements and procedures for public-use airports, such as the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, which is located across the road from the proposed site. The FAA regulation at 14 CFR 150.21 requires a noise exposure map for each airport that identifies incompatible land use and an LDN 65 dBA contour line. The Federal Highway Administration rules in 23 CFR Part 772 regulate highway traffic and construction noise. The rules identify noise abatement criteria (NAC) that define when noise abatement must be considered in highway projects near different land use areas. For example, the noise abatement criterion for residential land use areas is 67 dBA. Although NAC are not noise limits, they do identify levels most people consider an annoyance. Several Wisconsin laws regulate noise associated with different sources and environments, including certain vehicles (such as snowmobiles, boats, and trucks), occupational settings, airports, highways, and wind farms (State of Wisconsin undated). Wisconsin's implementation of the Federal Highway Administration's highway noise rules is contained in Wisconsin Administrative Code Trans 405, "Siting Noise Barriers." Rock County ordinances prohibit nuisance noise and require noise prevention in land divisions and other development activities, but the ordinances do not specify numerical noise limits (Rock County undated a). 3.2.3.2 Existing Noise Levels The region of influence for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the proposed SHINE facility. Existing noise sources near the proposed site include vehicular traffic on U.S. Highway 51 and airplane traffic associated with the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors are a residence and an adjacent park located on West Knilans Road about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from the center of the proposed site. Figure 3-6 shows the proposed site, airport, and nearest receptors. Affected Environment 3-18 Figure 3-6. Proposed SHINE Facility Map Showing Noise Sources and Receptors Source: Modified from SHINE 2015a According to the noise exposure map for the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, the nearest noise receptors experience 55-65 dBA LDN noise levels. The proposed site would produce noise levels less than 55 dBA (SHINE 2013). SHINE's noise modeling for highway traffic noise from U.S. Highway 51 shows that the NAC for residential land uses (67 dBA) is exceeded at distances up to 80 ft (24 m) from the edge of the highway (SHINE 2013). 3.3 Geologic Environment 3.3.1 Site Geology The proposed site is located near the boundary of the Wisconsin Western Uplands and the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands physiographic provinces. The till plains section of the Central Lowland physiographic province of the United States encompasses these provinces. This province occupies the middle of the long stable North American continent. Tectonic activity has little effect on this location (USGS 2003; SHINE 2013, 2015a). Current site topography is flat to gently rolling. Deposits of glacial outwash and glacial till immediately underlay the site. These unconsolidated materials rest atop a bedrock surface, as further described later in this section (SHINE 2015a). Affected Environment 3-19 Site topography slopes gently toward the southwest in the direction of the Rock River, which is located about 2.5 mi (4.0 km) to the west. The change in ground surface elevation across the proposed main facility site is about 7.0 ft (2.1 m) between the southeast and northwest portions of the site. Elevations across the entire site range from about 804 ft (245 m) above mean sea level (MSL) at the southwest corner of the property adjacent to U.S. Highway 51 to 828 ft (252 m) MSL in the northeast corner. A small terraced knoll protrudes into the center of the otherwise gently sloping topography of the proposed site from the northeast (Figure 3-7) (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Physical features and the surficial geology at the proposed site and across the southeastern Wisconsin region are the product of successive glacial advances, retreats, and related depositional and erosional processes during the Pleistocene age or "Ice Age" (Fullerton et al. 2003; SHINE 2015a). The Pleistocene age is defined as the period of geologic time that began about 2.6 million years ago and ended about 11,700 years ago (USGS 2010). Both the Illinoian and younger Wisconsin glaciations affected southeastern Wisconsin and parts of Rock County as lobes of ice comprising the massive Laurentide Ice Sheet moved south and southwest out of central Canada and across the region. Portions of south-central Wisconsin, including southern Rock County and the proposed site, were last glaciated between about 128,000 and 310,000 years ago during the Illinoian Glaciation. At that time, ice covered the eastern half of Wisconsin and extended south into Southern Illinois and east into Indiana and Ohio (Fullerton et al. 2003). The latest glacial advance (the Wisconsin Glaciation) began 100,000 years ago and reached its peak about 30,000 years ago. At its peak, ice reached into Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa and encompassed much of northern and eastern Wisconsin. Although this latest glacial advance did not extend as far south and west as the proposed site, the Jonestown end moraine, which is located about 20 mi (32 km) to the north of the proposed site, marks its terminus. However, by 11,000 years ago, all ice had retreated from the State (SHINE 2015a; Fullerton et al. 2003; WGNHS 2011a). These glacial movements deposited glacial till, basal moraine, and end moraine. Till is a heterogeneous mixture of materials-clay, silt, sand, granules, pebbles, cobbles, and boulders-that glacial ice directly deposits. Ground moraine is a sheet or layer of till that often forms a gently rolling or undulating plain of low relief. End moraine, a thickened layer of till deposited at the margin of glacial ice, characteristically exists as belts of till or as concentric or overlapping ridges of till (Fullerton et al. 2003). Glacial streams flowing from the edges of the ice deposited sand and gravel outwash (SHINE 2015a; WGNHS 2011b). Alluvial processes, including flowing water, wind, and erosion, have subsequently reworked the deposited materials. The surficial geology of Rock County consists of the Wisconsin-age Johnstown moraine to the north. This moraine formed at the margins of the Green Bay ice lobe. The remainder of the county contains Illinoian-age ground moraine deposits that southward-flowing glacial outwash stream deposits and lake deposits have dissected in places. The stream valleys now contain late Wisconsin-age and possibly Holocene-age glaciofluvial outwash deposits (SHINE 2015a; Fullerton et al. 2003). The surficial geologic unit at the proposed site is mapped as glaciofluvial outwash composed of sand and gravel. Figure 3-7 is a generalized geologic section that shows the glacial terrain and the surficial and bedrock strata in the vicinity of the proposed site. Affected Environment 3-20 Figure 3-7. Geologic Cross-Section of the Proposed SHINE Site and Vicinity Source: Adapted from Zaporozec 1982 SHINE and its contractors conducted geotechnical investigations at the proposed site. These investigations revealed predominantly coarse, poorly graded (i.e., well-sorted) sandy sediment and soils to a depth of 221 ft (67 m) below ground surface (bgs) with occasional gravel layers (GAI 2012a). Testing of 15 boring samples further revealed that the density of the sand increases with depth and is generally compact. At a depth of 180- to 185-ft (55- to 56-m) bgs, a layer of hard clayey silt was encountered in the three deepest borings with a thickness of 10 to 18 ft (3.0 to 5.5 m). Sand or silty sand underlay this hardened layer to the total borehole depth of 221-ft (67-m) bgs (GAI 2012a). Based on drilling conducted as part of the site geotechnical investigations, the depth to bedrock is greater than 221-ft (67.4-m) bgs. Glacial action gouged, and then glacial and postglacial sediments filled, the uppermost bedrock surface beneath the proposed site. Figure 3-7 shows the expression of the ancestral Rock River Valley in the dissected bedrock surface. Beneath the mantle of Pleistocene- and Holocene-age sediments, the uppermost bedrock unit is the Platteville-Galena Formation of Ordovician age, which comprises limestone and dolomite. In descending order, sandstones of the St. Peter Formation and the carbonates of the Prairie du Chien Group, where present, underlay the Platteville-Galena Formation. These eroded units rest upon a thick sequence of Cambrian-age sedimentary rock that consists primarily of sandstone in the upper part. These Cambrian-age rocks are up to 1,000-ft (300-m) thick and extend to Precambrian-age basement rock (SHINE 2015a; WGNHS 2011b). Sedimentary bedrock underlying the proposed site formed from materials deposited in a shallow marine environment over millions of years in a structural feature known as the Michigan Basin. The proposed site lies on the western margin of the Michigan Basin and on the southeastern edge of another feature-the Wisconsin Arch. The Wisconsin Arch and the Kankakee Arch to the south of the proposed site are northwest- to southeast-striking tectonic features believed to be related to crustal adjustment during and following the development and filling of the Michigan Proposed SHINE Site Affected Environment 3-21 Basin more than 300 million years ago. This deformation led to the regional faulting and folding of subsurface strata in some areas. Despite this activity, the orientation of sedimentary strata beneath the proposed site indicates little deformation during the last 500 million years (SHINE 2015a). Still, several geologic faults mapped regionally in association with the Wisconsin and Kankakee Arches are located as close as 2 mi (3 km) to the proposed site. One of the most prominent faults is the Waukesha fault located about 20 mi (32 km) to the east and northeast of the proposed site. This northeast-striking fault runs for up to 133 mi (214 km) in the subsurface. Closer to the proposed site, the Janesville fault (or the Evansville fault) is located about 6 mi (10 km) north of the City of Janesville. This 19-mi-long (31-km-long) east-striking fault exhibits an estimated 70 ft (21 m) of displacement. A smaller unnamed fault of orientation similar to the Janesville fault has been traced for about 1.6 mi (2.6 km). It is located less than 2 mi (3 km) north of the City of Janesville. None of these faults are expressed at the surface, and no reported evidence exists of Pleistocene or post-Pleistocene activity on any regional faults (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Further, the NRC staff's review of the USGS's latest release of the Quaternary Fault and Fold Database found no record of Quaternary faults or folds within a 300-mi (480-km) radius of the proposed site (USGS 2012). However, liquefaction features in the Wabash Valley in southern Indiana and Illinois, located about 170 mi (274-km) south of the proposed site, indicate the presence of active faulting in the Holocene and late Pleistocene period (SHINE 2013; Crone and Wheeler 2000). Therefore, SHINE considered these faults capable because the characteristics in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 are exhibited (SHINE 2015a). Section 3.3.3 further describes the seismic setting, including earthquake risk, at the proposed site. Geologic resources, encompassing rock and mineral (fuel and nonfuel) resources, in the vicinity of the proposed site, are primarily related to the area's extensive sand and gravel deposits. Rock County features widespread nonmetallic mining, including construction sand and gravel and crushed stone operations (USGS 2013a). Two sand and gravel mining operations and one crushed stone mining operation are within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site (Find the Data 2014). 3.3.2 Soils Based on SHINE's geotechnical investigation (Section 3.3.1), the proposed site generally consists of stratified sand and gravel that underlay well-drained loamy soils (GAI 2012a). The USDA NRCS soil unit mapping identifies the majority of the proposed site (90 percent) as Warsaw silt loam with 2- to 6-percent slopes, and as Warsaw silt loam with 0- to 2-percent slopes (Figure 3-3). These soil mapping units comprise well-drained silt loams and sandy clay loams found on outwash plains and stream terraces that developed from calcareous sand and gravelly outwash. The profiles of these soils grade to a gravelly coarse sand or sand at depths greater than about 36 in. (91 cm). The depth to the water table in these soils is generally 60 to 80 in. (150 to 200 cm), and water rarely ponds on these soils. The only building site limitation for these soils is that shallow excavations tend to be very unstable because of high sand and gravelly content (NRCS 2013). The soils are further classified as slightly to moderately erodible (NRCS 2013; SHINE 2015a). Given the recent agricultural history of the proposed site, the soils have a well-developed organic soil horizon in the upper 12- to 24-in. (30- to 60-cm) soil profile, which promotes soil tilth while reducing erosion. Section 3.1.1.4 notes that these Warsaw silt loam soils are prime farmland soils when they are not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013; 7 CFR 657.5(a)). Affected Environment 3-22 The remaining south-central portion of the proposed site comprises eroded Lorenzo loam with 6- to 12-percent slopes. These soils are also well drained and grade from a loam in the upper part to a gravelly to very gravelly clay loam below a depth of about 15 in. (38 cm). They occupy outwash plains and knobs that developed from loamy outwash over sandy and gravelly parent materials. Because of slope factors and dense soil horizons, this soil is classified as somewhat to very limited for building site development. This soil unit is also prone to slumping in shallow excavations (NRCS 2013). These soils are farmland of statewide importance when they are not committed to developed uses (Section 3.1.1.4) (7 CFR 657.5(c)). Borings that SHINE obtained during the geotechnical investigation did not identify the presence of highly plastic clays indicative of expansive or high shrink/swell potential soils (GAI 2012a; SHINE 2015a). 3.3.3 Seismic Setting Southeastern Wisconsin lies within the central portion of the stable North American craton. Historically, the seismicity of the region encompassing the proposed site is characterized by relatively infrequent small to moderate earthquakes typical of much of the central and eastern United States (SHINE 2013; USGS 2013b). Across the stable continental region of the United States, most locations can go years without an earthquake strong enough for people to feel. In the central and eastern United States, people can feel earthquakes over a very wide area. For example, people can feel a magnitude 4.0 earthquake at locations as far as 60 mi (100 km) from its source, and the earthquake can occasionally cause damage near its source. People can usually feel a magnitude 5.5 earthquake as far as 300 mi (500 km) from its source, and the earthquake often causes damage near its epicenter and sometimes as far away as 25 mi (40 km) (USGS 2013b). The USGS's seismic hazard estimates indicate the proposed site is located within one of the lower earthquake hazard areas in the conterminous United States. Earthquake sources in Southern Illinois are the primary controllers of hazard in the region (Petersen et al. 2011; SHINE 2015a). Since 1973, six earthquakes within a radius of 200 mi (322 km) of the proposed site have been recorded with a magnitude equal to, or greater than, 2.5. Two of these events occurred in 2013 and one in 2012 at magnitudes of 3.2, 2.6, and 3.0, respectively. The closest earthquake was a magnitude 2.6 earthquake in June 2013, with its epicenter near the City of Campton Hills, Illinois, about 51 mi (82 km) southeast of the proposed site (USGS 2013c). The largest earthquake was a magnitude 4.2 event in June 2004, centered near the City of Ottawa, Illinois, about 80 mi (130 km) south of the proposed site (SHINE 2013; USGS 2013c, 2013f). This notable earthquake was widely felt across northern Illinois, southern Wisconsin, and western Indiana. Across southeast Wisconsin, it produced shaking in the range of II to III on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale, but no serious damage was reported (USGS 2013d). Although people can feel shaking in this range, this level is unlikely to produce any damage to structures (USGS 2013e). Historically, larger earthquakes have occurred in adjoining regions with effects felt across southern Wisconsin. The largest of these earthquakes occurred on May 26, 1909, with an estimated magnitude of 5.1. The epicenter of this earthquake was near Aurora, Illinois, about 85 mi (137 km) southeast of the proposed site (SHINE 2013; USGS 2013d). The earthquake produced MMI VII shaking at its epicenter with many reports of fallen and damaged chimneys. This event is estimated to have produced MMI V shaking across the area of the proposed site (SHINE 2013; USGS 2013f). MMI V shaking can overturn objects and cause minor damage to personal property (USGS 2013e). Affected Environment 3-23 Using USGS national seismic hazard model data, SHINE performed a site-specific analysis to assess the potential maximum earthquake magnitude that may affect the proposed site and its immediate surroundings. SHINE determined that an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.8 can reasonably be regarded as the maximum considered earthquake to occur in the region (i.e., within about 200 mi (322 km) of the proposed site). This earthquake estimate encompasses events producing maximum earthquake response accelerations ranging from 0.119 to 0.206 gravity (i.e., the force of acceleration relative to that of Earth's gravity). This value represents shaking from an earthquake with a 2-percent probability of exceedance in the next 50 years (i.e., an earthquake with a 2,475-year return period). The NRC staff will further evaluate the potential maximum earthquake in the Safety Evaluation Report related to the SHINE construction permit application. Using the same earthquake return period, SHINE also estimated the probabilistic peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the proposed site reflective of sites with soft rock or very stiff soil. SHINE's calculated PGA was about 0.05 gravity (SHINE 2013). This calculated PGA is consistent with PGA estimates published in the USGS's 2008 national seismic hazard maps (Petersen et al. 2011). These data indicate a low to very low earthquake shaking hazard at the proposed site (SHINE 2013, 2015a). 3.4 Water Resources 3.4.1 Surface Water 3.4.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology The major surface-water feature in the vicinity of the proposed site is the Rock River, located about 1.9 mi (3.1 km) west of the proposed site at its closest point (Figure 3-8). No named tributaries originate on or border the proposed site. However, as shown in Figure 3-8, the headwaters of an unnamed tributary to the Rock River are located about 1.6 mi (2.6 km) southwest of the proposed site and west of U.S. Highway 51. The local watershed that contributes drainage to, and receives drainage from, the proposed site encompasses about 1,377 ac (557 ha) (Figure 3-8). USGS-delineated hydrologic unit (watershed) boundaries are depicted in the figure. U.S. Highway 51 roughly bisects the proposed site and local watershed. Drainage across the proposed site and vicinity is predominantly to the south and southwest across the proposed site toward the unnamed tributary to the Rock River located south of the proposed site. Culverts under U.S. Highway 51 convey runoff and drainage from the east side ditch to the west side, including two culvert locations (three culvert pipes) adjacent to the proposed site. These include a 30-in. (76-cm) culvert located along the northwest boundary of the proposed site with U.S. Highway 51 and a pair of 24-in. (61-cm) culverts located near the southwest corner of the proposed site and U.S. Highway 51. Drainage across the proposed site toward the unnamed tributary flows through these culverts and then passes through the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, through culverts under West Airport Road, through the Glen Erin Golf Course, and through a box culvert under West Happy Hollow Road. Beyond West Happy Hollow Road, the receiving tributary passes through the wooded Rock River floodplain before discharging to Rock River (SHINE 2015a). Affected Environment 3-24 Figure 3-8. Surface-Water Features in the Vicinity of the Proposed SHINE Site Source: Adapted from SHINE 2015a Affected Environment 3-25 Rock River originates in the Horicon Marsh in Dodge County, Wisconsin, where the east, south, and west branches of Rock River join. In Horicon, at the south edge of the marsh, the river flows southerly for about 76 mi (122 km) to Fort Atkinson, which roughly marks the southern end of the Upper Rock River Basin and the beginning of the Lower Rock River Basin. From Fort Atkinson, Rock River flows in a generally southwest direction through Lake Koshkonong and then generally south through Rock County and to the west of the proposed site. Rock River flows across a total of about 62 mi (100 km) in the Lower Rock River Basin before entering Illinois south of the City of Beloit. It ultimately discharges to the Mississippi River downstream of Rock Island, Illinois (Sinclair 1996; Rock County 2009; WDNR 2012a). Many small dams regulate the flow of Rock River. Originally constructed for hydropower facilities, these low dams do not form deep impoundments. The Indianford Dam, which impounds Lake Koshkonong, is located about 21 mi (34 km) upstream of the point where drainage from the Janesville site enters Rock River through the unnamed tributary. Closer to, and to the north of, the proposed site, the Centerway Dam is located near downtown in the City of Janesville and upstream of the Monterey Dam. The lower Monterey Dam is located about 6.5 mi (10.5 km) upstream of the proposed site drainage confluence and about 2 river miles (RM) (3.2 km) downstream of the Centerway Dam. The first downstream dam on Rock River is the Blackhawk Dam (Beloit Dam), which is located about 8.4 RM (13.5 km) downstream of the proposed site (SHINE 2013, 2015a). The nearest USGS gaging station on Rock River is the Afton gage station (Station 05430500). This gage station is located slightly southwest of the proposed site and upstream from the point at which site drainage (through the unnamed tributary) ultimately enters Rock River, as previously described. The mean annual discharge measured at the Afton gage for water years 1914 to 2012 is 2,015 cubic feet per second (cfs) (57 cubic meters per second (m3/s)). The 90-percent exceedance flow, which is generally indicative of drought conditions, is 499 cfs (14 m3/s). For water year 2012, the mean discharge was 1,927 cfs (55 m3/s). The drainage area of Rock River upstream of the Afton gage encompasses 3,340 square miles (mi2) (8,650 square kilometers (km2)) (USGS 2013g). No stream flow data are available for the unnamed tributary to Rock River that receives site runoff. Peak flows and flooding on streams in Rock County typically occur either in late winter or early spring, from March to April, and often in June, as a result of early summer thunderstorms. Floods on Rock River at Afton also generally occur from March to April with few floods from November to January (SHINE 2015a). No floodplains are delineated on or near the proposed site (FEMA 2008; SHINE 2015a; Rock County 2009). The flood insurance rate map for the proposed site and vicinity identifies mapped areas as Zone X, the zone for areas outside the 500-year flood elevation. In addition, the proposed site is not located in an area identified as prone to seasonally high water tables or hydric soil conditions (Rock County 2009). However, floodplains are mapped in association with the unnamed tributary to Rock River south of the proposed site (FEMA 2008; Rock County 2009). Rock River flood levels near the proposed site are well below the lowest ground elevations at the proposed site. Because river flood levels are also sufficiently below the proposed site, the river flood levels have no backwater influence on the unnamed tributary flood-water levels (GAI 2012a; SHINE 2015a). 3.4.1.2 Surface Water Quality and Use The State of Wisconsin has established water quality standards, numeric criteria, and associated designated use categories for all waters of the State, including wetlands. These Affected Environment 3-26 standards and use designations are the basis for regulatory, permitting, or funding activities that have an impact on water quality. The main stem of the Rock River is regulated in accordance with its use for waste assimilation, recreation, fish and aquatic life, irrigation, stock and wildlife watering, and hydropower (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 104, "Uses and Designated Standards"). Its designated use is for recreation and for fish and aquatic life. Governing water quality standards include limitations on pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and various chemical constituents and toxic substances, in accordance with Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102, "Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters." Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) requires states to identify all "impaired" waters for which effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water quality standards. The Section 303(d) list includes those water quality limited segments that require development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to ensure future compliance with water quality standards. TMDLs have been established for several segments of Rock River. Most notably the 12.4-mi (20-km) segment of Rock River, between the City of Janesville's Wastewater Treatment Plant at RM 183.45 and RM 171 at the Illinois State line, is listed as impaired because total suspended solids and total phosphorous contribute to degraded aquatic habitat and low dissolved oxygen, respectively (WDNR 2013b). The unnamed tributary south of the proposed site (Figure 3-8) discharges to this impaired segment of the river. SHINE collected baseline surface-water quality data for this unnamed tributary from a location where it flows beneath the U.S. Highway 51 bridge near West Happy Hollow Road (SHINE 2015a). The water quality is reflective of the surficial groundwater that provides baseflow to the streams and that indicates some evidence of agricultural runoff based on fecal coliform and nitrate concentrations. The NRC staff visually surveyed this monitoring location during the environmental site audit in July 2013, and it observed that the tributary was a shallow and somewhat braided channel with continuous flow. In addition to the uses noted earlier in this section, surface-water use in Rock County is primarily limited to use in thermoelectric power generation (Buchwald 2011). Public and community water systems in Rock County use groundwater instead of surface water (Section 3.4.2) (Buchwald 2011; Rock County 2009; SHINE 2015a). 3.4.2 Groundwater 3.4.2.1 Site Description and Hydrogeology Groundwater beneath the proposed site occurs in unconsolidated and consolidated water-bearing deposits (aquifers). The USGS has broadly classified and grouped the distinct geologic units comprising these aquifers into the surficial aquifer system and the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system (Olcott 1992). Neither of these systems contains sole-source aquifers. The geologic units comprising these systems are described in Section 3.3 and are summarized here. The surficial aquifer system is the most widespread system across Wisconsin and bordering States. Across Rock County, it predominantly comprises Pleistocene-age glacial sediments and younger alluvial sediments that lie atop the bedrock surface (Olcott 1992; SHINE 2015a). At the proposed site, and as shown in Figure 3-7, the local surficial aquifer comprises glacial outwash, a mixture of poorly graded sand and of sand and gravel (GAI 2012b; SHINE 2015a; Zaporozec 1982). The results of geotechnical borings at the proposed site in 2011 (Section 3.3) reveal that sandy sediments extend to a depth of at least 221-ft (67-m) bgs, except for an Affected Environment 3-27 intervening 10.0- to 18.0-ft-thick (3.0- to 5.5-m-thick) layer of hard clayey silt at a depth of 180- to 185-ft (55- to 56-m) bgs. As part of the geotechnical and hydrologic/hydrogeologic studies at the Janesville site, SHINE drilled 4 of the 14 boreholes to use as groundwater monitoring wells. The wells were constructed of 2-in. (5-cm) diameter polyvinyl chloride pipe and completed to depths ranging from 60.0 to 71.5 ft (18.0 to 22.0 m). All the borings completed on the proposed site encountered the water table at depths ranging from about 754-ft (230 m) MSL to 766-ft (233 m) MSL, or from about 50- to 65-ft (15- to 20-m) bgs, with about 3 ft (1 m) of seasonal variation (GAI 2012a, 2012b; SHINE 2015a). Subsequently, SHINE conducted water table and groundwater quality monitoring monthly from October 2011 to September 2012 (SHINE 2015a). SHINE measured water levels and the hydraulic gradient and determined that the direction of groundwater flow beneath the proposed site was southwest (GAI 2012a; SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff found these results consistent with expectations for a surficial aquifer in which the water table is normally a reflection of the overlying topography; the groundwater flow is predominantly in the direction of surface-water drainages that may receive baseflow from groundwater discharge. To assess the hydraulic conductivity and other characteristics of the surficial aquifer, SHINE selected three of the wells for slug testing. SHINE's analyses yielded an average conductivity (permeability) of 0.0045 ft per second (0.14 cm per second) (GAI 2012a; SHINE 2015a). Estimates of the advective travel time for any potential groundwater contamination were also made for various modeling scenarios. Based on the completion of a 1-year groundwater monitoring data set, SHINE estimated that the expected westerly travel time to the Rock River is 9 years. The estimate of the expected travel time south to the unnamed tributary to the Rock River is 26 years (SHINE 2015a). As a water source, the surficial aquifer in Rock County has demonstrated yields of 5,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (18.9 cubic meters per minute (m3/min)), with a resulting drawdown of less than 7.0 ft (2.1 m) over a 24-hour period of pumping (Olcott 1968; SHINE 2015a). More typical yields from wells completed in outwash deposits are about 500 gpm (1.9 m3/min). In contrast, wells completed in glacial till might yield 1 to 10 gpm (0.004 to 0.04 m3/min) of groundwater to wells. The surficial aquifer is recharged locally from precipitation, with groundwater generally moving downgradient to discharge points (Olcott 1992). The City of Janesville has estimated that the average groundwater recharge rate for Rock County is 6.3 in. per year (16 cm per year) (City of Janesville 2010). Beneath Rock County, the Platteville-Galena Formations (dolomite), St. Peter Formation (sandstone), Prairie du Chen Group dolomites, and deeper Cambrian sandstone formations represent the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system (Section 3.3.1 and Figure 3-7) (Olcott 1992; SHINE 2015a). These units may act as a single aquifer or as independent aquifers, based on the separation of the units by less permeable members (Olcott 1992; SHINE 2015a). Although the rocks of the Platteville-Galena are considered confining units, particularly where they are overlain by younger sedimentary rocks, they represent a local aquifer in outcrop areas across Wisconsin suitable for domestic water supply (Olcott 1968, 1992). Similarly, the rocks of the St. Peter Formation and Prairie du Chen Group comprise the St. Peter-Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer-also known as the sandstone aquifer in Rock County. In general, recharge to these aquifer strata occurs where the strata outcrop at the surface and also from the overlying glacial sediments (Olcott 1992). In most areas, the confining units of this aquifer system are leaky and allow vertical downward movement of groundwater within the system (Olcott 1992). In particular, the Prairie du Chien Affected Environment 3-28 Group and St. Peter Formation outcrop in the major river valleys over much of the western part of Rock County, whereas bedrock east of the Rock River and ridgetops to the west represent the Platteville-Galena (Olcott 1968). On a regional basis, the direction of groundwater flow in the uppermost portion of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system is generally south to southeast toward the Illinois Basin and/or toward regional discharge areas, such as Rock River. The exception is where large pumping centers, such as those in eastern Wisconsin, affect flow (Olcott 1992). Well yields vary considerably from the individual aquifers that comprise the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system (Olcott 1992). However, Olcott (1968) observed that wells completed in the sandstones can yield 1,000 gpm (3.8 m3/min) or more. 3.4.2.2 Groundwater Quality and Use Groundwater across Rock County is characterized as good and is suitable for most uses. Its chemical quality is the result of its movement through the surficial sediments and underlying bedrock, which are high in calcium-magnesium carbonate. As a result, the water is primarily of the calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type in both the surficial and bedrock aquifers. Groundwater is also very hard because of high concentrations of calcium and magnesium, and it is slightly alkaline (Zaporozec 1982). For the surficial aquifer, the mean concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) is reported as 351 milligrams per liter (mg/L) with mean TDS concentrations from the Platteville-Galena unit and St. Peter sandstones of 416 and 349 mg/L, respectively (Zaporozec 1982). Groundwater results from onsite monitoring wells revealed TDS concentrations ranging from 340 to 462 mg/L (SHINE 2015a). The State of Wisconsin regulates groundwater quality and administers groundwater protection programs in accordance with Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 140, "Groundwater Quality." Rock County obtains nearly all its potable water from groundwater. This includes water for municipal supply and for residential and other private uses, including agricultural and industrial uses (Rock County 2009). The City of Janesville Water Utility uses eight high-capacity wells as its public supply and has established a wellhead protection plan (SHINE 2015a). Four of these are shallow wells that produce from glacial outwash deposits. The wells are completed to depths ranging from 100 to 215 ft (30 to 66 m) with pump capacities ranging from 2,500 to 4,200 gpm (9.5 to 15.9 m3/min). The remaining three are much deeper wells that withdraw from the sandstone aquifer in the St. Peter Formation. These wells are completed to depths ranging from 1,142 to 1,169 ft (348 to 356 m) deep with pump capacities ranging from 2,400 to 2,600 gpm (9.1 to 9.8 m3/min) (City of Janesville 2010, 2013b; WDNR 2013c). The Janesville Water Utility controls high levels of nitrate in some shallow groundwater by blending water from the shallow and deep wells before distribution (City of Janesville 2010, 2013b). The City of Janesville also maintains two covered storage reservoirs with 14 million gallons (53,000 cubic meters (m3)) of storage capacity. In total, the City of Janesville's groundwater supply system has a capacity of about 32 million gallons per day (mgd) (121,100 cubic meters per day (m3/d)) and demand is about 10 mgd (37,900 m3/d) (City of Janesville 2013a). The City of Janesville projects the groundwater demand to increase 50 percent by 2030, with a similar increase countywide (City of Janesville 2010). The USGS has characterized the hydrogeology of the Rock River Basin, including groundwater flow in the basin, as part of developing a groundwater modeling tool for evaluating the effects of water management programs (Juckem 2009). The groundwater flow model for the Rock River Basin identified 30 high-capacity public wells and 190 irrigation, industrial, and community wells within Rock County. The model does not account for smaller private wells that are responsible for about 20 percent of all the county's groundwater use (City of Janesville 2010). Affected Environment 3-29 As part of developing the groundwater flow model, USGS compiled groundwater production data from across the Rock River Basin. Groundwater withdrawals by municipal systems averaged about 84.8 mgd (321,000 m3/d) for the period from 1997 to 2006, which account for 75 percent of the total groundwater withdrawn from high-capacity wells. The municipal water systems of Janesville (13.2 mgd (50,000 m3/d)) and Beloit (6.6 mgd (25,000 m3/d)) were in the top five of such systems, with Madison at the top of the list (32.5 mgd (123,000 m3/day)). Withdrawals for irrigation and industrial or commercial purposes averaged 27 mgd (102,000 m3/d) (Juckem 2009). The deeper sandstone aquifers (part of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system) to the east of the Rock River Basin historically have been in a state of overdraft (aquifer drawdown) because of the influence of large, municipal groundwater withdrawals (Avery 2005; Grannemann et al. 2000). However, because of the presence of a hydrogeologic divide and an extensive regional geologic confining unit, groundwater within central and western Rock County is little affected by these influences. The vast majority of groundwater within the county, whether it is within the surficial or Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer systems, cycles and flows within the county and eventually discharges to the Rock River or other streams. It is not lost to, and is not appreciably influenced by, activities in other groundwater basins (Juckem 2009). The nearest active drinking water well is a private well (State Well No. MF461), which is located about 0.75 mi (1.20 km) northwest of the proposed site. The well has a diameter of 5.0 in. (12.7 cm) and was completed to a depth of 82 ft (25 m) (SHINE 2015a; WDNR 2013d; WDATCP 2013). During the environmental site audit, the NRC staff noted the presence of an additional well just south of the southwestern site boundary (SHINE 2015a). According to the well's completion report, it was drilled in 1974 to service a helicopter port. The well was completed to a depth of 90 ft (27 m) in sand and gravel, with a static water level at 60 ft (18 m) (WDATCP 2013). The well is currently used to supply an indoor sink and to wash down equipment (SHINE 2013). 3.5 Ecological Resources 3.5.1 Ecoregion The proposed site is located within the Southeast Glacial Plains ecoregion, which includes 7,725 square miles (mi2) (20,007 square kilometers (km2)) in southeastern Wisconsin. This ecoregion primarily consists of glacial till plains and moraines or areas with accumulated soil and rocks left behind from a moving glacier during the Wisconsin Ice Age. The Southeast Glacial Plains has the highest aquatic productivity for plants, insects, other invertebrates, and fish of any ecological landscape in Wisconsin. The main ecological features within the ecoregion include lakes, marshes, fens, sedge meadows, wet prairies, tamarack swamps, and floodplain forests (WDNR 2013e). The primary undeveloped land cover that provides habitat within the ecoregion includes agricultural cropland (58 percent), followed by wetlands (12 percent) and forests (11 percent). Common forest types include maple-basswood, oak, lowland hardwoods, and conifer swamps. Most forested areas are located in riparian areas along rivers, such as Rock River, or within rugged topography that inhibits agricultural activities. The amount and connectivity of forests and native grasslands have decreased since the 1800s because of agricultural activities and, to some extent, commercial, residential, and other development, thereby leaving few large undisturbed tracts of forest. Wetlands have also declined over time because of hydrologic modifications (e.g., ditching, diking, and tiling), grazing, infestations of invasive plants, and excessive inputs of sediment- and nutrient-laden runoff from croplands (WDNR 2013e). Affected Environment 3-30 3.5.2 Site The proposed site consists of 91 ac (37 ha) of agricultural lands and 0.2 ac (0.1 ha) of developed open space, such as grassy areas. The proposed site has been continuously disturbed from agricultural activities during the past several decades. Because of these agricultural activities, plant communities located on the proposed site are primarily limited to cultivated crops, including corn (Zea mays), soybean (Glycine max), and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum), and to weedy species, including fescue (Festuca spp.), green foxtail (Setaria viridis), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), and common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Because of the clearing and tilling associated with agricultural activities, the proposed site has no forests, wetlands, grasslands, or prairies. In addition, no water bodies, aquatic habitats, or riparian zones exist within the boundaries of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). The proposed site provides habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other wildlife tolerant of open or plowed fields and cultivated grasses or other crops. To characterize the types of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that use the proposed site, SHINE conducted quarterly field reconnaissance survey studies from October 2011 to September 2012 (SHINE 2013, 2015a). During each survey, SHINE and its contractors walked through the entire site. SHINE also looked for road kills, tracks, scat, nests, and other lines of evidence to determine what mammals occur on or near the proposed site. SHINE conducted additional birding surveys by driving along the periphery of the proposed site at sunrise, stopping every 0.5 mi (0.8 km), and recording all birds seen or heard during a 3-minute survey period at each stop. SHINE and its contractors conducted birding studies on two separate dates during each of the four seasons. As part of the birding and aquatic surveys, SHINE documented incidental observations of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. SHINE and its contractors observed 58 bird species, 9 mammal species, and 7 reptile and amphibian species during the 2011-2012 surveys on and near the proposed site (Table 3-8). Because of the mobility and range of the wildlife described in the table, wildlife observed on agricultural fields near the proposed site also likely use the proposed site as they travel to forage, rest, breed, or seek refuge from predators. The species listed in Table 3-8 are representative of species tolerant of human-altered landscapes, such as agricultural fields. Wildlife that requires trees, native plants, shrubs, or uncultivated grasses would not use the proposed site because of the lack of forested areas, wetlands, and native grasslands. Table 3-8. Wildlife Observed On or Near the Proposed Site Scientific Name Common Name On Site 5-mi (8-km) Radius Birds Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird x x Branta canadensis Canadian goose x x Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk x x Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal x Carduelis tristis American goldfinch x Carpodacus mexicanus house finch x Charadrius vociferus killdeer x x Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow x x Eremophila alpestris horned lark x x Passer domesticus house sparrow x Affected Environment 3-31 Scientific Name Common Name On Site 5-mi (8-km) Radius Quiscalus quiscula common grackle x Spizella pusilla field sparrow x x Sturnus vulgaris European starling x Turdus migratorius American robin x Mammals Canis latrans coyote x Didelphis virginiana opossum x Marmota monax groundhog x x Mephitis mephitis striped skunk x Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer x x Procyon lotor raccoon x x Sciurus carolinensis grey squirrel x Spermophilus tridecemlineatus thirteen-lined ground squirrel x Sylvilagus floridanus eastern cottontail x x Reptiles and Amphibians Bufo americanus American toad x Rana catesbiana bullfrog x Rana clanitans green frog x Rana pipiens northern leopard frog x Pseudacris crucifer spring peeper x Chelydra serpentina common snapping turtle x Thamnophis sirtalis eastern garter snake x Source: SHINE 2015a 3.5.3 Habitats in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site Within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site, most of the area (62 percent) is used for agricultural purposes. Vegetation and wildlife within agricultural fields surrounding the proposed site are likely to be similar to those found at the proposed site. The next sections describe other types of habitats-forests, grasslands, wetlands, and aquatic-within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site. 3.5.3.1 Forested Habitats Forests cover 7 percent of the area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Typical forests in the vicinity consist of maple-basswood, lowland hardwoods, and oaks (WDNR 2002). Forested habitats primarily occur in riparian areas adjacent to the Rock River and its associated tributaries (SHINE 2015a). Historically, forests covered a larger portion of the area; however, many of the forests have been converted into agricultural fields (WDNR 2013e). Remaining forested tracts, especially in riparian areas, provide important habitat for wildlife and birds. Many neotropical migrating birds use forested riparian habitats along the Rock River for resting, foraging, and providing refuge from predators. The WDNR (2014b) identified the following two forest communities of special interest within 6 mi (10 km) of the proposed site: (1) Southern Dry-Mesic Forest. This is an upland forest community that commonly includes white oak (Quercus alba), brasswood (Tilia spp.), sugar and red maples Affected Environment 3-32 (Acer spp.), white ash (Fraxinus Americana), shagbark hickory (Carya ovate), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Red oaks (Q. rubra) are commonly the most abundant tree species within southern dry-mesic forests. (2) Southern Mesic Forest. This is an upland forest that commonly includes sugar maples and basswood as the most abundant tree taxa. Other common trees found in southern mesic forests include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), walnut (Juglans spp.), red oak, red maple, white ash, and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra). 3.5.3.2 Grassland Habitats Grasslands cover about 2 percent of the area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Native grasslands include a variety of habitats, including sedge meadows, prairies, and savannas (Sample and Mossman 1997). Before the arrival of European settlers, native grasslands, such as prairies, covered about 50 percent of southern Wisconsin. Agricultural activities converted the majority of native grasslands into cultivated crops. The remaining areas of native grasslands are usually small and disconnected from other patches of native grasslands (Sample and Mossman 1997). These small patches provide lower quality habitat than larger connected tracts of grasslands. Predation, for example, is usually higher along the edge of a patch of prairie than at the center of a large continuous patch of prairie, which is likely due to the fact that prey are more visible and have fewer places to hide from predators along the edge of a patch. The NRC staff notes that cultivated grasses, such as corn and wheat, are sometimes considered grasslands. Because native grasses are relatively rare in the area and native grasses provide a substantially higher quality habitat than cultivated grasses, the NRC staff classified cultivated crops as agricultural lands in this environmental impact statement (EIS). The WDNR (2014b) identified the following four grassland communities of special interest within 6 mi (10 km) of the proposed site: (1) Dry Prairie. This is a dry grassland community that usually occurs on steep south- or west-facing slopes or at the summits of river bluffs with sandstone or dolomite bedrock near the surface. Dominant grasses include short- to medium-sized prairie grasses, such as little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), side-oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta), and prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis). The Rock River Prairie is about 3 mi (5 km) southwest of the proposed site. The WDNR owns the 37-ac (14-ha) prairie, and the area was designated a State Natural Area in 1999. The prairie supports over 50 native prairie species, including several rare and threatened plants. Typical plant species include pasque flower (Anemone patens), cream wild indigo (Baptisia bracteata), rock sandwort (Arenaria spp.), prairie gentian (Gentiana puberulenta), little bluestem, and side-oats grama with prairie dropseed (WDNR 2013a). (2) Dry-Mesic Prairie. This is a rare grassland community that was common in parts of southern Wisconsin. Most dry-mesic prairie has been converted to agricultural lands or forested areas because of the lack of wildfires to control woody vegetation. Dominant grasses include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) and Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans). (3) Mesic Prairie. This is an extremely rare grassland community that was historically common. Dominant grasses include the tall grass, big bluestem, little bluestem, Indian grass, needle grass, prairie dropseed, and switch grass (Panicum virgatum). Affected Environment 3-33 (4) Wet Prairie. This is a variable tall grassland community that may include many wetland-like characteristics. Dominant grasses may include Canada bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), cordgrass (Spartina spp.), marsh wild timothy (Muhlenbergia glomerata), lake sedge (Carex spp.), water sedge (Carex aquatilis), and woolly sedge (Carex spp.). Native grasslands provide an important habitat for wildlife and birds. For example, many birds require grassland habitats for courtship, nesting, foraging, rearing young, roosting, or resting. In Wisconsin, 105 bird species regularly or occasionally use Wisconsin grasslands for at least one of these activities during the breeding season. This represents 45 percent of the 233 confirmed breeding species in the State (Sample and Mossman 1997). 3.5.3.3 Wetlands Woody wetlands and emergent herbaceous wetlands cover about 3 percent of the area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Wetlands provide an important, high-value habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic resources. Migrating birds often use wetland sites for feeding and resting (WDNR 2014c). Areas of open water provide an important nursery ground for many developing amphibians (e.g., frogs and salamanders), reptiles (e.g., turtles), and fish (WDNR 2014c). 3.5.3.4 Aquatic Habitats As described in Section 3.4, water drains off the proposed site to the south and west toward the Rock River and its tributaries. The closest aquatic resources within this drainage area include an unnamed tributary to the Rock River, which is about 1.6 mi (2.6 km) south of the proposed site, and the Rock River, which is about 1.9 mi (3.1 km) south and west of the proposed site. The unnamed tributary is about 3.0- to 4.0-ft (0.9- to 1.2-m) wide at the ordinary high water mark and has a depth of up to about 1.0 ft (0.3 m) (SHINE 2015a). For a description of the Rock River, see Section 3.4. Aquatic features near the proposed site are part of the Lower Rock River watershed, which drains an area of 1,857 mi2 (4,810 km2) (USDA 2007). SHINE and its contractors conducted fish surveys in the unnamed tributary in October 2011, January 2012, April 2012, and July 2012. Sampling equipment included a seine for fish and a kick net for macroinvertebrates (SHINE 2013, 2015a). SHINE conducted macroinvertebrate surveys in the unnamed tributary in October 2011 and April 2012 using a kick net (SHINE 2013, 2015a). In addition, the NRC staff reviewed a fish database compiled by the USGS and the WDNR, which includes the results of various fish surveys in Wisconsin since the 1960s (USGS and WDNR 2014). The NRC staff searched the database to determine fish occurrence data from the Rock River and its tributaries within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site. SHINE observed two species-brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans) and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) while conducting fish surveys in the unnamed tributary. The low species diversity is likely because of the small size of the unnamed tributary, the intermittent flow of water, and limited survey methods (e.g., seining). During its review of the USGS and WDNR fish database, the NRC staff identified 23 fish species captured from 1980 to 2013 in various surveys in the Rock River and its tributaries within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site. Table 3-9 summarizes all fish species identified in SHINE's fish surveys and in the USGS and WDNR fish database. SHINE collected a total of 12 distinct macroinvertebrate taxa in fall 2011 and 9 distinct taxa in spring 2012. The most common taxon was the amphipod Gammarus, which comprised 79 percent of the fall collection and 94 percent of the spring collection. All other taxa comprised 5 percent or less of each collection (SHINE 2015a). Affected Environment 3-34 Table 3-9. Common Fish Species in the Rock River and Tributaries Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed Site Scientific Name Common Name Rock River and Tributaries(a) Unnamed Tributary(b) Aplodinotus grunniens freshwater drum x Carassius auratus auratus goldfish x Catostomus commersonii white sucker x Culaea inconstans brook stickleback x x Cyprinella spiloptera spotfin shiner x Cyprinus carpio common carp x Esox Lucius northern pike x Hypentelium nigricans northern hogsucker x Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish x Ictiobus cyprinellus bigmouth buffalo x Labidesthes sicculus brook silverside x Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish x Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed x Lepomis macrochirus bluegill x Micropterus dolomieu smallmouth bass x Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass x Moxostoma macrolepidotum shortnose redhorse x Notropis atherinoides emerald shiner x Perca flavescens yellow perch x Percina caprodes logperch x Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie x Sander canadensis sauger x Sander vitreus walleye x Umbra limi central mudminnow x (a) Occurrence recorded in the USGS and WDNR Fish Mapper Database (USGS and WDNR 2014). (b) Occurrence observed during SHINE field studies of the unnamed tributary (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Source: SHINE 2013, 2015a; USGS and WDNR 2014 3.5.4 Protected Species and Habitats The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jointly administer the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The FWS manages the protection of, and recovery effort for, listed terrestrial and freshwater species, and NMFS manages the protection of and recovery effort for listed marine and anadromous species. In Wisconsin, the WDNR lists species as State-threatened or endangered under Wisconsin's Endangered Species Law (Section 29.604 of Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter 29, "Wild Animals and Plants"). This section discusses these species and species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). Affected Environment 3-35 3.5.4.1 Endangered Species Act Action Area The implementing regulations for section 7(a)(2) of the ESA define "action area" as all areas affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area effectively bounds the analysis of ESA-protected species and habitats because only species that occur within the action area may be affected by the Federal action. For the purposes of the ESA analysis in this EIS, the NRC staff considers the action area to be to include the lands within the 91-ac (37-ha) proposed site and the adjacent offsite area in which construction of the sewer line would occur. The NRC staff expects all direct and indirect effects of the proposed action to be contained within these areas. The NRC staff recognizes that while the action area is stationary, Federally listed species can move in and out of the action area. For instance, a flowering plant known to occur near, but outside, of the action area could appear within the action area over time if its seeds are carried into the action area by wind, water, or animals. Thus, in its analysis, the NRC staff considers not only those species known to occur directly within the action area, but those species that may passively or actively move into the action area. The staff then considers whether the life history of each species makes the species likely to move into the action area where it could be affected by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. Overview of Protected Species Table 3-10 describes the Federally listed species that have the potential to exist within the action area, within a 1.0-mi (1.6-km) radius of the proposed site, and within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the proposed site. The NRC staff compiled this table from the FWS's online database (FWS 2014), correspondence from the FWS (2013), and the SHINE ER (SHINE 2015a). As described in Section 3.5.2, SHINE conducted ecological surveys in the action area and did not observe any Federally protected species on the proposed site or in nearby adjacent areas (SHINE 2015a). Based on the surveys described in Section 3.5.3, the NRC staff did not identify any Federally listed species that could exist in the action area. The NRC staff did not identify any candidate species or proposed or designated critical habitats within the action area. In response to the NRC staff's request for endangered and threatened species that the proposed action could affect, the FWS (2013) stated that no Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species would be expected within the project area. Additionally, no critical habitat is present (FWS 2013). For these reasons, the FWS (2013) concluded that if construction took place at the proposed site, no further action with Wisconsin's FWS Field Office would be necessary under the ESA. Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species are unlikely to occur within the action area. The Rock River does not contain marine or anadromous fish species. Therefore, no Federally listed species or habitats under NMFS's jurisdiction occur within the action area. 3.5.4.2 State-listed Species Table 3-10 describes the State-listed species that have the potential to exist within a 1.0-mi (1.6-km) radius of the proposed site and within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the proposed site. The NRC staff compiled this table from the Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program's online database (WDNR 2014d), correspondence from the WDNR (2014a), and the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a). As described in Section 3.5.2, SHINE conducted ecological surveys in the action area and did not observe any State-protected species on the proposed site or in Affected Environment 3-36 nearby adjacent areas (SHINE 2015a). Based on the surveys described in Section 3.5.3, the NRC staff did not identify any State-listed species that could exist in the action area. For State-listed species, the WDNR (2014a) stated that the proposed site provides unsuitable habitat for all the State-threatened or -endangered species or for State species of special concern that may exist within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the proposed site. Because WDNR determined that no State-listed species have the potential to exist within the proposed SHINE site, this EIS does not discuss State-listed species in any further detail. Table 3-10. Federally and State-Listed Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Proposed SHINE Site Potential Occurrence Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) State Rank(b) Action Area 1-mi Radius 6-mi Radius Fish Anguilla rostrate American eel SSC S2 x Erimystax x-punctatus gravel chub E S1 x Lythrurus umbratilis redfin shiner T S2 x Moxostoma valenciennesi greater redhorse T S3 x Notropis nubilus Ozark minnow T S2 x Mussels Alasmidonta marginata elktoe SSC S3 x Cyclonaias turberculata purple wartyback E S2 x Quadrula metanevra monkey face T S2 x Venustaconcha ellipsiformis ellipse T S3 x Villosa iris rainbow shell E S1 x Plants Agastache nepetoides yellow giant hyssop T S3 x Artemisia dracunculus dragon wormwood SSC S2 x x Asclepias lanuginosa woolly milkweed T S1 x Asclepias purpurascens purple milkweed E S3 x Besseya bullii kitten tails T S3 x Cacalia tuberosa prairie Indian-plantain T S3 x Calylophus serrulatus yellow evening primrose SSC S2 x Camassia scilloides wild hyacinth E S2 x Cirsium hillii hill's thistle T S3 x Cypripedium candidum small white lady's-slipper T S3 x Echinacea pallida pale purple coneflower T S3 x Euphorbia commutata wood spurge SSC SH x Hypericum sphaerocarpum round-fruited St. John's-wort T S1,S2 x Lespedeza leptostachya prairie bush-clover T E S2 x Affected Environment 3-37 Potential Occurrence Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) State Rank(b) Action Area 1-mi Radius 6-mi Radius Melica nitens three-flowered melic grass SSC S1 x Myosotis laxa small forget-me-not SSC S2 x Nothocalais cuspidata prairie false-dandelion SSC S2 x Nuphar advena yellow water lily SSC S1 x Penstemon hirsutus hairy beardtongue SSC S1 x x Platanus occidentalis sycamore SSC S2 x Polygala incarnata pink milkwort E S1 x Polytaenia nuttallii prairie parsley T S2 x Prenanthes aspera rough rattlesnake-root E S1 x Ruellia humilis hairy wild-petunia E S2 x Scutellaria parvula var. parvula small skullcap E S1 x x Silene nivea snowy campion T S3 x x Thaspium trifoliatum var. flavum purple meadow-parsnip SSC S2 x Reptiles Emydoidea blandingii blanding's turtle T S3, S4 x (a) T = threatened, E = endangered, and SSC = species of special concern. (b) S1 = critically imperiled in Wisconsin because of extreme rarity, S2 = imperiled in Wisconsin because of rarity, S3 = rare or uncommon in Wisconsin, S4 = secure in Wisconsin with many occurrences, and SH = of historical occurrence in Wisconsin. Sources: SHINE 2015a; WDNR 2014a, 2014d 3.5.4.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The FWS administers the MBTA (16 U.S.C.703-712), which prohibits anyone from taking native migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The MBTA definition of a "take" differs from that of the ESA and is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or any attempt to carry out these activities" (50 CFR 10.12). Unlike a "take" under the ESA (50 CFR 17.3), a "take" under the MBTA does not include habitat alteration or destruction that results in death or injury to listed species by impairing behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The MBTA protects a total of 1,007 migratory bird species (75 FR 9282). Most of the bird species in Wisconsin, except for resident game birds and feral species, are protected under the MBTA (WDNR 2014e). Near the proposed site, migratory birds rely on riparian, forested, grassland, and wetland habitats as important areas for foraging, resting, and avoiding predators and for breeding for some species. Although these habitats exist in the vicinity of the proposed site, none of them exists on the proposed site. For this reason, the proposed site likely provides a low-quality habitat for migratory birds. Affected Environment 3-38 3.5.4.4 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The National Marine Fisheries Service has not designated any essential fish habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), within affected water bodies in the vicinity of the proposed site (NMFS 2014). Because no habitats are designated, no EFH would be affected by the proposed action. Therefore, this section does not discuss species with essential fish habitat. 3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and cultural resources at the proposed site in the City of Janesville, Wisconsin, and in the surrounding area, including Rock County and the State of Wisconsin. The discussion is based on a review of the Phase I archaeological survey conducted within the proposed site; a search of the Archaeological Sites Inventory, Architecture and History Inventory, and Burial Sites Inventory; and a review of the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) and other background information for historic and cultural resources within or near the proposed site. Cultural resource reports and site files are available to the public at the WHS in Madison, Wisconsin. 3.6.1 Cultural Background Human occupation in Wisconsin is generally characterized according to the following chronological sequence (WHS 2013): (1) Paleo-Indian Period (12,000-10,000 before present (B.P.)), (2) Archaic Period (10,000-3,000 B.P.), (3) Woodland Period (3,000-1,100 B.P.), (4) Mississippian Period (1,100-400 B.P. (ca. A.D. 900-1600)), and (5) Protohistoric/Historic Period (400 B.P.-present (ca. A.D.1600-present)). 3.6.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period (12,000-10,000 B.P.) The earliest evidence of people living in Wisconsin dates to the Paleo-Indian Period. Paleo-Indian sites, generally found upland or on river terraces, are characterized by specific types of projectile points (e.g., fluted Clovis and Folsom points) and stone tools, such as gravers, scrapers, or large blades. These artifacts often occur in association with mastodon remains, suggesting a reliance on megafauna (e.g., mammoth, ground sloth, and saber-tooth tiger) for subsistence, along with plants, small game, birds, and amphibians. Social organization consisted of small, highly nomadic bands of hunter-gathers, leaving Paleo-Indian sites with little detailed archaeological information. In southeastern Wisconsin, the Shaefer and Hebior Mammoth sites are examples of the butchering practices of Paleo-Indian tribes and evidence of some of the earliest human occupation in North America (Fagan 2005; Neusius and Gross 2007). 3.6.1.2 Archaic Period (10,000-3,000 B.P.) The Archaic Period is generally distinguished from the preceding Paleo-Indian Period by changes in the environment, technology, and population. The warmer and dryer part of the Early Archaic Period allowed groups to exploit more diverse resources, and, as a result, their tool kit also became more diversified. Technological changes included the manufacturing of notched projectile points, which were smaller than Paleo-Indian points, likely reflecting a Affected Environment 3-39 reliance on smaller game (Neusius and Gross 2007). Groups became sedentary when the climate became wetter and warmer as the Archaic Period progressed, and ceremonialism (e.g., mounds and effigies) is evident in the archaeological record during this time. Even though the Archaic Period is one of the longest occupation periods in Wisconsin, few Archaic Period sites are found in the archaeological record. 3.6.1.3 Woodland Period (3,000-1,100 B.P.) The Woodland Period is marked by an increase in more permanent settlements; changes in burial practices; increased cultivation of plants, such as sunflowers and cucurbits (e.g., squashes, gourds, and melons); and a rise in the manufacture and use of pottery (Fagan 2005). The bow and arrow were also introduced to Wisconsin during this period (WHS 2013). During the Middle Woodland Period, the large and complex Hopewell Culture emerged in the United States, including in southern Wisconsin. This culture is characterized by settlement in villages, increased reliance on intensive horticulture, burial mounds, and long-distance trade networks. These long-distance networks allowed the trade of exotic materials from the Gulf Coast, the Rocky Mountains, Lake Superior, and the Appalachian Mountains to areas far outside their immediate locations (Neusius and Gross 2007). 3.6.1.4 Mississippian Period (1,100-400 B.P. (ca. A.D. 900-1600)) The Mississippian Period is characterized by major changes in settlement, subsistence patterns, and social structure. Large, highly centralized chiefdoms with permanent settlements sites supported by many satellite villages emerged during this period. The platform mound-a new ceremonial earthen mound-appeared in association with these permanent settlements. Platform mounds; burial mounds; and defensive structures, such as moats and palisades, were often constructed in clusters in settlements and were common in the larger river valleys of the Midwest. Mississippian Period subsistence relied heavily on maize agriculture and on hunting and gathering. Long-distance trading increased and craft specialists produced highly specialized lithic and ceramic artifacts, beadwork, and shell pendants (Fagan 2005). In southern Wisconsin, the emerging Mississippian culture was blended with the receding Woodland culture to produce the Oneota tradition. The Oneota people were organized in permanent villages, produced unique ceramic artifacts, and relied on a mixed subsistence strategy of hunting and gathering even though they cultivated maize. Burial traditions varied from the mounds of the Woodland Period to nonmounded cemeteries near their villages (Neusius and Gross 2007; WHS 2013). 3.6.1.5 Protohistoric/Historic Period (A.D. 1600-present) The end of the Mississippian Period is characterized by severe social, political, and demographic changes that resulted from indirect and direct contact with Europeans. Before major European advancement in southern Wisconsin, the presence of the Winnebago, Potawatomi, Sac, Fox, and Menominee Tribes was documented in Rock County (Rock County undated b). However, the introduction of European infectious diseases, such as smallpox, yellow fever, typhoid, and influenza, severely decimated these native populations who had no immunity. The spread of these diseases resulted in the widespread abandonment of villages and a concurrent collapse of Native American socioeconomic networks. The first European exposure to Rock County was likely in the late 1770s from French fur traders (Rock County undated b). As the tribes of southeastern Wisconsin either migrated or were forcibly removed west of the Mississippi, Euro-American settlers moved to Wisconsin to take advantage of the fertile agricultural land. Manufacturing boomed in Rock County in the 1900s, as General Motors (GM), the Parker Pen Company, and other firms began producing tractors; machinery; paper; pens; and refined farm products, such as snack foods. Although Affected Environment 3-40 manufacturing gained a large market share, agriculture and dairying activities remain an important factor in the regional economy. The area surrounding the proposed site has been traditionally used as agricultural fields, which are located to the north, east, and south of the proposed site. A commercial farm office is also located north of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). 3.6.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources Databases that the National Park Service (NPS) maintains show 135 properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places in Rock County, including one property designated as a National Historic Landmark (NPS 2013a, 2013b) under the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). These historic properties reflect the prehistoric and historic cultural contexts for the proposed site and include prehistoric archaeological sites; historic archaeological sites; and historic buildings, structures, and districts dating from the mid-1700s to the mid-1800s. However, no historic properties are located within the boundaries of the proposed site. The closest property in the National Register of Historic Places list is the John and Martha Hugunin House, which is located about 1.0 mi (1.6 km) northeast of the proposed site and is surrounded by commercial, residential, and agricultural land. The Hugunin House, Italianate in style, is significant for its architectural design and relation to historic farming in the region (NPS 2013a). SHINE commissioned a Phase I archeological survey at the proposed site and, with its contractors, followed WHS methodologies. SHINE did not identify any archaeological sites or evidence of cultural resources within the survey area. As a result, SHINE did not recommend any further archaeological investigations (Knopf and Krause 2012). SHINE submitted the Phase 1 survey results and report to the WHS for review and comment. The WHS determined that the findings were acceptable (SHINE 2015a). 3.7 Socioeconomics This section describes socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or indirectly affected from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. The SHINE facility and the communities that would support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The communities provide the people, goods, and services required to construct and operate the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE facility operations, in turn, provide wages and benefits for people and dollar expenditures for goods and services. The measure of a community's ability to support the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility depends on its ability to respond to changing environmental, social, economic, and demographic conditions. The socioeconomic region of influence is defined by the area in which SHINE operations employees and their families would likely reside, spend their income, and use their benefits-all of which affect the economic condition of the region. For the purposes of analysis and because of the relatively small size of the SHINE operations work force (150 workers), this area includes all of Rock County and the City of Janesville. 3.7.1 Population Growth Rates and Projections Rock County has 6 cities, 20 towns, and 3 villages (Rock County 2013). In 2012, the total population for Rock County was 160,129. The two most populated cities-the City of Janesville and the City of Beloit-are approximately 13 mi (21 km) apart. The City of Janesville, the county seat for Rock County, has a population of 63,480; the City of Beloit has a population of Affected Environment 3-41 36,850. As of 2012, each of the other cities and towns in Rock County had populations of less than 8,000 (Rock County 2013). The population for Rock County grew steadily from 1970 to 2010, with the largest change of 9.2 percent between 1990 and 2000 (Table 3-11) (USCB 1995, 2000a, 2010a). Based on population projections from the Wisconsin Department of Administration (WDOA), Demographic Services Center, the population within Rock County is projected to continue to increase. Table 3-11. Resident Population for Rock County (1970-2050) Year Rock County Percent Change 1970 131,970 NA 1980 139,420 5.6 1990 139,510 0.1 2000 152,307 9.2 2010 160,331 5.3 2020 169,130 5.5 2030 179,360 6.0 2040 182,860 2.0 2050 190,847 4.4 Sources: Decennial population data for 1970-2010 (USCB 1995, 2000a, 2010a); projections for 2020-2040 by the WDOA Demographic Services Center (WDOA 2013); 2050 calculated. 3.7.2 Race and Ethnicity Table 3-12 presents the demographic profiles for the City of Janesville and Rock County (USCB 2010b). In 2010, minorities comprised 11.2 percent of the total population in the City of Janesville. As shown in Table 3-12, the largest minority populations were Hispanic and Latino (of any race) at 5.4 percent followed by Black or African American at 2.5 percent. In Rock County, minorities comprised 15.5 percent of the total population in 2010. The largest minority populations were Hispanic and Latino (of any race) at 7.6 percent followed by Black or African American at 4.8 percent. Table 3-12. Race and Ethnicity for the City of Janesville and Rock County, Wisconsin, in 2010 City of Janesville Rock County Total Population 63,575 160,331 Race (percent of total population, Not-Hispanic or Latino) White 88.8 84.5 Black or African American 2.5 4.8 American Indian and Alaska Native 0.2 0.2 Asian 1.3 1.0 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 Some other race 0.1 0.1 Two or more races 1.7 1.7 Affected Environment 3-42 City of Janesville Rock County Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 3,421 12,124 Percent of total population 5.4 7.6 Minority population (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity) Total minority population 7,110 24,805 Percent minority 11.2 15.5 Source: USCB 2010b 3.7.3 Transient Population Colleges and recreational opportunities attract daily and seasonal visitors who create a demand for temporary housing and services. In 2013, approximately 15,970 students attended colleges and universities within 20 mi (32 km) of the proposed SHINE facility (NCES 2014). According to the 2010 Census, there were 786 seasonal housing units in Rock County. Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural crops. These workers may or may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruit, throughout rural areas of the United States. Others may be permanent residents living near Janesville and Beloit and traveling from farm to farm harvesting crops. Migrant workers may be members of minority or low-income populations. Because migrant workers travel and can spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual residents, they may be unavailable for counting by Census takers. If uncounted, these minority and low-income workers would be "underrepresented" in the decennial Census population counts. In the 2002 Census of Agriculture, farm operators were asked for the first time whether they hired migrant workers-defined as a farm worker whose employment required travel-to do work that prevented the migrant workers from returning to their permanent place of residence the same day. The Census is conducted every 5 years and results in a comprehensive compilation of agricultural production data for every county in the Nation. Information about migrant and temporary farm labor (working less than 150 days) was collected in the 2012 Census of Agriculture. According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, approximately 1,267 farm workers were hired to work for less than 150 days on 265 farms in Rock County, Wisconsin (USDA 2014). Three farms in Rock County reported hiring migrant workers in the 2012 Census of Agriculture (USDA 2014). 3.7.4 Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment This section provides labor force, employment, and unemployment data for the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin. It also presents economic data on employment by industry, income, poverty levels, occupations, wages, poverty rates, and housing. Table 3-13 shows that Rock County had an available labor force in 2012 of 79,255, with an 8.4-percent unemployment rate. The City of Janesville had an available labor force of 32,256, with a 9-percent unemployment rate (WDWD 2010, 2011, 2012). Between 2000 and 2012, unemployment increased in the City of Janesville and in Rock County. One reason for this Affected Environment 3-43 increase in unemployment in the City of Janesville could be attributed to the GM manufacturing plant. The City of Janesville GM plant employed workers to produce sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks at the end of 2007 (Milwaukee Business Journal 2008). When gas prices rose in the late 2000s, production was shifted to a more fuel-efficient line of cars, causing a decline in the production at the GM plant. The GM plant fully closed in 2009. More than 2,000 hourly and salaried workers were laid off (Leute 2009). In addition to the jobs lost by the GM plant closure, companies in the region that supplied goods and services to the plant laid off approximately 1,200 people (Leute 2009). The unemployment rates in the City of Janesville for 2010 and 2011 reflect the impact of the GM plant closure (Table 3-13). During the same period, the State of Wisconsin as a whole experienced a similar rise in unemployment. Table 3-13. Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment Rates in the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin City of Janesville 2000 2010 2011 2012 2000-2012 Percent Change(a) Labor Force 31,948 32,878 32,091 32,256 1.0 Employed 30,438 29,097 28,850 29,341 -3.6 Unemployed 1,510 3,781 3,241 2,915 93.0 Unemployed Rate 4.7% 11.5% 10.1% 9.0% 91.5 Rock County Labor Force 80,895 81,015 78,817 79,255 -2.0 Employed 76,336 71,928 71,321 72,570 -4.9 Unemployed 4,545 9,087 7,496 6,685 47.1 Unemployed Rate 5.6% 11.2% 9.5% 8.4% 50.0 State of Wisconsin Labor Force 2,872,104 3,084,557 3,069,021 3,062,636 6.6 Employed 2,734,925 2,823,265 2,837,995 2,850,352 4.2 Unemployed 134,311 261,292 231,026 212,284 58.1 Unemployed Rate 4.7% 8.5% 7.5% 6.9% 46.8 (a) Percent changes are calculated. Source: USCB 2000a, 2000b, 2000c; WDWD 2010, 2011, 2012 Table 3-14 shows the results of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report of employment by industry for Rock County for 2012 (BLS 2013). During 2012, the largest industries for employment in Rock County were trade, transportation, and utilities with a 14,714 employment total or 27.56 percent of employment. The second highest category for employment by industry was education and health services with a 10,288 employment total or 19.27 percent of employment. The employment by industry with the lowest number in 2012 was natural resources and mining, with a 517 employment total or less than 1-percent total of employment. Affected Environment 3-44 Table 3-14. Employment by Industry in Rock County for 2012 Industry Rock County Employment Percent of Employment Natural Resources and Mining 517 0.97 Construction 2,719 5.09 Manufacturing 8,991 16.84 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 14,714 27.56 Information 1,437 2.69 Financial Activities 1,666 3.12 Professional and Business Services 4,994 9.35 Education and Health Services 10,288 19.27 Leisure and Hospitality 6,455 12.09 Other Services 1,607 3.01 Source: BLS 2013 3.7.5 Income and Wages Table 3-15 compares the median family and per capita income figures for the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin (USCB 2011a). According to the USCB 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, the City of Janesville had a median family income lower than both Rock County and the State of Wisconsin (USCB 2011a). The City of Janesville had a slightly higher per capita income than that of Rock County, but it was lower than that of the State of Wisconsin. Overall, both Rock County and the City of Janesville had lower median family and per capita income than that of the State of Wisconsin. Table 3-15. Median Family Income and Per Capita Income for City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin Median Family Income 2009-2011 City of Janesville $57,543 Rock County $58,679 State of Wisconsin $63,732 Per Capita Income 2009-2011 City of Janesville $22,924 Rock County $22,802 State of Wisconsin $26,212 Source: USCB 2011a 3.7.6 Poverty Rates Table 3-16 compares families and all people living below the Federal poverty threshold in the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin. The poverty levels determined by the USCB in 2011 were $11,484 for individuals and $23,021 for a family of four (USCB 2011b). According to USCB's 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, a slightly higher percentage of families and all people living below the poverty level lived in the City of Janesville when compared to Rock County. Both the City of Janesville and Rock County had Affected Environment 3-45 higher percentages of families and people living below the poverty level than the State of Wisconsin did overall. Table 3-16. People Living Below U.S. Census Poverty Thresholds for the City of Janesville, Rock County, and State of Wisconsin Families 2009-2011 City of Janesville 11.4% Rock County 10.7% State of Wisconsin 8.8% All People(a) 2009-2011 City of Janesville 14.8% Rock County 14.3% State of Wisconsin 12.9% (a) Census 2010, "All People" category Sources: USCB 2009-2011a 3.7.7 Housing Table 3-17 compares the housing units and vacancy rates for the City of Janesville and Rock County (USCB 2009-2011b). According to USCB's 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, the City of Janesville had 26,916 total housing units with 1,721 units vacant. Rock County had 68,461 total housing units with 5,478 units vacant. The rental rate was higher than the homeowner vacancy rate in both locations, with Rock County having a slightly higher rental rate at 8.0 percent. Table 3-17. Housing Unit Characteristics for the City of Janesville and Rock County City of Janesville 2009-2011 Total Number of Housing Units 26,916 Number of Vacant Housing Units 1,721 Homeowner Vacancy Rate 2.0% Renter Vacancy Rate 6.8% Rock County 2009-2011 Total Number of Housing Units 68,461 Number of Vacant Units 5,478 Homeowner Vacancy Rate 1.9% Renter Vacancy Rate 8.0% Sources: USCB 2009-2011b 3.7.8 Local Employers Table 3-18 ranks the 10 largest private and government employers in the City of Janesville. Three employers have more than 1,000 employees-Mercy Health System, Janesville Public School, and Rock County. These employers provide a variety of products and services, including medical services, public education, local government, wholesale distribution, data processing, manufacturing, and retail sales (Forward Janesville 2014). Affected Environment 3-46 Table 3-18. Ten Largest Employers in the City of Janesville (2014) Employer Number of Employees Product/Service 1. Mercy Health System 3,877 Medical services 2. Janesville School District 1,450 Public education 3. County of Rock 1,191 Local government 4 Blackhawk Technical College 762 Technical college 5. Data Dimensions Corporation 724 Business automation processing 6. Grainger 689 Safety equipment distribution 7. Seneca Foods 661 Canning and food processing 8. City of Janesville 572 City government 9. Prent Corporation 550 Custom thermoformer-plastic parts 10. Blain Supply/Blain's Farm & Fleet 540 Wholesale distributors/retail Sources: Forward Janesville 2014. Table 3-19 shows that the largest employer in Rock County is Mercy Health System, followed by Beloit Health System with over 1,000 employees each. The largest employer in Rock County that is not located in the City of Janesville is Beloit Health System, Inc. Similar to the City of Janesville, these employers provide a variety of products and services, including medical services, public education, local government, retail, and manufacturing (Rock County Development Alliance 2014). Table 3-19. Ten Largest Employers in Rock County (2014) Employer Number of Employees Product/Service 1. Mercy Health System 3,877 Medical services 2. Beloit Health System 1,550 Medical services 3. Janesville School District 1,450(a) Public education 4. County of Rock 1,161 Local government 5. Data Dimensions Corporation 830(a) Business automation processing 6. Wal-Mart/Sam's Club 804(a) Retail department store 7. Beloit School District 775(a) Public education 8. Blackhawk Technical College 701 Technical college 9. Grainger (laboratory safety) 694 Safety equipment distribution 10. Kerry Americas 690 Dehydrated food products (a) Employs seasonal and part-time workers. Sources: Rock County Development Alliance 2014 3.7.9 Taxes Counties, municipalities, and boards of education may impose sales taxes in addition to the State sales tax. Local and State entities in the region of influence impose sales, property, and income taxes. These include the school district, the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin. Tax rates can vary by jurisdiction. The retail sales tax rate is 0 percent in the City of Janesville and 0.5 percent in Rock County. The State of Wisconsin has a 4.60-percent to 7.75-percent personal income tax rate, a 5.0-percent sales tax rate, and a 7.9-percent corporate tax rate (City of Janesville undated). Affected Environment 3-47 The two school districts in the City of Janesville-Janesville and Milton-receive school district tax levies collected from property taxes in the school district boundaries. The proposed site is in the Janesville School District. In 2011 and 2012, the Janesville School District collected $36,774,828 in school district tax levies. The 2012 and 2013 taxes were $36,077,620 (WDPI 2011-2012, 2012-2013). The City of Janesville's proposed budget for 2013 lists a total estimated assessed value of real and personal property at $3.9 billion. The local tax rate is $7.88 for every $1,000 of property owned (City of Janesville 2013b). The 2012 full property tax value for the City of Janesville was $3,895,706,200 (WDR 2012). 3.7.10 Education In the 2012-2013 school year, the Janesville School District had 10,327 students in pre-kindergarten (K) through grade 12 (WDPI 2013). The Janesville School District has 12 pre-K to grade 5 elementary schools, 3 grade 6 to 9 middle schools, 2 grade 9 to 12 comprehensive high schools, and 4 charter schools. The Janesville Academy for International Studies, Jackson Elementary School, Lincoln Elementary School, Edison Middle School, and Van Buren Elementary School are the Janesville School District public schools within 2.5 mi (4.0 km) of the proposed site (SHINE 2013; Janesville School District 2012; WDPI 2013). The Milton School District, which is also located in the City of Janesville, had 3,388 students in kindergarten (K) through 12th grade for the 2012-2013 school year (WDPI 2013). The Milton School District has four K through grade 3 elementary schools, one elementary school for grades 4 to 6, one middle school for grades 7 to 8, one high school for grades 9 to 12, and one alternative high school. Rock County has eight public school districts serving K through grade 12 (Rock County 2009). These school districts, with their current total enrollment data for 2013-2014, include Beloit (7,137), Beloit Turner (1,485), Clinton Community (1,188), Edgerton (1,864), Evansville Community (1,719), Janesville (10,408), Milton (3,374), and Parkview (848) (Rock County 2009; WDPI 2013). The total of all enrollments in 2013-2014 for all Rock County school districts is 28,023. Fourteen private schools are located in Rock County and include 4 private schools in the City of Beloit and 10 private schools in the City of Janesville for K through grade 12 (Private School Review 2013). Three post-secondary schools are located in Rock County. Blackhawk Technical College and University of Wisconsin-Rock County are 2-year technical and community colleges located in the City of Janesville. Beloit College, which offers a 4-year degree, is located in the City of Beloit. Other educational facilities include the Arrowhead Library System for Rock County, which serves the communities of the City of Beloit (Beloit Public Library), the Village of Clinton (Clinton Public Library), the City of Edgerton (Edgerton Public Library), the City of Evansville (Eager Free Public Library), the City of Janesville (Hedberg Public Library), the City of Milton (Milton Public Library), and the Village of Orfordville (Orfordville Public Library) (Arrowhead Library System 2013). 3.7.11 Tourism, Activity Centers, and Recreation for the City of Janesville and Rock County Tourism and Activity Centers (Shopping, Business, Agricultural, and Sporting Events) The City of Janesville has several tourist attractions and activity centers, including the Janesville Performing Arts Center, the 4-H Rock County Fair, a local baseball team, and a local hockey team. The Helen Jeffries Wood Museum Center, Lincoln Tallman House, Milton House Affected Environment 3-48 Museum, and Angel Museum are all located in or near the City of Janesville. The Janesville Performing Arts Center, Beloit Civic Theatre, Beloit/Janesville Symphony Orchestra, Beloit Fine Arts Incubator, and Beloit International Film Festival all offer access to the arts. The Janesville Shopping Mall is available for local shopping (Janesville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau 2013). Sporting events include a baseball team, the Beloit Snappers; a North American Hockey League, the Janesville Jets; and the semi-pro Ironman Football League. Public Recreational Facilities The City of Janesville's Park Place has 2,590 ac (1,048 ha) with 64 improved parks that consist of regional parks, community parks, neighborhood parks, greenbelts, an arboretum, and open spaces. The City of Janesville has 10 mi (16 km) of cross-country ski trails and more than 25 mi (40 km) of paved bike trails. A portion of the statewide Ice Age Trail is located in the City of Janesville (City of Janesville 2011b). No direct trail connections or marked bike routes pass through the proposed site. The City of Janesville also owns two golf courses-the Riverside Golf Course and the Blackhawk Golf Course-and an ice arena (City of Janesville 2011b). The City of Janesville has 34 campgrounds (WDNR undated). Rock County offers recreational opportunities for biking, hiking, fishing, ice skating, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and horseback riding. Several parks, golf courses, and sports facilities are located in Rock County. Rock County parks include Rock River Trail and Roam the Rock. Part of the Wisconsin Ice Age Trail's 1,000-mi (1,600-km) footpath is located in Rock County (Rock County Tourism Council 2012; Ice Age Trail Alliance 2013). In addition, hot air balloon flights are available for balloon rides. Rock River and Lake Koshkonong in Rock County provide recreational opportunities. Rock County has several municipal golf courses, including Blackhawk, Krueger, and Riverside. The county's two ice arenas are the Beloit Sports Arena and the City of Janesville Ice Arena. Rock County has 15 state-owned natural areas (Table 3-20), including one State park, six wildlife management areas, four fishery management areas, and three areas listed as "other" (WDNR 2013f). Rock County also maintains 226 mi (364 km) of snowmobile trails with the closest located about 2.4 mi (3.9 km) south of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Table 3-20. State-Owned Natural Areas in Rock County Name Type of Natural Area Avon Bottoms Wildlife Area Wildlife management area Evansville Wildlife Area Wildlife management area Extensive Wildlife Habitat Wildlife management area Gift Lands Other Ice Age Trail State park Lima Marsh-Storrs Lake Wildlife Area Wildlife management area Lima Marsh Rough Fish Station Fishery management area Miscellaneous Lands Other Newville Rough Fish Station Fishery management area Statewide All Regulatory Wetland Mitigation Program Other Statewide Natural Area State natural area Statewide Public Access Fishery management area Statewide Wildlife Habitat Wildlife management area Streambank Protection Fee Program Fishery management area Turtle Creek Wildlife Area Wildlife management area Source: WDNR 2013f Affected Environment 3-49 3.7.12 Public Services Medical The City of Janesville has several medical care facilities, including two hospitals. Mercy Hospital has 240 beds, and St. Mary's Janesville Hospital has 51 beds. The Mercy Health System, Janesville Clinics, has seven homeless shelters and assisted-living care facilities and four nursing homes. Health care providers in Rock County include the Beloit Health System, Dean Health System, Edgerton Hospital and Health Services, Healthy Communities Cooperative, Mercy Health System, St. Mary's Janesville Hospital, and The Alliance (Rock County Development Alliance 2012). Emergency Services Fire/rescue and emergency medical services throughout Rock County are located in the cities of Beloit, Edgerton, Evansville, Janesville, and Milton; the Town of Beloit; and the villages of Clinton, Footville, and Orfordville. The Emergency Management Agency and the Telecommunications Center are located in the City of Janesville. The Emergency Management Agency coordinates countywide responses and supports local governments during major disasters and emergencies. It also prepares other governmental entities, private business, volunteer organizations, and citizens to respond and recover from major emergencies and disasters. The Telecommunications Center has a 24-hour dispatching service for all Rock County police and law enforcement, fire and rescue, and emergency medical services (Rock County 2014a, 2014b). Water Treatment Rock County supplies water to community residents by various water systems and well types-municipal, other than municipal, transient noncommunity, nontransient noncommunity, and private sources of supply water. The WDNR regulates municipal and industrial operations that discharge wastewater to surface water or groundwater through the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program. Under Section 281.41 of Wisconsin statutes, an owner must obtain WDNR review and approval of municipal and industrial treatment plant construction plans, related monitoring systems, and groundwater monitoring wells (WDNR 2012b). Rock County manages its wastewater in two ways-with municipal sanitary sewer systems or with onsite waste disposal (septic) systems. Three municipal sanitary sewer systems, located in the City of Beloit, the City of Janesville, and the Town of Beloit, serve more than 10,000 people. The WDNR requires these municipal systems to plan their service capabilities in conformance with the current groundwater quality standards. The many other smaller municipal sanitary sewer systems in Rock County are located in the cities of Edgerton, Evansville, and Milton; Consolidated Koshkonong (Newville area and Indianford); Hanover; and the villages of Clinton, Footville, and Orfordville. Rock County residents and businesses that do not reside within the boundaries of any of these municipal sanitary sewer system locations treat onsite waste disposal using septic systems. In 2000, the State of Wisconsin adopted a policy allowing conventional (underground) systems and alternative (aboveground) systems. Soil characteristics determine whether conventional or alternative onsite wastewater disposal (septic) systems are used. Rock County had 13,000 privately operated residential and commercial septic systems in 2009 (Rock County 2009). The septic systems allowed for residential and commercial purposes in Affected Environment 3-50 Rock County include conventional, pressure dosing, aerobic treatment unit, at-grade, and mound (i.e., Wisconsin mound wastewater soil treatment system, which is a combination of a, single pass sand filter and dispersal unit). The conventional system uses a tank with effluent distributed gravitationally that goes to a belowground drain field. A pressure dosing system uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through a pressurized pipe system going to a belowground drain field. The aerobic treatment unit uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through a pressurized pipe system to either an aboveground or belowground drain field by an aerobic tank where effluent is exposed to air. An at-grade system uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through a pressurized pipe system going to a drain field location just below the surface. The mound system uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through pressure-fed pipes to an aboveground drain field. 3.8 Human Health The proposed SHINE facility is a potential source of radiation exposure to onsite workers and offsite members of the public. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), gives the NRC authority to issue and enforce standards that provide an adequate level of protection for public health and safety and that protect the environment. The NRC staff evaluates the latest radiation protection recommendations from national and international scientific bodies as a basis for its radiation protection standards (10 CFR Part 20). The facilities that the NRC licenses to possess radioactive material must adhere to these radiation protection standards to protect workers and the public against potential health risks from exposure to radioactive material used, generated, and released from the licensed facility. The NRC staff periodically inspects a licensed facility to ensure the facility operates within the NRC requirements. The NRC staff also has enforcement authority to penalize a licensee for a violation of its regulations. The NRC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration share responsibility for protecting worker health at nuclear power plants. In September 2013, the NRC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration updated a Memorandum of Understanding that delineates the general areas of responsibility of each agency, describes how each agency achieves worker protection at facilities licensed by the NRC, and provides guidelines for coordinating activities between the two agencies regarding occupational safety and health (NRC 2013b). 3.8.1 Regulatory Radiological Requirements A radioisotope production facility using enriched uranium as a fuel must receive a license from the NRC and comply with NRC regulations and conditions specified in the license to operate. A licensee is required to comply with occupational dose limits for adults (10 CFR Part 20, Subpart C) and radiation dose limits for individual members of the public (10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D). 3.8.1.1 Regulatory Requirements for Occupational Exposure The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1201 establish occupational dose limits. The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1201 specify an annual maximum allowable occupational dose of 5 rem (0.05 sievert) to a radiation worker from exposure to radiation and radioactive material at a licensed facility. The dose limits apply to normal and accident conditions. Under 10 CFR 20.2206, the NRC requires licensees to submit an annual report of their results of Affected Environment 3-51 individual monitoring for each individual who required monitoring under 10 CFR 20.1502 during that year. The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.2202 and 20.2203 require licensees to submit reports of incidents and occurrences involving personnel radiation exposures that exceed specified doses, radiation levels, and concentrations of radioactive material, respectively. Licensees are required to investigate incidents and occurrences and to take corrective actions as necessary. 3.8.1.2 Regulatory Requirements for Public Exposure The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1301 specify an annual maximum allowable dose of 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) to a member of the public from exposure to radiation and radioactive material at a licensed facility. The dose limits apply to normal and accident conditions. In addition, under 10 CFR 20.1101(d), the NRC imposes a 10-millirem (0.01-millisievert) constraint on air emissions of radioactive material released into the environment. This dose constraint, applicable to the proposed SHINE facility, implements 10 CFR 20.1101(b), which requires NRC licensees to use, to the extent practical, procedures and controls based on sound radiation protection principles to achieve doses to members of the public (and facility workers) that are as low as is reasonably achievable. 3.8.1.3 Public Radiological Exposures The proposed SHINE facility, if approved by the NRC, would be licensed to possess, use, generate, and release radioactive effluents under controlled conditions into the environment during normal operation. SHINE would use radioactive waste management systems to remove radioactivity to maintain the doses to workers and members of the public within the NRC dose limits and to be as low as is reasonably achievable. Members of the public may be exposed to radioactive material contained in gaseous radioactive effluents released into the atmosphere from the proposed SHINE facility during normal operations. The radioactive materials released under controlled conditions would include krypton-85, iodine-131, xenon-133, and tritium. The NRC would require SHINE to monitor gaseous radioactive effluents to ensure compliance with the NRC requirements. SHINE would not plan to release any liquid radioactive effluents (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff evaluates the impact to human health from radioactive material by comparing the estimated dose to a member of the public from the proposed facility, submitted by SHINE in its Environmental Report, against the agency's radiation protection dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20. Dose is calculated based on the amount of time spent in the vicinity of the radioactive effluent or the amount of time the individual's body retains the inhaled or ingested radionuclides (exposure). Radioactive material released into the environment can expose individuals through the following pathways: (1) inhaling contaminated air, (2) standing in a plume of contaminated air, (3) drinking milk or eating meat from animals that grazed on open pasture on which radioactive material was deposited, (4) eating vegetables grown near the proposed site that are contaminated with radioactive material releases from the facility, and (5) being exposed to medical isotopes and low-level radioactive waste shipped off site. Affected Environment 3-52 SHINE calculated the dose for the maximally exposed individual (i.e., a hypothetical member of the public potentially subject to maximum exposure) by using site-specific data or conservative (overestimating) assumptions (SHINE 2015a). Because of the low power levels at the proposed facility, the NRC evaluates the potential impacts to human health at a radius of 5 mi (8 km) from the facility (NRC 2012). 3.8.1.4 Occupational Radiological Exposures SHINE workers who conduct activities involving radioactively contaminated systems or who work in radiation areas can be exposed to radiation. SHINE would monitor its workers in accordance with the NRC's requirements. SHINE expects that most of the occupational radiation dose would result from external radiation exposure rather than from internal exposure resulting from inhaled or ingested radioactive materials. Facility workers are expected to receive radiation exposure while working in the medical isotope production areas of the proposed SHINE facility during the following work activities: handling the product, conducting quality control inspections, packaging the product for transport, maintenance activities, and transporting the product to the end user. Additional exposure would result from handling, storing, packaging, and transporting low-level radioactive waste for disposal (SHINE 2015a). 3.8.2 Chemical Hazards Chemicals enter the body through the skin, by inhalation, or by ingestion. Chemical exposure produces different effects on the body, depending on the chemical and the amount of exposure. Chemicals can cause cancer, affect reproductive capability, disrupt the endocrine system, and have other health effects. Acute effects from chemical exposure occur immediately (e.g., when somebody inhales or ingests a poisonous substance). Chronic or delayed effects result in symptoms, such as skin rashes, headaches, breathing difficulties, and nausea (NRC 2013c). At the proposed SHINE facility, chemical effects could result from the routine use of chemicals and hazardous materials during the medical isotope production process. Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 of this EIS contains a list of the chemicals that SHINE plans to use at the facility (SHINE 2015a). The proposed SHINE facility would release small amounts of nonradioactive laboratory chemicals into the city sewer system as a result of routine facility maintenance activities and performance of analytical procedures. See Section 2.7.2 for a detailed discussion on the use of chemicals at the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). 3.8.3 Other Hazards The proposed SHINE facility is an industrial facility with many of the typical occupational hazards found at other industrial manufacturing or production facilities. Workplace hazards can be grouped into physical hazards (e.g., hazards from slips, trips, and falls from a height and those from transportation, temperature, humidity, and electricity); physical agents (e.g., noise, vibration, and ionizing radiation); chemicals; and psychosocial issues (e.g., work-related stress) (NRC 2013c). 3.9 Transportation Environments 3.9.1 Roads Figure 3-9 shows major roads and transportation features in the vicinity of the proposed site. The proposed SHINE site lies on the east side of U.S. Highway 51, also known as North Affected Environment 3-53 Riverside Drive, directly across from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. U.S. Highway 51 runs north-south, with the City of Janesville to the north and the City of Beloit to the south. The main entrance to the proposed SHINE facility would be on U.S. Highway 51, just north of the intersection with West Enterprise Drive. Figure 3-9. Existing Transportation Network Near the Proposed SHINE Facility Source: SHINE 2015a Affected Environment 3-54 Major highways and roads in the area of the proposed site include the following: (1) Interstate 39/90 runs generally northwest to southeast and passes about 2.0 mi (3.2 km) to the east of the proposed site. These two designated interstate highways share the same route from approximately the City of Rockford, Illinois, to the City of Portage, Wisconsin. (2) Interstate 43 runs generally northeast from the City of Beloit, which is located south of the proposed site, to the City of Milwaukee, which is located north of the proposed site. (3) State Trunk Highway 11 runs east-west to the north of the proposed site and accesses Interstate 39/90. (4) Town Line Road, a major collector road, runs east-west about 2.7 mi (4.3 km) south of the proposed site. However, this road does not have ramps to or from Interstate 39/90. (5) U.S. Highway 14 runs generally east-west through the City of Janesville, which is north of the proposed site. Table 3-21 describes the average daily traffic volumes for these roads and locations. Table 3-22 describes the morning, midday, and evening peak hourly traffic counts for various count locations in the vicinity of the proposed site. The Beloit-Janesville Express, a route of the Janesville Transit System public transportation network, operates weekdays between the City of Janesville and the City of Beloit via U.S. Highway 51. The stops nearest the proposed site are currently at Kellogg Avenue to the north and at Sunny Lane to the south (City of Janesville 2013c). Table 3-21. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site Traffic Count Location Vehicles Per Day U.S. Highway 51, south of State Trunk Highway 11 9,000 U.S. Highway 51, north of Town Line Road 9,400 State Trunk Highway 11, east of U.S. Highway 51 8,400 State Trunk Highway 11, west of U.S. Highway 51 4,500 State Trunk Highway 11, west of Interstate 39/90 12,400 Interstate 39/90, south of State Trunk Highway 11 45,700 Interstate 39/90, north of State Trunk Highway 11 50,400 Town Line Road, east of U.S. Highway 51 3,400 Source: WDOT 2010a Affected Environment 3-55 Table 3-22. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic Counts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site-Number of Vehicles Count Site No. Location Year of Count A.M. Peak(a) Midday Peak(b) P.M. Peak(c) Daily Total 531345 U.S. Highway 51, north of Happy Hollow Road, Rock Township 2010 667 679 746 8,977 530104 U.S. Highway 51, 1.0 mi south of Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport 2010 693 N/A(d) 802 N/A(d) 531344 State Trunk Highway 11, east of U.S. Highway 51 2010 659 509 703 8,411 531491 State Trunk Highway 11, between River Road and U.S. Highway 51 2010 368 263 382 4,465 530215 U.S. Highway 51, 0.5 mi south of Burbank Avenue, City of Janesville 2010 537 753 401 9,628 531300 Townline Road, between County Highway G and the Interstate 39/90 overpass 2010 58 66 96 1,102 (a) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 00:00 and 09:59. (b) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 10:00 and 14:59. (c) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 15:00 and 23:59. (d) Midday Peak and Daily Total are unavailable because no data were reported for 14:00 to 14:59 hours. Source: WDOT 2010b 3.9.2 Airports Rock County owns and operates the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. It is an air carrier/cargo airport with corporate, general, and cargo aviation but with no scheduled commercial passenger service. The airport has three runways and covers 1,405 ac (569 ha). In 2012, the airport had about 55,000 aircraft operations (i.e., takeoffs and landings combined), three quarters of which were freight operations (Rock County 2009). After Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, the next closest available airports for proposed SHINE product shipment are Dane County Regional Airport in Madison, Wisconsin, which is about 1 hour from the proposed site, followed by Mitchell International in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and O'Hare International in Chicago, Illinois, both of which are within 2 hours of the proposed site. 3.9.3 Rail A Union Pacific rail line runs northwest to southeast about 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the northeast of the proposed site. This line is not an Amtrak route; it is a freight-only line. The line carries both hazardous and nonhazardous freight. However, this rail line does not provide direct access to the proposed site (Union Pacific Railroad 2013). 3.10 References 7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, "Important farmlands inventory." 7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, "Farmland and protection policy act." Affected Environment 3-56 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor site criteria." 14 CFR Part 150. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Aeronautics and Space, Part 150, "Airport noise compatibility planning; final rule." 23 CFR Part 777. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Highways, Part 777, "Procedures for abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise." 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, "Occupational safety and health standards." 40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, "National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards." 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, "Requirements for preparation, adoption, and submittal of implementation plans." 40 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 52, "Approval and promulgation of implementation plans." 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, "Designation of area for air quality planning purposes." 50 CFR Part 10. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 10, "General provisions." 50 CFR Part 17. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 17, "Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants." 50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulation, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, "Interagency cooperation-Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended." 74 FR 56260. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases [Final rule]." Federal Register 74(209):56260-56519. October 30, 2009. 75 FR 9282. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "General Provisions; Revised List of Migratory Birds [Final rule]." Federal Register 75(39):9282-9314. March 1, 2010. 75 FR 31514. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule [Final rule]." Federal Register 75(209):31514-31608. June 3, 2010. 77 FR 41051. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits [Final rule]." Federal Register 77(134):41051-41075. July 12, 2012. Arrowhead Library System. 2013. Arrowhead Library System, Helping Public Libraries Serve the Citizens of Rock County. Revised April 30, 2013. Available at <www.als.lib.wi.us> (accessed 26 November 2013). Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2011 et seq. Avery, C. 2005. Reversal of Declining Ground-Water Levels in the Chicago Area. Fact Sheet FS-222-95. Urbana, IL: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. May 2005. Available at <http://il.water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs222_95.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2013). Affected Environment 3-57 [BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1984. Visual Resource Inventory Manual H-8410-1. U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM. H-8410-1. January 17, 1986. Available at <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.31679.File.dat/H-8410.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015). [BLS] Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Location Quotient Calculator, Preliminary data for 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, BLS. Available at <http://data.bls.gov/location_quotient/ContollerServlet> (accessed 19 August 2014). Buchwald CA. 2011. Water Use in Wisconsin, 2005. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. November 2011. Open-File Report 2009-1076, Version 1.1. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1076/pdf/ofr20091076.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014). City of Janesville. 2010. Water Utility, Water Conservation Plan. April 2010. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=573> (accessed 20 December 2013). City of Janesville. 2011a. Proposed TIF 35 Street and Lot Layout. City of Janesville, WI: Planning Services, K Benz. June 6, 2011. Available at <http://inwisconsin.com/ content/uploads/2013/04/Janesville_Site-Plan.pdf> (accessed 9 July 2013). City of Janesville. 2011b. Parks Division. Revised 2011. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=118> (accessed 4 December 2013). City of Janesville. 2012. Tax Increment Finance District No. 35, Project Plan, Amendment No. 1. City of Janesville, WI: Economic Development Agency, Accounting Division. February 13, 2012. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1463> (accessed 25 June 2013). City of Janesville. 2013a. Water Utility Facilities, Water Utility FAQs. 2011. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=370> (accessed 20 December 2013). City of Janesville. 2013b. 2013 Budget Information. 2011. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=565> (accessed 29 November 2013). City of Janesville. 2013c. Janesville Transit System Routes and Timetables. Available at <http:www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page288> (accessed 20 March 2014). City of Janesville. Undated. Business Climate, Janesville Profile. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=83> (accessed August 2013). Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. Crone AJ, Wheeler RL. 2000. Data for Quaternary Faults, Liquefaction Features, and Possible Tectonic Features in the Central and Eastern United States, East of the Rocky Mountain Front. Reston, VA: USGS. Open-File Report 00-260. 2000. 332 p. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/ofr-00-0260> (accessed 27 August 2013). Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Available at <http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm> (accessed 6 November 2014). Affected Environment 3-58 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Noise Effects Handbook: A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. Washington, DC: Office of Noise Abatement and Control. October 1979, Revised July 1981. Available at <http://nonoise.org/ epa/Roll7/roll7doc27.pdf> (accessed 29 October 2013). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Revised December 14, 2012. Available at <http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html> (accessed 10 October 2013). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Maps of Protected Areas. Revised May 5, 2012. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/visibility/maps.html> (accessed 29 October 2013). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Nonattainment Status for Each County by Year for Wisconsin. December 5, 2013. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ oar/oaqps/greenbk/anay_wi.html> (accessed 6 February 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014a. The 2011 National Emissions Inventory. Revised February 3, 2014. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html> (accessed 6 February 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014b. Memorandum. Next Steps and Preliminary Views on the Application of Clean Air Act Permitting Programs to Greenhouse Gases following the Supreme Court's Decisions in Utility Air Regulatory Group versus Environmental Protection Agency. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/ 2011inventory.html> (accessed 5 September 2014). Fagan B. 2005. Ancient North America. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd. 568 p. Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq. [FEMA] Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Rock County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas. Oakton, VA: FEMA Map Service Center. Map Number 55105C0307D. August 19, 2008. Available at <https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/ stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1> (accessed 20 December 2013). Find the Data. 2014. Compare Active Mines. 2014. Available at <http://active-mines.findthedata.org> (accessed 19 February 2014). Forward Janesville. 2014. Top 20 Janesville Employers (January 2014). Available at <http://www.forwardjanesville.com/CommunityInfo/Employment.aspx> (accessed 6 October 2014). Fullerton DS, Bush CA, Pennell JN. 2003. Map of Surficial Deposits and Materials in the Eastern and Central United States (East of 102° West Longitude). Denver, CO: Department of the Interior, USGS. Geologic Investigations Series I-2789. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ imap/i-2789/> (accessed 27 August 2013). [FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Letter from Fasbender P, FWS Green Bay Field Office Supervisor to Wong M, NRC Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch (RERB) Branch Chief.

Subject:

Reply to request for concurrence with list of protected species and habitats for the SHINE Facility Environmental Review. August 15, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13234A020. [FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Find Endangered Species, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/> (accessed 23 January 2014). Affected Environment 3-59 [GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012a. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, Janesville, Wisconsin. Duluth, MN: SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Golder Report 6, Revision 3. August 3, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13309B618. [GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012b. Preliminary Hydrological Analyses, Janesville, Wisconsin. Duluth, MN: SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Golder Report 7, Revision 3. August 3, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13309B623. Grannemann NG, Hunt RJ, Nicholas JR, Reilly TE, Winter TC. 2000. The Importance of Ground Water in the Great Lakes Region. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4008. Lansing, MI: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. Available at <http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/WRI004008/WRIR_00-4008.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2013). Ice Age Trail Alliance. 2013. "Ice Age Trail Alliance, Home." 2013. Available at <http://www.iceagetrail.org> (accessed 25 November 2013). Janesville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2013. Attractions. 2011. Available at <http://www.iceagetrail.org/directory/p/dir/39> (accessed August 2013). Janesville School District. 2012. School District of Janesville 2012-2013 Budget, Preliminary Working Draft. October 9, 2012. Available at <http://www.janesville.k12.wi.us/Portals/1/Finance/H%20-%2012%20-%20Budget%20Book%20Draft%202012-13.pdf> (accessed 29 July 2013). Juckem PF. 2009. Simulation of the Regional Ground-Water-Flow System and Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interaction in the Rock River Basin, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey and Rock River Coalition. Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5094. 38 p. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5094/pdf/sir20095094.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014). Knopf C, Krause K. 2012. A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed SHINE Medical Isotope Production Facility Near Janesville, Rock County, Wisconsin. AMEC, Louisville, KY. Leute JR. 2009. Thursday is last day of production as Isuzu line comes to an end. GazetteXtra. April 21, 2009. Available at <http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/apr/21/thursday-last-day-production-isuzu-line-comes-end/> (accessed August 2013). MacFarlane Pheasants, Inc. 2012. MacFarlane Pheasants, Inc., Home. 2001-2014. Available at <http://www.pheasant.com/default.aspx> (accessed 31 August 2014). Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 U.S.C. §703-712. Milwaukee Business Journal. 2008. GM Closing Janesville Assembly Plant. June 3, 2008. Available at <http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2008/06/02/daily9.html> (accessed August 2013). National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq. [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2010. 1981-2010 Normals Data Access. Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data> (accessed 12 September 2013). Affected Environment 3-60 [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2011. TD3505-Airways Surface Observations, Surface weather observations in TD 3505 digital format from 2005-2010, for Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, Janesville, WI. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), data purchased from NCDC, Asheville, NC, as cited in SHINE 2015a. [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2012. 2012 Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Madison, Wisconsin (KMSN). Asheville, NC: NOAA/NCDC. ISSN 0198-5728. Available at <http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/annual/2012/2012MSN.pdf> (accessed 6 February 2014). [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2013. Storm Events Database, Search Results for Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/ listevents.jsp?hailfilter=0.00&tornfilter=0&windfilter=000&sort=DT&statefips=55%2CWISCONSIN&county=ROCK&zone=ALL&eventType=%28C%29+ALL&beginDate_yyyy=1996&beginDate_mm=01&beginDate_dd=01&endDate_yyyy=2013&endDate_mm=04&endDate_dd=30> (accessed 12 September 2013). [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. Undated. U.S. Climatic Divisions. Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-divisions.php> (accessed 12 September 2013). [NCES] National Center for Education Statistics. 2014. College Navigator. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. College and university student population within 20 miles of ZIP code 53546. Released August 2014. Available at <http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/> (accessed 8 October 2014). Neusius SW, Gross GT. 2007. Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American Archaeology. Oxford University Press: NY. 720 p. [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v3.0. Available at <http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html> (accessed 23 January 2014). Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §4901 et seq. [NPS] National Park Service. 2013a. National Register of Historic Places, Rock County, Wisconsin. Revised February 25, 2014. Available at <http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/ natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome> (accessed 25 February 2014). [NPS] National Park Service. 2013b. National Historic Landmarks Program, Wisconsin. Available at <http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/> (accessed 6 December 2013). [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors; and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. NUREG-1537. October 17, 2012. ADAMS Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013a. Letter from Wong M, Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch (RERB) Branch Chief, to Vann Bynum R, SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Chief Operating Officer.

Subject:

Environmental site audit regarding SHINE Medical, Inc. proposed radioisotope production facility. July 3, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13168A562. Affected Environment 3-61 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013b. "Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and OSHA for NRC-Regulated Facilities." September 2013. Washington, DC: NRC. ADAMS No. ML11354A432. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Revision 1, Volume 1, 2, and 3. Washington, DC: NRC. NUREG-1437. June 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13107A023. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility. Washington, DC: NRC. ADAMS No. ML15062A111. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Web Soil Survey, Soil Map-Rock County, Wisconsin. (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit description; suitabilities and limitations for use; building site development). Updated February 15, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. Available at <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app> (accessed 20 December 2013). Olcott PG. 1968. A Summary of Geology and Mineral and Water Resources of Rock County. Open-File Report 68-4. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and Natural History Survey. 28 p. Available at <http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/wofrs/WOFR1968-04.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013). Olcott PG. 1992. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Ground Water. HA-730-J. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_j/index.html> (accessed 20 December 2013). Petersen MD, Frankel AD, Harmsen SC, Mueller CS, Haller KM, Wheeler RL, Wesson RL, Zeng Y, Boyd OS, Perkins DM, Luco N, Field EH, Wills CJ, Rukstales, KS. 2011. Seismic-Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States, 2008. Denver, CO: USGS. Scientific Investigations Map 3195, 6 sheets. Revised January 9, 2013. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3195/> (accessed 20 December 2013). Private School Review. 2013. Welcome to Private School Review. 2003-2014. Available at <www.privateschoolreview.com> (accessed 26 November 2013). Rock County. 2009. Rock County Comprehensive Plan 2035. Janesville, WI: Rock County Planning, Economic and Community Development Agency. September 10, 2009. Available at <https://www.co.rock.wi.us/planning-comprehensive-plan-2035> (accessed 7 January 2015). Rock County. 2013. Rock County, Wisconsin 2013-2014 Official Directory. Janesville, WI: Stottler L, Rock County Clerk. Revised October 24, 2013. Available at <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/images/web_documents/about_rock_county/rock_county_directory.pdf> (accessed 12 May 2014). Rock County. 2014a. Communications Center 911. Available at <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/departments/departments-a-f/communications-911> (accessed 25 February 2014). Rock County. 2014b. Emergency Management Home Page. Available at <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/emergency-mgmt-home> (accessed 25 February 2014). Rock County. Undated a. Rock County Ordinances. Undated. Available at <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/images/web_documents/about_rock_county/county_ordinance.pdf> (accessed 6 February 2014). Affected Environment 3-62 Rock County. Undated b. "Mission, Facts, and History." Available at <https://www.co.rock.wi.us/mission-facts-history?highlight=WyJoaXN0b3J5Il0=> (accessed 14 January 2015). Rock County Development Alliance. 2012. Health Care. 2012. Available at <http://www.rockcountyalliance.com/RockCountyLife/HealthCare/tabid/375/Default.aspx> (accessed 25 November 2013). Rock County Development Alliance. 2014. Rock County's Major Employers-Public and Private Sectors. Employer Survey, 2014. Available at <http://www.rockcountyalliance.com/Portals/1/Major%20Employers%20List%20Rock%20County%202014.pdf> (accessed 6 October 2014). Rock County Tourism Council. 2012. Rock County Wisconsin's Front Porch. 2012. Available at <http://www.rockcounty.org/Recreation/tabid/510/Default.aspx> (accessed 25 November 2013). Sample DW, Mossman MJ. 1997. Managing Habitat for grassland birds-A Guide for Wisconsin. Madison, WI: WDNR. PUBL-SS-925-97. 154 p. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online (Version 03JUN2002). Available at <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/wiscbird/index.htm> (accessed 7 January 2015). [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 2, "Site Characteristics," and Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404. Sinclair RA. 1996. Rock River Basin: Historical Background, IEPA Targeted Watersheds, and Resource-Rich Areas. Champaign, IL: Illinois State Water Survey, Hydrology Division. Miscellaneous Publication 174. April 1996. Available at <http://www.isws.illinois.edu/ pubdoc/MP/ISWSMP-174.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013). State of Wisconsin. Undated. Wisconsin Legislative Documents Search Results for Noise. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/search/results?q=noise> (accessed 29 October 2013). Union Pacific Railroad. 2013. E-mail from Thompson MA, Hazardous Materials Manager, Chicago, to Molter RJ, Compa Industries, Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Subject:

Union Pacific Railroad operations and restrictions, Janesville. August 23, 2013. [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 1995. Wisconsin Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900-1990. Revised 1995. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed August 2013). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://censtats.census.gov/ data/WI/05055105.pdf> (accessed 24 February 2014). Affected Environment 3-63 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, City of Janesville, Wisconsin. Available at <http://censtats.census.gov/ data/WI/1605537825.pdf> (accessed 24 February 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2000c. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, State of Wisconsin. Available at <http://censtats.census.gov/ data/WI/04055.pdf> (accessed 24 February 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2009-2011a. Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics 2009-2011, American Community Survey, 3-Year Estimates. City of Janesville, Wisconsin, Rock County, Wisconsin, State of Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed August 2013). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2009-2011b. Table DP04 Selected Housing 2009-2011, American Community Survey, 3-Year Estimates. City of Janesville, WI, Rock County, WI, State of Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed August 2013). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. American FactFinder, Community Facts. Rock County. Revised 2010. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed 21 August 2013). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. Table DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. City of Janesville, Wisconsin, Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed May 2013). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. American FactFinder, Advanced Search. Available at <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pa ges/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t> (accessed June 2013). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. Poverty Thresholds. Revised January 28, 2014. Available at <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/> (accessed 27 February 2014). [USDA]. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Wisconsin Rapid Watershed Assessment Lower Rock River. October 2007. Lower Rock River Water Shed (WI) HUC: 07090002. 20 p. Available at <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_020057.pdf> (accessed 28 January 2014). [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013. Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Available at <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/ Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Wisconsin/st55_2_025_025.pdf> (accessed 4 October 2013). [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2014. 2012 Census of Agriculture. Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 7. Hired Farm Labor-Workers and Payroll: 2012, and Table 25. Field Crops: 2012 and 2007. Last modified May 2, 2014. Available at <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Wisconsin/> (accessed 8 October 2014). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Physiographic Regions. Revised April 17, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). Available at <http://tapestry.usgs.gov/physiogr/physio.html> (accessed 27 August 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. National Land Cover Database. ESRI ArcGIS 9.3.1 software. Available at <http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer> (accessed 4 October 2013). Affected Environment 3-64 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. Divisions of Geologic Time-Major Chronostratigraphic and Geochronologic Units. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS. Fact Sheet 2010-3059. July 2010. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3059/> (accessed 27 August 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. July 18, 2012. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults> (accessed 27 August 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013a. 2009 Mineral Yearbook, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). April 2013. Available at <http://minerals.usgs.gov/ minerals/pubs/state/> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013b. Earthquakes in the Stable Continental Region. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/product/tectonic-summary/usc000te4p/us/1420825648040/tectonic-summary.inc.html> (accessed 16 January 2015). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013c. Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive Search and URL Builder, Search Results. (Radius search parameters: center latitude 42.622213 N, center longitude -89.026766 W, and outside radius 322 km). U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Revised November 7, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013d. Historic Earthquakes in the United States and its Territories, Illinois. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Revised March 6, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/historical_state_mag.php> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013e. Magnitude/Intensity Comparison. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Revised January 9, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mag_vs_int.php> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013f. Poster of the Northern Illinois Earthquake of 28 June 2004-Magnitude 4.2. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Revised October 30, 2012. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/poster/2004/20040628.php> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013g. Water-Resources Data for the United States, Water Year 2012, Site 05430500. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). USGS Water-Data Report WDR-US-2012. Available at <http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/05430500.2012.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS and WDNR] U.S. Geological Services and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Map of Distribution of Wisconsin Fish Species. Available at <https://cida.usgs.gov/wdnr_fishmap/map/> (accessed 28 January 2014). Vandewalle & Associates. 2009. City of Janesville Comprehensive Plan. Madison, WI: City of Janesville. March 9, 2009. Available at <http://www.saa-madison.com/sites/saa-madison.com/files/microsite-documents/JV-comp-plan-Volume1.pdf> (accessed 9 September 2014). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 29. Wild Animals and Plants. Available at <http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/29> (accessed 7 January 2015). Affected Environment 3-65 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 281. Water and Sewage. Available at <http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/281> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102. Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters. November 2010. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/ code/admin_code/nr/100/102> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 104. Uses and Designated Standards. February 2004. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/104/_1> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 140. Groundwater Quality. January 2012. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/140/Title> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 404. Ambient Air Quality. November 2011. Available at <http://docs.legis.wi.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/404/Title> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 405. Prevention of Significant Deterioration. July 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/405.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406. Construction Permits. March 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/406.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 407. Operation Permits. February 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/407.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 445. Control of Hazardous Pollutants. March 2012. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/445.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Trans 405. Siting Noise Barriers. November 2000. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/405> (accessed 29 October 2013). [WCMP] Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 2007. Wisconsin Coastal Management Program: A Strategic Vision for the Great Lakes. Madison, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Documents/DIR/Coastal%20Management/Program%20Docs/WCMP%20Strategic%20Vision%20for%20Great%20Lakes%202007.pdf> (accessed 1 October 2015). [WDOA] Wisconsin Department of Administration. 2013. Population and Household Projections, County Age-Sex Population Projections, 2010-2040, Final Release 12/10/2013. Demographic Services Center, Division of Intergovermental Relations. Available at <http://www.doa.state.wi.us/divisions/intergovernmental-relations/demographic-services-center/projections> (accessed 7 October 2014). [WDATCP] Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection. 2013. Well Constructor's Reports. Available at <http://datcpgis.wi.gov/WellLogs/> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Watershed-Rock River-Milton (LR04). Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/watershedDetail.aspx?code=LR04&Name=Rock River - Milton> (accessed 29 January 2014). Affected Environment 3-66 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012a. Explore Wisconsin's Water, Upper Rock River Basin. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012b. Plan Review for Municipal and Other Nonindustrial Wastewater Systems. Revised September 3, 2012. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wastewater/municipalsystems.html> (accessed 25 February 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. Rock River Prairie (No. 289). Revised January 10, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/naturalareas/ index.asp?sna=289> (accessed 12 May 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013b. Rock River TMDL. Revised November 19, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/TMDLs/RockRiver/index.html> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013c. DNR Drinking Water System: High Capacity Wells. Revised January 6, 2014. Available at <http://prodoasext.dnr.wi.gov/inter1/hicap$.startup> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013d. Look Up Groundwater Data, Well Construction Information. Revised November 12, 2012. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Groundwater/data.html> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013e. Southeast Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape. Revised January 23, 2012. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=9> (accessed 23 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013f. State Natural Areas by County. Revised December 27, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/naturalareas/county.html> (accessed 12 May 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013g. Wisconsin NDR. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/> (accessed 27 June 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. Letter from Heggelund E, WDNR Environmental Analysis and Review Specialist, to Moser M, NRC Environmental Project Manager.

Subject:

WDNR comments for the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Statement and Scoping for SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production facility. February 7, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14045A298. [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014b. Wisconsin's Natural Communities. Revised October 7, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Communities.asp> (accessed 7 November 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014c. Wetlands. Revised August 19, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wetlands/> (accessed 28 January 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014d. Wisconsin Natural Heritage Working List. Revised January 9, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/nhi/wlist.html#SRank> (accessed 23 January 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014e. Wisconsin's Endangered and Threatened Species Laws. Revised January 9, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/laws.html> (accessed 28 January 2014). Affected Environment 3-67 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Undated. Find Campgrounds-ReserveAmerica. Available at <http://wisconsinstateparks.reserveamerica.com/campground SearchResult.do?startIdx=0> (accessed 26 February 2014). [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2010a. Average Annual Daily Traffic for Lower Half, City of Janesville, Rock County. Available at <http://www.dot.state.wi.us/travel/ counts/docs/rock/janesville-2-2010.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2010b. Hourly Traffic Volume Reports-2010. The WisTransPortal System, Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Available at <http://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourly-traffic-data/bysiteid/rock.html> (accessed 9 October 2014). [WDPI] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2011-2012. FY2011-2012 Equalized Levy Rates (Mill Rates). Available at <https://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/safr_ro/all_mill_rate.asp?year=2012> (accessed 29 July 2013). [WDPI] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2012-2013. FY2012-2013 Equalized Levy Rates (Mill Rates). Available at <https://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/safr_ro/all_mill_rate.asp?year=2013#J> (accessed 25 February 2014). [WDPI] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2013. "WISEdash, Wisconsin Information System for education, Data Dashboard." Revised 2013. Available at <www.wisedash.dpi.wi.gov> (accessed 29 July 2013 and 26 November 2013). [WDR] Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2012. Town, Village, and City Taxes-2012, Taxes Levied 2012-Collected 2013. Available at <http://www.revenue.wi.gov/pubs/slf/tvc12.pdf> (accessed 5 December 2013). [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2010. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) Results-Janesville. Available at <http://worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/dalaus.aspx?menuselection=da> (accessed 28 August 2014). [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2011. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) Results-Rock County. Available at <worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/ dalaus.aspx?menuselection=da> (accessed 28 August 2014). [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2012. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) Results-Wisconsin. Available at <http://worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/ dalaus.aspx?menuselection=da> (accessed 28 August 2014). [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2011a. Glaciation of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: UW Extension. Educational Series 36, 4th edition. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/es0362011/> (accessed 16 January 2015). [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2011b. Bedrock Stratigraphic Units in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: UW Extension. Educational Series 51, ISSN: 1052-2115. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/ES051/> (accessed 16 January 2015). [WHS] Wisconsin Historical Society. 2013. Cultural Overview of Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archaeology/overview/> (accessed 16 January 2015). Zaporozec A. 1982. Ground-Water Quality of Rock County, Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Geological and Natural History Survey in cooperation with Rock County Division of Environmental Health. Information Circular 41. March 1982. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

4-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AND DECOMMISSIONING This chapter addresses potential environmental impacts related to the proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) standard of significance for impacts uses the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significantly" (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 1508.27). Because the significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, both "context" and "intensity," as defined in CEQ regulation 40 CFR 1508.27, were considered. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects would occur. Intensity is the severity of the impact. Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. The definitions of these three significance levels, which are presented in the Interim Staff Guidance to NUREG-1537 (NRC 2012), follow: SMALL-environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. In assessing radiological impacts, the NRC has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the NRC's regulations are considered SMALL. MODERATE-environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource. LARGE-environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. For this environmental impact statement (EIS), the NRC staff characterized impact levels using the above definitions (NRC 2012). These impacts are grouped and presented according to the resource area. Within each resource area, the NRC staff determined the impacts during each of the three phases: construction, operations, and decommissioning. As described in Section 2.2, the NRC staff included the activities and impacts of preoperational activities as part of the construction phase. The NRC staff characterizes the impacts to resources as a single level or as a range of impact levels. Ranges of impacts may be provided if environmental conditions are uncertain or if there are multiple circumstances associated with environmental conditions surrounding the proposed or alternate sites. For example, a range of impacts may be appropriate to characterize impact levels if the environment changes in time or space, such as the impacts may be smaller at certain times or in certain places and larger at other times or places. 4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources 4.1.1 Land Use 4.1.1.1 Construction The proposed SHINE site currently includes 91.1 acres (ac) (36.9 hectares (ha)) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas (SHINE 2015a; USGS 2006). Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would permanently disturb and convert 25.67 ac (10.39 ha) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas into an industrial area that would include facility buildings, an employee parking lot, facility access roads, a stormwater detention area, and access road drainage ditches (Table 4-1). In addition, 14.54 ac (5.88 ha) of Environmental Impacts 4-2 agricultural land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking area and construction material staging or laydown areas. Installation of the water and sewer line would also temporarily affect an additional 0.62 ac (0.25 ha) of offsite agricultural lands immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed site. Once construction activities are complete, SHINE would restore temporarily affected areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie (SHINE 2015a). The remaining portion of the site would likely remain as open area or agricultural fields, or it would be converted to cool season grasses or native prairie. The potential conversion of up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of agricultural and cultivated crops would be minor when compared to the 25,236 ac (10,213 ha) of agricultural land remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site. The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) and its implementing regulations requires agencies to make Farmland Protection Policy Act evaluations part of the process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), to reduce the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by Federal projects and programs. Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would convert up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of land with soils that may qualify as prime farmland or farmland of statewide significance to industrial use, cool season grasses, or native prairie. However, this is a small percentage of the approximate 41,900 ac (16,900 ha) of land with soils that may qualify as prime farmland and farmland of statewide significance within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed site (SHINE 2015a; NRCS 2013). Similarly, the potential relative value of the farmland on the 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) proposed site would be 13,771 bushels (bu) of grain corn or 3,947 bu of soybeans, which is relatively minor when compared to the 10-year production estimate average for Rock County, Wisconsin (22,075,540 bu of grain corn and 3,786,415 bu of soybeans) (USDA 2013). Furthermore, the proposed site is currently zoned light industrial and is part of a larger development project to create an industrial park in Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District No. 35 (City of Janesville 2012). Because the proposed SHINE site has been committed to urban development and zoned light industrial, the proposed site does not have farmland soils subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR 658.2). Land-use impacts would be confined to the proposed 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) site and 0.62 ac. (0.25 ha) of offsite agricultural lands immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed site. Therefore, areas with a special land use or mineral resources (as described in Section 3.1) would not be affected by the proposed construction of the SHINE facility. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), was enacted by Congress in 1972 to address the increasing pressures of overdevelopment upon the Nation's coastal resources. Applicants for any NRC license or permit that would include activities that affect coastal zone resources must provide a certification to the NRC that the proposed activity complies with any applicable State Coastal Zone Management Plan. An applicant must also provide this certification to the State, and the State must notify the NRC whether the State concurs with the applicant's certification. The NRC cannot issue a license or permit to an applicant until the State has concurred with the applicant's certification. Given that no Federally designated coastal zone areas are within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed SHINE site, and that the proposed action would not affect any land or water use or natural resource within the coastal zone, the applicant's certification and the State's concurrence is not applicable for the NRC's review of the construction permit for the proposed SHINE facility (WCMP 2007). Based on the relatively small amount of farmland that would be permanently converted to other land uses, the lack of qualifying important farmland soils within affected areas, the location of the proposed facility within an area zoned for light industrial use, and the lack of special land use or mineral resources on site, land use impacts from construction would be SMALL. Environmental Impacts 4-3 Table 4-1. Acres of Land Required for Construction of the Proposed SHINE Facility Land Cover Type Permanent Disturbance Temporary Disturbance Total Land Cover Within 5 mi (8 km) ac ha ac ha ac ha Percent Open Water 796 322 1.6 Developed, Open Space 0.18 0.07 3,043 1,231 6.1 Developed, Low Intensity 5,858 2,371 11.7 Developed, Medium Intensity 1,968 796 3.9 Developed, High Intensity 992 401 2 Barren 43 17 0.1 Deciduous Forest 3,298 1,335 6.6 Evergreen Forest 68 28 0.1 Mixed Forest 1 0 0 Shrub/Scrub 505 204 1 Grassland 1,049 425 2.1 Pasture/Hay 5,896 2,386 11.7 Cultivated Crops 25.67(a) 10.39(a) 15.16(a)(b) 6.13(a)(b) 25,236 10,213 50.2 Woody Wetlands 722 292 1.4 Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 787 318 1.6 Total(c) 25.85 10.46 15.16 6.13 50,262 20,339 100 (a) Cultivated crops on the proposed site are located on soils that are prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. (b) Temporarily disturbed lands include 14.54 ac (5.88 ha) of onsite land and 0.62 ac (0.25 ha) of offsite land. (c) Total may add up to more or less than 100 percent due to rounding. Source: USGS 2006; SHINE 2015a 4.1.1.2 Operations Operation of the SHINE facility would not require any new land or require land use changes beyond that required for construction. Therefore, land use impacts during operations would be SMALL. 4.1.1.3 Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities because they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Land requirements to perform these activities would be the same or less than those required during construction (SHINE 2014). After decommissioning activities are complete, the proposed site could remain industrial or could be converted back to agricultural land or open space. Given that land requirements would be similar to those described during construction and that, after decommissioning is complete, land would either be industrial, agricultural, or open space, land use impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. Environmental Impacts 4-4 4.1.2 Visual Resources 4.1.2.1 Construction As described in Section 3.1.2, the visual setting of the proposed SHINE facility includes agricultural and light industrial viewsheds. The proposed site is currently used for agricultural purposes, and no existing structures or natural or built barriers, screens, or buffers occur on site. SHINE would build a Production Facility Building that would be approximately 58 ft (18 m) high, 284 ft (87 m) long, and 194 ft (59 m) wide (SHINE 2014). The highest point at the SHINE facility, the exhaust vent on the main building, would be approximately 66 ft (20 m) (SHINE 2014). Figure 4-1 is a conceptual rendering of the proposed SHINE facility based on these dimensions. The activities associated with construction of the SHINE facility (e.g., excavation, earthmoving, pile driving, and erection) would require large equipment, would significantly alter onsite conditions, and would partially obstruct views of the existing landscape. However, as described in Section 3.1, the NRC staff determined that the proposed site has low scenic quality because of a lack of notable features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, mute colors, cultural modifications to adjacent scenery, and a commonality within the physiographic province. The NRC staff also determined that the proposed site has a low sensitivity rating because it is in an area with low scenic values resulting from a low amount of use by viewers, low public interest in changes to the visual quality of the proposed site, a low sensitivity to changes in visual quality by the type of users in the area, and a lack of special natural and wilderness areas. In addition, the viewshed surrounding the proposed site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, such as warehouses and an airport. Further, once construction activities are complete, SHINE may vegetate open areas with crops, cool season grasses, or native prairie grasses (SHINE 2015a). Vegetation could partially mitigate impacts to visual resources given that the majority of the surrounding viewshed is cultivated fields or grasses. SHINE would also mitigate impacts by landscaping or planting shrubs along U.S. Highway 51 and bordering access roads (SHINE 2015a). Based on the low scenic quality and light industrial viewshed within the vicinity, construction-related aesthetic impacts would be SMALL. 4.1.2.2 Operations The appearance of the SHINE facility would not change during operation, other than a small steam plume that may be visible coming from the exhaust stack. The steam plume from the exhaust stack is expected to be minimal because opacity associated with the natural gas-fired boiler and heaters tends to be low, as described in Section 4.2.2.1. The plume would be more visible during periods of cold weather, although the size of the plume would still be relatively small. Therefore, visual impacts during operations would be SMALL. Environmental Impacts 4-5 Figure 4-1. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed SHINE Facility Conceptual View of Proposed SHINE Facility from U.S. Highway 51, Looking Southeast Figure 4-1. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed SHINE Facility (Continued) Conceptual View of Proposed SHINE Facility Looking West Source: SHINE 2014 4.1.2.3 Impacts from Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities because they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. After SHINE completed decommissioning activities, the proposed site could remain industrial or could be converted back to agricultural land or open space. As the proposed SHINE facility is Environmental Impacts 4-6 located in a district zoned for light industrial use and the viewshed surrounding the proposed site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, the NRC staff would not expect any changes to the landscape to significantly affect any viewsheds. Therefore, visual impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.2 Air Quality and Noise Air and noise emissions would occur during construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. Emission sources, pollutants, and durations would be different for each phase and are discussed below. As discussed in Chapter 3, the region of influence (ROI) for this air quality analysis is Rock County, which is designated as an attainment/unclassifiable area for all criteria pollutants. The ROI for the noise analysis is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the proposed SHINE facility. 4.2.1 Construction During construction, both air quality and noise levels may be affected near the proposed SHINE facility. Air pollutants would include fugitive dust from earth-moving equipment and other vehicles, exhaust gases from diesel engines, and exhaust gases from worker vehicles as they commute to and from the proposed SHINE facility. Noise would be emitted from diesel engines, backup alarms, and increased traffic as workers commute to and from the proposed SHINE facility and as materials are hauled on and off the construction site. Table 4-2 lists the equipment that would be used during construction. The NRC staff expects actual equipment activity to be lower than what is presented in Table 4-2 because SHINE assumed operation of a majority of the construction equipment throughout the entire construction phase, multiple pieces of the same equipment type and simultaneous use of equipment, and equipment continuously running 5 hours a day during construction (SHINE 2015b). SHINE estimated that a maximum of 451 workers would be needed during construction (SHINE 2014). Table 4-2. Equipment Used During Construction Equipment Type Engine Size (hp) Total Activity (hours)(a) Asphalt Compactor Cat CB434C 107 521 Asphalt Paver, Barber Greene AP-1000 174 521 Backhoe/Loader Cat 430 105 6,979 Boom Lift JLG 800AJ 65 7,917 Concrete Pump Putzmeister 47Z-Meter(b) 300 3,021 Crane (Lattice Boom, Manitowoc 8000-80t)(b) 205 1,354 Crane (Picker, Grove RT530E-2 30t)(b) 160 5,729 Crane (Picker, Grove RT600E-50t)(b) 173 1,146 Dump, Dual axel (15 cy) Mack 350 4,896 Excavator (Large, Cat 345D L)(b) 380 521 Excavator (Medium, Cat 321D LCR)(b) 148 1,354 Extended Forklift Lull 1044C-54 115 10,104 Fuel Truck, Mack MP6(b) 150 1,458 Material Truck 2-1/2t F-650 270 3,229 Mechanic's Truck 2-1/2t F-650 270 2,813 Motor Grader Cat 140M 183 1,563 Pickup Truck F-250 300 19,063 Semi Tractor and Trailer (20 cy) Mack MP8(b) 450 7,188 Environmental Impacts 4-7 Equipment Type Engine Size (hp) Total Activity (hours)(a) Skidsteer Loader Case SR200 75 8,229 Tracked Dozer Cat D6 150 2,188 Tracked Dozer Cat D7 235 2,708 Tracked Dozer Cat D8(b) 310 1,979 Tracked Loader CAT 973C 242 4,479 Vibratory Soil Compactor Cat C874 156 1,458 Water Truck Mack MP6 150 1,146 Portable Air Compressors 50 5,625 Portable Generators 50 6,354 Portable Welders 50 4,688 Walk Behind Compactor 50 2,396 (a) Activity represents the total number of hours SHINE would operate equipment during the 18-month construction period. Within each equipment category, several pieces of equipment may be operated simultaneously (SHINE 2015b). Equipment hours are based on construction work schedule, number of hours the equipment is assumed to be used in during the entire18 month construction phase, and equipment utilization factors provided in SHINE 2014, 2015b. (b) Equipment anticipated to be utilized during the first 12 months of the construction phase. Source: SHINE 2014, 2015b 4.2.1.1 Air Quality During construction, the diesel equipment on site listed in Table 4-2 would generate air emissions. Engine exhausts emit criteria pollutants, and fugitive dust would be generated by earth-moving activities. Employee vehicular traffic would also generate both exhaust and fugitive dust emissions, some of which would occur on site and others would occur off site. However, fugitive dust emissions should be minimal for vehicles when traveling on paved roads off site. Construction-related emissions are summarized in Table 4-3. Additional vehicle-related emissions would be associated with the transportation of shipments and deliveries during construction, as discussed in Section 4.10.1. However, they would be emitted beyond the ROI (SHINE 2014) and would traverse various counties, air quality control regions (AQCRs), and states. Therefore, the air quality analysis focuses on the predominant emission sources during construction, which includes diesel equipment exhaust, worker vehicle commuting, and earth-moving activities. Table 4-3. Annual Air Emissions During Construction Source Emissions During Construction (tons/yr) CO NOx Hydro-carbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Diesel Equipment Exhaust(a) 58 269 22 18 19 19 10,000 Peak Worker Vehicle Exhaust(a) 126 9 14 0.3(d) 0.06 0.06 4,920 Fugitive Dust(b) - - - - 40 4 - Total 183 278 36 18 59 23 14,900 Percent of Rock County Annual Emissions(c) 0.6 5.0 0.3 18 0.7 0.8 1.3 Environmental Impacts 4-8 Source Emissions During Construction (tons/yr) CO NOx Hydro-carbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 (a) SHINE 2015b (b) Fugitive dust emissions (as total suspended particles (TSP)) were estimated by SHINE (2014) based on the acres that would be permanently or temporarily disturbed during the construction phase (41.01 ac (16.6 ha)). To calculate particulate matter (PM)10 and PM2.5, the NRC staff applied the annual construction phase work schedule (50 weeks, 5 days/week, 5 hours/day) and the expected particle-size ratios for PM10/TSP, a ratio of 0.48, and for PM2.5/PM10, a ratio of 0.1 (EPA 1984; MRI 2006). (c) Rock County annual emissions are shown in Table 3-5. (d) NRC staff applied the emission factors from Cai et al. 2013 to construction worker vehicles-miles provided in SHINE 2014, 2015a to estimate SO2 emission. Key: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrous oxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter of 10 microns (µm) or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 µm or less; CO2 = carbon dioxide Source: SHINE 2014, 2015b As shown in Table 4-3, construction-related emissions would be approximately less than 5 percent of countywide emissions for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter. Sulfur dioxide could result in an increase of up to 18 percent of annual sulfur dioxide emissions for Rock County; however, as explained below, the emissions presented in Table 4-3 are highly conservative. Total greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) (approximately 15,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq)4 per year) would be well below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq (68,000 metric TPY) threshold for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V permits set in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, about 295 mi (475 km) from the proposed site. EPA recommends that sources located within 62 mi (100 km) of a Class I area be modeled to consider adverse impacts (EPA 1992). Given the distance and estimated emissions from construction, the NRC staff does not anticipate that activities from construction could adversely affect air quality and air quality-related values (e.g., visibility or acid deposition) in the nearest Class I area. Emissions presented in Table 4-3 should be regarded as bounding conditions for construction activities. The emission estimates presented in Table 4-3 do not account for emission control technologies for diesel engines, best management practices, or mitigative measures that can be implemented during construction-related activities. For instance, SHINE proposes to minimize fugitive dust emissions on site by watering and limiting speeds on unpaved roads, minimizing material handling, stabilizing construction roads and spoil piles, and slope revegetation (SHINE 2015a). Such measures would reduce particulate matter emissions related to land-disturbing activities below those presented in Table 4-3. Furthermore, diesel-related construction equipment emission estimates presented in Table 4-3 are estimated uncontrolled emissions that do not account for control technologies that can be implemented to reduce emissions, such as selective catalytic converters that can reduce emissions (EPA 1996). 4 Carbon dioxide equivalent is a metric used to compare the emissions of GHG based on their global warming potential (GWP). GWP is a measure used to compare how much heat a GHG traps in the atmosphere. GWP is the total energy that a gas absorbs over a period of time, compared to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide equivalent is obtained by multiplying the amount of the GHG by the associated GWP. For example, the GWP of methane (CH4) is estimated to be 21; therefore, 1 ton of methane emission is equivalent to 21 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Environmental Impacts 4-9 Estimates are also based on conservative equipment activity values presented in Table 4-2. SHINE plans to implement techniques during construction, where practical, to reduce diesel emissions, such as using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels (15 parts per million sulfur maximum), deploying new equipment with emission control systems and exhaust filtration devices (diesel oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate matter filters and/or catalytic converters), performing diesel equipment inspections and necessary maintenance to ensure proposed condition of exhaust filtration devices, implementing recommended maintenance procedures, and periodic checks of diesel equipment, and minimizing the idle time of equipment, which would reduce the equipment activity presented in Table 4-2 (SHINE 2013). Finally, worker commuter emissions assumed a minimum of a 100-mi (160-km) roundtrip commute and a peak number of workers. Because the workforce could travel from all over the 50-mi (80-km) region and not necessarily have a 100-mi roundtrip commute and not all 451 workers would necessarily travel to the site on a daily basis, this projected increase in miles traveled daily for each county is conservative. Furthermore, SHINE will encourage carpooling or other appropriate measures to minimize emissions due to worker vehicles (SHINE 2013). Therefore, the emissions presented in Table 4-3 should be regarded as bounding conditions for construction activities, and, for these reasons, the NRC staff does not expect increased air emissions from construction activities to contribute to concentrations that would exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in Rock County. SHINE intends to submit an application for a Type A Registration Construction Permit to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (SHINE 2013). The requirements in the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, are implemented within Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 285, "Air Pollution." WDNR administers its construction permit program under Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 406. Compliance with the construction permit from WDNR would ensure that the proposed project would meet air pollution standards. SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated within the permit. Given that emissions during construction would be local and temporary (construction phase of 18 months), pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from WDNR, and with Rock County designated as an attainment/unclassifiable area, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL. 4.2.1.2 Noise Noise emissions during construction would occur because of increased traffic volumes on U.S. Highway 51 and because of the use of construction equipment on site. The maximum number of worker vehicles expected on site during construction is 451, all of which would be expected to travel via U.S. Highway 51 during the hours when work starts and stops (SHINE 2015a; SHINE 2014). SHINE modeled highway noise to estimate existing noise levels near U.S. Highway 51 (50 ft (15 m)) away from the road) and used a peak-hour traffic volume of 465 vehicles per hour. If work start and stop times occur during the peak hours modeled, traffic volume would nearly double during some periods during construction. The NRC staff conducted additional noise modeling using the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Traffic Noise Model (TNM), Version 2.5, which shows adding the proposed SHINE facility construction traffic would increase noise levels near U.S. Highway 51 by less than 3 decibels A-weighted (dBA). Most people are unable to discern noise level differences less than about 3 dBA. Furthermore, posted speed limits and a staggered construction work shift schedule can reduce traffic noise during construction (SHINE 2015a). The types of equipment that would be used on site during construction are listed in Table 4-2. The noisier equipment from this list was modeled by the NRC staff using the FHWA's Roadway Construction Noise Model, Version 1.1. Modeling results show a maximum noise level of about Environmental Impacts 4-10 53 dBA at the nearest residence to the proposed site (about 0.3 mi (0.5 km) away from the site boundary). This noise level would be well below existing ambient noise levels (about 65 dBA but sometimes greater because of the airport and traffic on U.S. Highway 51) and would not be noticeable by most people. Given the minor (less than 3 dBA) increase in noise levels caused by additional vehicle traffic and estimated noise levels from construction equipment not exceeding existing ambient noise levels, the NRC staff concludes that offsite noise impacts from construction would be SMALL. 4.2.2 Operations 4.2.2.1 Air Quality Air emissions from operating the proposed SHINE facility would be predominantly from two sources: (1) radioisotope production and (2) fuel combustion associated with processing and facility heating purposes. Additional emissions would come from vehicular traffic from workers commuting and from transportation of shipments and deliveries during operations. However, shipment-related emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI (SHINE 2014) and would traverse various counties, AQCRs, and states. Therefore, the air quality analysis presented below focuses on emissions from radioisotope production, fuel combustion associated with processing and facility heating purposes, and vehicle worker commuting. The effects on nearby air quality resulting from these emissions would be determined by what and how much is emitted; how and where pollutants are emitted (stack location, size, temperature, and exhaust velocity); and ambient meteorological conditions. Radioisotope Production A criteria air pollutant that would be emitted from the radioisotope production process includes nitrogen oxide. SHINE would use nitric acid in target solution vessels (TSVs) and in the thermal denitration process, resulting in the formation and release of nitrogen oxides. SHINE would treat gaseous effluents through the control ventilation systems, which involves two stages of high-efficiency particulate air filters before being vented to the atmosphere through the main stack of the production facility. Total nitrogen oxide emissions from the radioisotope production process would be about 3 TPY (SHINE 2015a). Fuel Combustion Diesel and natural gas combustion sources are listed in Table 4-4. Four natural-gas-fired heaters and one boiler would be used to meet heating and hot water requirements for the proposed SHINE facility. Additionally, a diesel generator would be used for emergency power (SHINE 2015a). Emissions from diesel and natural gas combustion sources are summarized in Table 4-5. Estimated fuel combustion-related emissions from the facility during operation, as provided in Table 4-5 are well below the major source threshold of 100 TPY for criteria pollutants requiring a Title V operation permit. GHG emissions (approximately 15,700 TPY of CO2eq) would be well below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq threshold for PSD and Title V permits set in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, SHINE plans to develop programs, when appropriate, to avoid and control GHG emissions and implement energy efficiency and conservation at the facility (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates that emissions from combustion-related activities during operation will not be a major source and, therefore, has little potential for significantly affecting air quality or interfering with plans to achieve compliance with the NAAQS. Environmental Impacts 4-11 Table 4-4. Fuel Combustion Sources Description Fuel Heat Input Rates (MMBTU/hr) Maximum Expected Load Emergency Generator Diesel 43.56 NA Production Building Boiler Nat. gas 30 23.6 Support Facility Building Nat. gas 0.42 0.337 Administration Building Nat. gas 0.29 0.233 Waste Staging and Shipping Building Nat. gas 0.18 0.142 Diesel Generator Building Nat. gas 0.072 0.058 Source: SHINE 2013, 2015a Table 4-5. Fuel Combustion Emissions During Operations Description Maximum Emissions (ton/yr) CO NOx PM10(a) Hydrocarbons SO2 CO2 Emergency Generator(b) 0.36 3.52 0.026 0.12 0.01 345 Production Building Boiler(c) 10.37 6.22 0.92 0.67 0.08 14,822 Support Facility Building(c) 0.067 0.16 0.013 0.01 0.001 208 Administration Building(c) 0.05 0.12 0.009 0.007 0.001 143 Waste Staging and Shipping Building(c) 0.03 0.07 0.005 0.004 0.001 89 Diesel Generator Building(c) 0.01 0.03 0.002 0.002 0.001 36 Total 10.9 10.1 1.00 0.81 0.09 15,642 (a) Particulate emissions from diesel and gas combustion are assumed to be less than 1 µm in diameter. Hence, PM2.5 and PM10 emissions are the same. (b) Generator emissions of CO, NOx, PM, and hydrocarbons were computed using emission factors from the CAT C175-20 Diesel Engine Data Sheet provided by Caterpillar. SO2 emissions are based on a maximum of 50 parts per million (ppm) sulfur in the fuel. CO2 emissions were computed using an emission factor from Section 3.4 of AP-42 (EPA 2006). (c) Emissions from gas-fired heaters and boilers were calculated using emission factors from Section 1.4 of AP-42 (EPA 2006). Source: SHINE 2013 SHINE computed air pollutant concentrations near the proposed SHINE facility during operations using the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), Version 12345. Air pollutant concentrations modeled include emissions from the radioisotope production process and heater and boiler combustion during operation (SHINE 2015a). Emissions from the standby diesel generator were not accounted for in the model because its use would be infrequent (SHINE 2015a). SHINE used surface and upper air meteorological data from Madison, Wisconsin (Station 14837), for the years 2006 to 2010. Modeled air pollutant concentrations (maximum predicted impact) for each pollutant resulting from operation (production process and heater and boiler combustion) were added to ambient background concentrations and compared with NAAQS. SHINE's modeling results are shown in Table 4-6. Environmental Impacts 4-12 Table 4-6. SHINE Air Dispersion Modeling Results Pollutant Averaging Period Maximum Predicted Impact 3)(a) Year Total Concentration 3)(b) NAAQS 3) CO 1-hr 26.45 2009 1,389 40,000(c) 8-hr 12.16 2007 1,203 10,000(c) NO2 1-hr 61.57 2007 117 188 Annual 1.722 5-yr 26 100 SO2 1-hr 0.2266 2009 13 196 3-hr 0.1238 2010 43 1,310 24-hr 0.0584 2008 - NA(d) Annual 0.0062 5-yr - NA PM10 24-hr 0.7318 2008 48 150 Annual 0.0786 5-yr - NA PM2.5 24-hr 0.75 5-yr 29 35 Annual 0.09 5-yr 10 12 (a) Values represent the highest predicted impacts for each pollutant and averaging time. (b) Total concentrations provided are the maximum predicted impact plus background concentrations. (c) The value shown is approximate. The NAAQS is expressed in units of ppm or parts per billion. (d) NA = Not applicable. No current NAAQS applies to this averaging time. Source: SHINE 2013; EPA 2012a. As can be seen from Table 4-6, total concentrations (maximum predicted impact plus background concentration) for each pollutant do not exceed the NAAQS. In other words, the additional emissions resulting from operation did not result in NAAQS thresholds being exceeded. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that violations of NAAQS are not expected as a result of increased air emissions from operation of SHINE. Additionally, the maximum impacts include consideration of building downwash effects. Therefore, these values are conservative and bounding. Visibility modeling was not performed for this project because of the low emission rates and resulting pollutant concentrations. No visible plume other than steam is expected from SHINE stacks during normal operation. The nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, about 295 mi (475 km) from the proposed site. EPA recommends that sources located within 62 mi (100 km) of a Class I area be modeled to consider adverse impacts (EPA 1992). Given the distance and estimated emissions from operation, the NRC staff does not anticipate that activities from operation could adversely affect air quality and air quality-related values (e.g., visibility or acid deposition) in the nearest Class I area. SHINE would control emissions of nitrogen oxide from the natural-gas-fired boiler using low nitrogen oxide burners and emissions from gas-fired heaters using combustion controls and properly designed and tuned burners (SHINE 2015a). The generator would be required to meet applicable New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ). Emissions from radioisotope production and fuel combustion sources would be emitted through stacks. Terrain near the proposed SHINE facility is relatively flat and, therefore, should not affect dispersion of pollutants. SHINE intends to submit an application for a Type A Registration Operation Permit to WDNR for stationary equipment (e.g., emergency generator) (SHINE 2013). The operating Environmental Impacts 4-13 permit from WDNR would set limits and establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements with which SHINE would be required to comply. Additional emissions would result from workforce vehicles. Approximately 150 passenger vehicles would enter and leave the proposed SHINE facility on a daily basis (SHINE 2013, 2014). Vehicular emissions would occur wherever the vehicles are driven, both on and off the proposed SHINE facility. Employee vehicle emissions during operation are summarized in Table 4-7. Additional vehicle-related emissions would be associated with the transportation of waste shipments, as discussed in Section 4.10.2, during operation. However, these emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI because they are expected to be shipped to facilities in Clive, Utah; Andrews, Texas; and/or Kingston, Tennessee (SHINE 2014, 2015a); therefore, they would traverse various counties, AQCRs, and states. Minimal air emissions resulting from waste shipments would be emitted within Rock County. Table 4-7. Vehicle Emissions During Operation Activity Emissions During Operation (TPY) CO NOx Hydro-carbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Worker Commuting Exhaust 42 3 5 0.1(a) 0.02 0.02 1,600 (a) NRC staff applied the emission factors from Cai et al. 2013 to worker vehicles-miles provided in SHINE 2014, 2015a to estimate SO2 emission. Source: SHINE 2014, 2015a When estimated emissions from vehicles (Table 4-7) are added to the estimated emissions from radioisotope production and fuel combustion emissions (Table 4-5), total emissions are below the major source threshold of 100 TPY for criteria pollutants that would require a Title V permit and are below 250 TPY, which is the threshold for triggering PSD requirements (as discussed in Section 3.2.2). Furthermore, total GHGs (approximately 17,300 TPY of CO2eq) are below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq threshold for PSD and Title V permits set in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates that emissions from related activities during operation has little potential for significantly affecting air quality or interfering with plans to achieve compliance with the NAAQS. Given that modeled air emissions from operation do not exceed NAAQS, that estimated emissions from operation-related activities are below the 100-TPY major source threshold, that Rock County is designated attainment/unclassifiable status and given the provisions that would be established in the air permit, the impact of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality during operation is expected to be SMALL. 4.2.2.2 Noise Noise emissions during operation would occur because of increased traffic volumes on U.S. Highway 51. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE buildings at the site. The number of worker vehicles expected during operation is 150 (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Adding this traffic volume to the TNM modeling completed for existing traffic levels would increase noise levels near U.S. Highway 51 by about 1 dBA. Most people are unable to discern noise level differences less than about 3 dBA. The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport currently operates approximately 105 flights per day, 38,400 flights per year (FAA 2014). Flight operations may increase because of the demand to Environmental Impacts 4-14 transport materials to and from the proposed SHINE facility. Up to 468 medical shipments would occur each year associated with the proposed action with most being transported by air (SHINE 2015a). However, these increases are not anticipated to cause an appreciable increase in noise above the current operations. Given that noise emissions from operating equipment are not expected to be audible beyond the building facility, that additional noise emissions caused by worker vehicles are minor (1 dBA), and that noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels from current airport operations, the NRC staff concludes that offsite noise impacts during operation would be SMALL. 4.2.3 Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities. The decommissioning activities would include, for example, vehicular traffic, earth-moving equipment, demolition of structures, and dismantlement and decontamination of systems over a period of 6 months (SHINE 2015a). Table 4-8 lists the equipment that would be used during the decommissioning phase. The NRC staff expects actual equipment activity to be lower than what is presented in Table 4-8 because SHINE assumed operation of the construction equipment throughout the entire decommissioning phase, multiple pieces of the same equipment type and simultaneous use of equipment, and equipment continuously running 5 hours a day during decommissioning (SHINE 2015b). SHINE estimated that a maximum of 261 workers would be on the proposed SHINE site at one time during decommissioning (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Table 4-8. Diesel Equipment Used During Decommissioning Equipment Type Engine Size (hp) Total Activity (hr)(a) Backhoe/Loader Cat 430 105 3,542 Boom Lift JLG 800AJ 65 3,958 Crane (Lattice Boom, Manitowoc 8000-80t) 205 729 Crane (Picker, Grove RT530E-2 30t) 160 2,917 Crane (Picker, Grove RT600E- 50t) 173 625 Dump, Dual axel (15 cy) Mack 350 2,500 Excavator (Large, Cat 345D L) 380 313 Excavator (Medium, Cat 321D LCR) 148 729 Extended Forklift Lull 1044C-54 115 5,104 Fuel Truck, Mack MP6 150 729 Material Truck 2-1/2t F-650 270 1,667 Mechanic's Truck 2-1/2t F-650 270 1,458 Motor Grader Cat 140M 183 833 Pickup Truck F-250 300 9,583 Semi Tractor and Trailer (20 cy) Mack MP8 450 3,646 Skidsteer Loader Case SR200 75 4,167 Tracked Dozer Cat D6 150 1,146 Tracked Dozer Cat D7 235 1,354 Tracked Dozer Cat D8 310 1,042 Tracked Loader CAT 973C 242 2,292 Vibratory Soil Compactor Cat C874 156 729 Water Truck Mack MP6 150 625 Portable Air Compressors 50 2,813 Portable Generators 50 3,229 Environmental Impacts 4-15 Equipment Type Engine Size (hp) Total Activity (hr)(a) Portable Welders 50 2,396 Walk Behind Compactor 50 1,250 (a) Activity represents the total number of hours SHINE would operate equipment during the 6-month decommissioning period. Within each equipment category, several pieces of equipment may be operated simultaneously (SHINE 2015b). Equipment hours are based on decommissioning work schedule, number of hours the equipment is assumed to be used in 6 months, and equipment utilization factors provided in SHINE 2014, 2015b. Source: SHINE 2014, 2015a, 2015b 4.2.3.1 Air Quality During decommissioning, the diesel equipment on the proposed SHINE site would be a source of air emissions (Table 4-8). Engine exhausts emit criteria pollutants, and fugitive dust would be generated by earth-moving activities. Vehicular traffic would also generate both exhaust and fugitive dust emissions, some of which would occur on site and some off site. Emissions are summarized in Table 4-9. Additional vehicle-related emissions would be associated with the transportation of waste shipments, as discussed in Section 4.10.3, during decommissioning. However, these emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI because they are expected to be shipped to facilities in Clive, Utah; Andrews, Texas; and/or Kingston, Tennessee (SHINE 2014, 2015a); therefore, they would traverse various counties, AQCRs, and states. Minimal air emissions resulting from waste shipments would be emitted within Rock County. As shown in Table 4-9, emissions during decommissioning would be less than 3 percent of total countywide emissions of pollutants, with the exception of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide could result in an increase of up to 11 percent of annual sulfur dioxide emissions for Rock County. The NRC staff expects SHINE emissions to be low enough that resulting air quality concentrations should not cause NAAQS to be exceeded. Similarly, total GHGs (approximately 9,330 tons of CO2eq per year) would be well below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq threshold for PSD and Title V permits set in the GHG Tailoring Rule. Environmental Impacts 4-16 Table 4-9. Air Emissions During Decommissioning Source Emissions During Decommissioning Phasee (tons) CO NOx Hydro-carbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Diesel Equipment Exhaust(a) 37 170 14 11 12 12 6,400 Peak Worker Commuting Exhaust(a) 37 3 4 0.1(d) .02 .02 1,440 Fugitive Dust(b) 7 0.7 Total 74 173 18 11 19 13 7,840 Percent of Rock County Annual Emissions(c) 0.2 3.0 0.2 11 0.2 0.4 0.7 (a) SHINE 2014 (b) Fugitive dust emissions (as TSP) were estimated by SHINE 2014 based on the acres that would be permanently or temporarily disturbed during construction (25 ac). To calculate PM10 and PM2.5, the NRC staff applied the decommissioning phase work schedule (25 weeks, 5 days/week, and 5 hours/day) and the expected particle size ratios for PM10/TSP, a ratio of 0.48, and PM2.5/PM10, a ratio of 0.1 (EPA 1984; MRI 2006). (c) Rock County annual emissions are shown in Table 3-5. (d) NRC staff applied emission factors from Cai et al. 2013 to worker vehicles-miles provided in SHINE 2014, 2015a to estimate SO2 emission. (e) The decommissioning phase is assumed to be 6 months. Source: SHINE 2014, 2015a The emission estimates presented in Table 4-9 did not account for emission control technologies for diesel engines or mitigative measures that can be implemented during construction activities. For instance, SHINE proposes to minimize fugitive dust emissions by watering disturbed areas and unpaved roads and by limiting speeds on unpaved site roads (SHINE 2015a). Such measures should reduce dust emissions below those presented in Table 4-9 and should prevent fugitive dust from adversely affecting highway or airport traffic. Emissions are estimated based on equipment activity presented in Table 4-8, which are bounding and conservative. Actual emissions are expected to be lower depending on the exact use of equipment. Additionally, estimated diesel-related equipment emissions are for uncontrolled emissions that do not consider emission control technologies. SHINE plans to implement techniques during decommissioning, where practical, to reduce diesel equipment emissions, such as using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels (15 parts per million sulfur maximum), deploying new equipment with emission control systems and exhaust filtration devices (diesel oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate matter filters and/or catalytic converters), performing diesel equipment inspections and necessary maintenance to ensure proposed condition of exhaust filtration devices, implementing recommended maintenance procedures, and periodic checks of diesel equipment, and minimizing the idle time of equipment, which would reduce the equipment activity presented in Table 4-9 (SHINE 2013). Furthermore, worker commuter emissions assumed a minimum 100-mi (161-km) roundtrip commute. Because the workforce could travel from all over the 50-mi (80-km) region and not necessarily have a 100-mi (161-km) roundtrip commute, this projected increase in miles traveled daily for each county is conservative. Therefore, emissions in Table 4-9 are bounding and conservative. Given that air emissions during decommissioning would be local and temporary (decommissioning phase of 6 months) and that Rock County is designated as an attainment/unclassifiable area, the NRC staff concludes that the air quality impact associated with the decommissioning phase would be SMALL. Environmental Impacts 4-17 4.2.3.2 Noise Noise emissions during decommissioning would be similar to those generated during construction. Increased noise levels would occur from increased traffic volumes on U.S. Highway 51 and from the use of construction equipment on site. A maximum of 261 worker vehicles could be on site during decommissioning (SHINE 2014). For purposes of analysis, the NRC staff assumed that all of these vehicles would travel on U.S. Highway 51 near the proposed SHINE facility during the hours when work starts and stops. Adding these to the TNM, as completed for the other phases, shows increased noise levels near U.S. Highway 51 of less than 2 dBA. Most people are unable to discern noise level differences less than about 3 dBA. The types of equipment that would be used on site during decommissioning are listed in Table 4-8; they are similar to those used during construction. Application of the Roadway Construction Noise Model by the NRC staff indicates that decommissioning activities would result in a maximum noise level of about 53 dBA at the nearest residence to the proposed site (about 0.3 mi (0.5 km) away from the site boundary). During the day, this noise level would be well below existing ambient noise levels (about 65 dBA but sometimes greater because of the airport and traffic on U.S. Highway 51) and would not be noticeable by most people. Given the minor (2-dBA) increase in noise levels caused by additional vehicle traffic and given that estimated noise levels from decommissioning activities would be bounded by existing ambient noise levels, the NRC staff concludes that offsite noise impacts from decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.3 Geologic Environment 4.3.1 Construction Construction of the proposed SHINE facility is expected to disturb approximately 41 ac (16.6 ha) of land, as detailed in Section 4.1.1.1. The property has been in active agricultural use and would likely be left fallow before the start of construction. Construction of the radiologically controlled area (RCA) of the facility would require excavation to a depth of 39 ft (12 m). Utility routings and other foundation slabs and footings would require excavation to a depth of about 5 ft (1.5 m). As the depth to bedrock is greater than 221 ft (67 m) and likely greater than 300 ft (91 m), no blasting would be required for site preparation and facility construction. Site soils may be prone to slumping in excavations (Section 3.3.2) because of textural characteristics; therefore, bracing may be required. Mineral and other geologic resources would be required to support the construction effort, including approximately 7,600 yd3 (5,800 m3) of granular road base (e.g., typically crushed aggregate (sand and gravel) as a base material); 2,200 yd3 (1,680 m3) of asphalt pavement material; and 8,500 yd3 of gravel surfacing (6,500 m3) (SHINE 2015a). These resources would be procured from local and/or regional commercial vendors. As noted in Section 3.3.1, construction aggregate is widely available throughout Rock County and the greater southeastern Wisconsin region. SHINE estimated that 27,700 yd3 (21,180 m3) of concrete would also be used for facility construction and would be obtained from offsite commercial vendors (SHINE 2015a). Consequently, no onsite concrete batch plant would be required (SHINE 2014). The mineral products that comprise concrete (i.e., Portland cement, sand, gravel, and other additives) are widely available in the region or are not otherwise limited in commercial availability. Environmental Impacts 4-18 Additionally, an estimated 74,000 yd3 (56,600 m3) of backfill would be required for emplacement around structures, along with the use of 10,000 yd3 (7,650 m3) of topsoil for miscellaneous earthwork and final surface preparation (SHINE 2015a). The backfill material would be reworked from onsite material and prepared as necessary to meet structural requirements, and the topsoil would likewise be derived from onsite soils that are temporarily stockpiled during site preparation and excavation work for later use. Construction materials are further detailed in Table 2-1, and construction activities are described in Section 2.2. Although site grading, surface compaction, excavation work, and construction-related vehicle traffic would expose site soils and sediments to wind and water erosion, adherence to standard best management practices (BMPs) for soil erosion and sediment control during facility construction would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss. Such BMPs would include the use of gravel aprons, sediment traps, sediment fencing, check dams and staked hay bales, mulching and geotextile matting, and rapid reseeding. The impacts would also be contained within the immediate project site and would be temporary in nature. SHINE has indicated that soil erosion and sediment control for ground-disturbing activities would meet or exceed the applicable regulatory requirements under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations pursuant to CWA Section 402, and applicable Wisconsin regulations (SHINE 2015a). EPA has delegated NPDES permit authority to Wisconsin for stormwater dischargers associated with construction and industrial activity. The WDNR administers its permit program under the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 151 and NR 216). Specifically, SHINE would be required to obtain and comply with the provisions of a General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff (Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013a). The permit would require SHINE to develop and implement a site-specific construction site erosion control plan, including specific BMPs or pollution control measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management). The permit also specifies that the permittee should minimize soil compaction and preserve topsoil. Pursuant to Section 401(a) of the CWA, an applicant for a Federal license or permit, which may result in a discharge into navigable waters of the United States, must provide to the Federal licensing or permitting agency the certification, or a waiver, from the State in which the discharge originates. A Federal agency cannot issue such a license or permit to an applicant until the required certification is obtained. As described above, SHINE would have to obtain and comply with a State-issued general permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. BMPs and other requirements imposed by the State-issued stormwater discharge permit would ensure that runoff during construction of the proposed facility will meet applicable State water quality standards. SHINE will need to provide the NRC a 401 certification from the State of Wisconsin, a waiver, or confirmation that a 401 certification is not applicable. Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would consume geologic resources and have the potential to increase soil erosion. However, given that the geologic resources are widely available within the region and that erosion would be managed with the implementation of BMPs, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on the geologic environment from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.3.2 Operations During facility operations, previously disturbed areas would not be subject to long-term soil erosion. Areas disturbed during construction would be within the footprint of the completed facility or overlain by other impervious surfaces, such as roadways and parking lots. Land Environmental Impacts 4-19 temporarily disturbed during construction within the site boundary and lying outside the facility footprint would be revegetated. SHINE proposes to use native vegetation in the landscaping design (SHINE 2015a). As currently proposed, implementation of a stormwater management plan for the facility site would entail the use of vegetated drainage swales to control runoff, which would be effective in reducing surface erosion and sediment transport. All production activities would be conducted within enclosed buildings, and vehicle traffic would be confined to paved surfaces (e.g., roads and parking areas) that service the facility. As a result, incremental impacts on geology and soils would be negligible during operations. The NRC staff does not expect site geologic conditions to affect the operation of the SHINE facility. The proposed site is located in a region with a low seismic hazard, as described in Section 3.3.3. The proposed facility would be sited, designed, and constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes, which provide for the evaluation of site geologic and soil conditions, including potential seismic hazards. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the operational impacts associated with the geologic environment at the proposed site would be SMALL. 4.3.3 Decommissioning Compacted site soils and underlying sediments would be disturbed by facility demolition work. The impacts on site geology and soils would be similar in scope to those described for construction. Site clearing to restore the proposed site to a reusable condition would be subject to the requirements of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013a). Before beginning to dismantle onsite structures, waste materials and contaminated media would be removed from the facilities, packaged, and properly disposed of as discussed in Section 4.9. Thus, these materials would not pose a contamination threat to site soils or underlying groundwater. Soils and other media would be sampled to determine the presence of any contamination and associated waste management requirements. All activities would be conducted in accordance with a decommissioning plan approved by the NRC, as described in Section 2.8. Consequently, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on the geologic environment from facility decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.4 Water Resources 4.4.1 Surface Water 4.4.1.1 Construction No natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, and there would be no direct impact from facility construction on natural surface-water drainages. The closest surface-water feature to the proposed construction location is an unnamed tributary to Rock River located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) southeast of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). During construction, however, stormwater runoff from construction areas could potentially affect downstream surface-water quality if not properly managed. As described in Section 4.3.1, appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs would be employed to minimize the transport of suspended sediment and other pollutants. SHINE would be required to conduct construction activities in accordance with the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). SHINE would be required to prepare a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention measures. In accordance with this permit, these measures Environmental Impacts 4-20 would be required to include proper management of all construction materials and chemicals to prevent them from being exposed to, and conveyed by, stormwater to waters of the State. The permit would explicitly require the development of spill prevention and response procedures, such as measures to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of fuels and other materials from construction equipment and activities. In accordance with common construction practices, the NRC staff expects that portable restroom facilities, serviced by a commercial vendor, would be used during site construction. As a result, there would be no sanitary wastewater discharges during construction. Section 4.9 describes the waste management impacts. No surface water or onsite groundwater would be diverted or withdrawn to support facility construction (SHINE 2015a). SHINE proposes to obtain water for construction and operations from the City of Janesville Water Utility, which uses groundwater as its supply source. Section 4.4.2.1 presents an NRC analysis of groundwater use impacts. The proposed site is not located in an area susceptible to flooding or in a delineated floodplain, as discussed in Section 3.4.1. No natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, no surface water would be diverted or withdrawn to support facility construction, and SHINE must prepare a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention measures; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface-water hydrology, quality, and use from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.4.1.2 Operations During operations, there would be no direct impact on surface-water features and no direct discharge of industrial wastewater to surface water. Stormwater would be collected and discharged from the facility property in compliance with applicable State and local permit provisions and ordinances. The Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), as described for construction, specifically requires the development of a stormwater management plan with appropriate BMPs to address runoff from buildings and other impervious surfaces. Temporary stormwater management controls, such as rip-rap-lined culverts and ditches, would first be stabilized and otherwise integrated with permanent stormwater management structural controls to provide long-term stormwater velocity attenuation, runoff, and sediment transport reduction and to prevent channel scouring (SHINE 2015a). The design, construction, and subsequent operations of the proposed SHINE facility incorporate features and structural controls to manage stormwater runoff and associated hydrologic impacts during operations. For example, the site plan for the proposed facility (Figure 2-3) minimizes impervious surfaces and infiltration and uses a system of diversion ditches and vegetated drainage swales to manage stormwater runon and runoff, instead of a traditional detention or retention pond. Specifically, the SHINE facility would be surrounded by an exterior stormwater runon diversion berm with an interior and exterior ditch system. The exterior ditch would direct stormwater and farm-field runoff to flow spreaders, which direct the excess water to the surrounding fields. The interior ditch directs excess water to the vegetated stormwater basin and swale located in the southwest corner of the facility site. Collected stormwater would then discharge from the west end of the swale through an outfall structure to the existing drainage ditch along U.S. Highway 51 with drainage ultimately flowing to the unnamed tributary to Rock River (Figures 2-3 and 3-8). This stormwater system would be designed to address the 1-year, 2-year, and 24-hour storm events per State regulations and the 10-year and 100-year events, Environmental Impacts 4-21 as required by the City of Janesville (SHINE 2015a). As discussed in Section 3.3.2, the natural soils at the proposed site are well drained and not prone to water ponding. No discharge of stormwater associated with industrial activity (i.e., where stormwater can come into contact with stockpiles, raw materials, or process areas) would occur. Nevertheless, in accordance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), stormwater discharges from the SHINE site would have to comply with the wasteload allocation established for downstream receiving waters. As described in Section 3.4.1, the segment of Rock River that would ultimately receive drainage from the SHINE facility site is impaired for total suspended solids and total phosphorous. The proposed SHINE facility is designed to have no discharge of liquid wastes from the RCA (SHINE 2015a). Sections 2.7 and 4.9 discuss the treatment and handling of waste from the RCA. Furthermore, there would be no direct discharge of industrial or process wastewater to surface waters to support SHINE facility operations. Wastewater from the SHINE facility would be conveyed to the City of Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) through a 10-in. (25-cm) sanitary sewer line extended to the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Facility wastewater would normally consist of sanitary wastewater and boiler blowdown from the facility's heated water system for building heating. In total, this wastewater would be discharged at an average rate of 5,850 gallons per day (gpd) (22,145 liters per day (Lpd)), or about 0.006 million gallons per day (mgd) (23 cubic meters (m3)/day). About once a year, an additional 10,000 gal (37,850 L) of cooling water would be flushed from the closed-loop chilled water system to the sanitary sewer. This water would contain residual water treatment chemicals added to control biological growth and scale buildup and corrosion from the chilled water system (SHINE 2013). Small quantities of maintenance and laboratory chemicals also would be discharged periodically to the facility's sanitary sewer drains. However, administrative controls would be in place to ensure that such waste streams meet the acceptance requirements of the City of Janesville WTP before they are released (SHINE 2013, 2015a). All wastewater conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP would also have to meet influent acceptance requirements for industrial users and, specifically, the prohibitions and maximum daily limits specified by the City's Wastewater Facilities and Sewer Ordinance (City of Janesville 2013; SHINE 2013). The conveyance of wastewater to the City of Janesville WTP constitutes an indirect discharge and excluded from the definition of "discharge of a pollutant" to waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2). SHINE facility operations will not require an individual NPDES permit for the discharge of wastewater to waters of the United States. Overall, the volume of this nonhazardous wastewater is very small compared to the capacity of the City of Janesville WTP. The WTP, according to City of Janesville officials, has a treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd (72,290 m3/day) with an average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd (54,900 m3/day) (NRC 2014). Finally, as much as 30,000 gal (113,600 L) of fuel oil may be stored on site in an underground storage tank to supply the facility's standby generator. This volume of oil storage requires the development and implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 112 and applicable State requirements. The SPCC Plan details requirements for oil-spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil discharges to land and surface waters (SHINE 2015a). Given that SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility operations, that a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention measures must be prepared, and that SHINE would be required to develop and implement an SPCC Plan, the NRC staff Environmental Impacts 4-22 concludes that the impacts on surface-water hydrology, quality, and use from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.4.1.3 Decommissioning No natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, and there would be no direct impacts on surface-water resources as a consequence of facility decommissioning activities. No surface water would be used during decommissioning. As previously noted in Section 4.3.3, during decommissioning, waste materials and contaminated media would be removed from the facility and packaged for proper disposal. Building demolition and related ground-disturbing activity, including the removal of the facility site's stormwater management structures, would be subject to the requirements of WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013a). BMPs, including the use of structural controls, such as sediment fencing and sediment basins, and the use of mulching, geotextile matting, and rapid reseeding of disturbed areas, would be used to prevent soil erosion and loss and downstream water-quality impacts. Soils and other media would be sampled to determine the presence of any contamination and associated waste management requirements. Thus, any such materials would not pose a contamination threat to offsite surface water or groundwater. The Wisconsin General Permit requires the development of spill prevention and response procedures, such as measures to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of fuels and other materials from equipment that would be used during building demolition and site restoration. Therefore, appropriate waste handling and stormwater pollution prevention practices and spill prevention and response procedures would be observed during decommissioning to ensure that no materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater. Given that no natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, that there would be no diversion or withdrawal of surface water during decommissioning, and that SHINE would be required to prepare a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention and spill prevention and response measures, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface-water resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.4.2 Groundwater 4.4.2.1 Construction Groundwater dewatering is not expected to be required during construction. The deepest proposed excavation for facility construction is 39 ft (12 m) (SHINE 2013a). As described in Section 3.4.2, site studies have shown the depth to groundwater to range from 50 to 65 ft (15 to 20 m) below ground surface. Further, SHINE did not identify any perched aquifers (i.e., water-bearing zones confined to locations above the site water table) or seasonally high water table conditions during site geotechnical and hydrogeologic studies (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff determined that facility construction would be unlikely to affect groundwater conditions beneath the proposed site. No groundwater supply wells would be drilled on the proposed site (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff expects that the four monitoring wells completed as part of site characterization and geotechnical studies would be maintained as environmental monitoring wells. SHINE would not use groundwater from onsite sources during construction. Instead, SHINE would obtain water from the City of Janesville Water Utility as needed for construction. Water would be required during construction for such uses as dust control and soil compaction (Table 4-10). Some potable water would also be required to meet the drinking and sanitary needs of the construction workforce during the projected 18-month construction period. Water Environmental Impacts 4-23 would also be consumed for concrete production and would likely be required for other miscellaneous uses, such as washing down equipment and work areas. The City of Janesville plans to construct a new, 16-in. (41-cm) water distribution line along the northern boundary of the site property. This distribution line would serve the properties in the vicinity of the SHINE site as well as the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would use water trucks for dust mitigation and suppression during construction, which would require 10,000 gal (37,850 L) of water per day for the first 3 months of construction (SHINE 2013). SHINE estimated total water needs for concrete mixing to be 700,000 gal (2.65 million L) (SHINE 2015a). The peak demand to meet the personal needs of the construction workforce (including preoperational testing) is estimated to be 13,530 gpd (51,233 Lpd) (SHINE 2013, 2014). Further, the NRC staff estimates that other miscellaneous uses would increase total water requirements by about 10 percent. Table 4-10. Water Requirements for SHINE Requirement Quantity (gal)(a) Quantity (L)(a) Dust Control/Soil Compaction 600,000 2,271,000 Concrete Production 700,000 2,650,000 Potable and Sanitary Uses 4,871,000 18,439,000 Washing and Miscellaneous Uses 487,000 1,843,000 Total Demand(a) 6,658,000 25,203,000 (a) Values are total requirements for the period of construction and assume 20 workdays per month for 12 months, except for potable and sanitary uses, which include an additional 6 months of preoperational testing and commissioning. Conversions are rounded. Note: To convert gallons (gal) to liters, multiply by 3.7854. To convert gal to cubic meters (m3), divide by 264.2. Source: Based on values derived or scaled from SHINE 2013b, 2014 During the course of construction and before the establishment of permanent utility connections with the newly constructed facility, the NRC staff expects that water would be trucked to the point of use at the work site or conveyed through a nearby, temporary water tap from the City of Janesville Water Utility. While water would be consumed to produce concrete, no onsite batch plant is proposed. Instead, ready-mix concrete would be delivered to the proposed site, supplied by commercial vendors. These commercial suppliers would likely be in Rock County, but SHINE could use water from purveyors other than the City of Janesville Water Utility. Moreover, in accordance with common construction practices, the NRC staff expects that portable restroom facilities, serviced by a commercial vendor, would also be used during site construction. This measure would reduce the quantity of projected water required for potable and sanitary uses by the construction workforce. The total estimated water demand for construction is approximately 6.66 million gal (25.2 million L), or a daily demand during the 18-month construction period averaging about 0.012 mgd (45 m3/day) (Table 4-10). The NRC staff considers these values to be conservative (i.e., bounding) with respect to the total water needs required for construction, based on the above assumptions. As described in Section 3.4.2, groundwater is the source of water supply for the City of Janesville Water Utility. The utility has a system capacity of approximately 32 mgd (121,100 m3/day), with current demand of approximately 10 mgd (37,900 m3/day) (City of Janesville 2013). Even if all required construction water is supplied by the City of Janesville Water Utility, the estimated demand would be a very small percentage (less than 1 percent) of both the utility system's total capacity and average, available excess capacity. Environmental Impacts 4-24 Given that SHINE would not use groundwater from onsite sources during construction and that the estimated water demand would be less than 1 percent of the City of Janesville Water Utility system's total capacity and average available excess capacity, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater hydrology, quality, and use from construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.4.2.2 Operations The NRC staff expects that routine facility operation would not have any impact on local groundwater hydrology because of the depth of groundwater and provisions for proper design and construction of the facility site's stormwater management and drainage system. SHINE has stated that all equipment and material storage areas would comply with appropriate regulations requiring secondary containment of stored liquids and materials to prevent their release where such materials could contaminate site soils or stormwater runoff, or infiltrate to contaminate groundwater (SHINE 2015a). As described in Section 4.4.1.1, SHINE would develop and implement an SPCC Plan for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. Furthermore, SHINE would not use onsite groundwater nor discharge liquid effluents to the subsurface (SHINE 2015a). Because of the nature of the facility, with all process and material storage areas located indoors, the risk to groundwater and other environmental media is low. Water would be required for potable and sanitary uses, fire protection, heating and cooling system makeup, and makeup for the radioisotope production process. This water would be supplied by the City of Janesville Water Utility (SHINE 2013a). These water needs are summarized in Table 4-11. Table 4-11. Water Requirements for SHINE Requirement Quantity (gpd)(a) Quantity (Lpd)(a) Potable and Sanitary 3,270 12,380 Facility Heating Water System 2,580 9,770 Radioisotope Production Process 223(b) 844(b) Total Daily Demand 6,073 23,005 (a) Values are average daily demand. Conversions are rounded. (b) Consumptive water use is water that is not returned to a water resource system after it is used. Note: To convert gallons per day (gpd) to liters per day (Lpd), multiply by 3.7854. To convert gal to cubic meters (m3), divide by 264.2. Source: SHINE 2013a, 2013b Potable water demand is 3,270 gpd (12,380 Lpd), and blowdown and makeup to the facility heating water system is 2,580 gpd (9,770 Lpd). Water initially would be needed to provide makeup supply to the chilled water and facility heating water system, as well as for fire protection. The largest automatic fire suppression system demand in the event of a fire is 390 gpm (1,476 Lpm). The automatic fire suppression demand would be supplied by a fire water tank (SHINE 2013a). The majority of the makeup water to the radioisotope production process would pass through a demineralizer system to control the water's chemistry. As reflected in Table 4-11, water use in the radioisotope production process is consumptive in nature, and water would either be lost to the atmosphere as vapor or incorporated into packaged waste streams from the process (SHINE 2013b). Environmental Impacts 4-25 Total water use is projected to be 6,073 gpd (22,990 Lpd), or 0.006 mgd (23 m3/day) during operations. This water requirement is a very small percentage (less than 0.03 percent) of the available capacity of the City of Janesville Water Utility (see Section 4.4.2.1) and could easily be supplied by the extension of the proposed 16-in. (41-cm) water distribution line to the facility site. Given that SHINE would not use groundwater from onsite sources, and the estimated water demand would be a very small percent (less than 0.03 percent) of the City of Janesville Water Utility's total capacity, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater hydrology, quality, and use from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.4.2.3 Decommissioning The potential decommissioning impacts on and associated mitigation measures for groundwater are similar to those described in Section 4.4.1.3 for surface water. In summary, demolition and site-restoration activities would be conducted in accordance with the Wisconsin General Permit and with appropriate BMPs. Further, waste handling and pollution prevention practices and spill prevention and response procedures would be observed during decommissioning, so that no materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater, where they could contaminate underlying groundwater. SHINE would be required to conduct necessary surveys of the soils and subsurface to comply with the NRC's radiological criteria for license termination in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The NRC staff also expects that soils and other media would be sampled to ensure that no nonradiological contamination is present. Given the depth to the water table, the NRC staff concludes that any spills of fuels or other petroleum products during facility demolition, or inadvertent release of contaminated materials, would be contained and remediated before any such material could reach the groundwater. Small quantities of water may be required for dust control and soil compaction in association with site-restoration activities. As the source of water supply in Rock County is groundwater, it would be expected that water would be trucked to the point of use or conveyed from a temporary connection from the onsite water line as decommissioning activities progress. The volume of water required would likely to be less than that required during facility construction. No onsite groundwater would be used to support decommissioning (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff anticipates that portable restroom facilities, serviced by a commercial vendor, would be used during site decommissioning to meet the needs of decommissioning personnel. Thus, there would be no onsite discharge of sanitary waste streams. Therefore, based on the stated considerations, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on groundwater resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.5 Ecological Resources 4.5.1 Construction As described in Section 4.1, construction of the proposed SHINE facility would permanently convert 25.67 ac (10.39 ha) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open space into an industrial area (Table 4-1) (SHINE 2015a). In addition, 15.16 ac. (6.14 ha) of agricultural land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking area, construction material staging or laydown area, or construction laydown areas to install a water and sewer line (SHINE 2015a). Once construction activities are complete, SHINE would restore the areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie (SHINE 2015a). Directly affected vegetation would be limited to cultivated crops and weedy species, both of which are abundant within the region and provide relatively low-quality habitat for birds and Environmental Impacts 4-26 wildlife in comparison to forests, grasslands, and wetland habitats. In addition to a loss of habitat, noise from construction activities could disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such disturbances and loss of habitat, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat (e.g., agricultural fields) within the vicinity. Once construction activities are complete, birds and wildlife could return to the area. During construction, bird collisions with construction equipment and the new facility could result in increased mortality caused by the presence of tall structures and artificial night lighting. SHINE would use tall cranes to build the facility, which, when built, would be at a height of 58 ft (18 m) (SHINE 2015a). In addition, the exhaust vent would be at a maximum height of 66 ft (20 m) (SHINE 2015a). Migratory songbirds would be most likely to collide with artificially lighted structures or cranes because of their propensity to migrate at night, their low flight altitudes, and their tendency to be trapped and disoriented by artificial light (Ogden 1996; NRC 2013a). SHINE (2013a) stated that, during construction at night, BMPs, such as light source shielding and appropriate directional lighting, would be used to mitigate impacts associated with artificial nighttime illumination. The NRC staff reviewed bird collisions with plant structures at nuclear power plants and determined that collision rates were negligible sources of bird mortality with plants that have cooling towers 100 ft (30 m) in height. The SHINE facility and construction equipment would be similar or smaller in size and height than an operating nuclear power plant; therefore, the impacts from bird collisions at the SHINE site would be bounded by the conclusions the NRC staff reached in its review of bird collisions at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers 100 ft (30 m) in height. Construction of the SHINE facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts to aquatic resources, such as habitat loss, because no aquatic resources occur on site. As described in Section 3.4, water drains off the proposed site to the south and west towards the Rock River and its tributaries. Runoff from the proposed site could affect offsite aquatic resources by increasing turbidity or introducing various chemicals or other pollutants. However, impacts to the Rock River and its tributaries are expected to be minimal because of the distance to the nearest tributary and Rock River, appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs would be employed to minimize the transport of suspended sediment and other pollutants, and SHINE would be required to develop a site-specific program to prevent pollution from stormwater runoff (see Section 4.3). Given that construction would not permanently or temporarily affect any high-quality habitats, such as grasslands, forests, or wetlands; permanently and temporarily affected habitats (agricultural fields) are abundant within the region; mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible; and no aquatic features or Federally or State-listed species occur on the SHINE site, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to ecological resources during construction would be SMALL. 4.5.2 Operations During operations, impacts to ecological resources could result from bird collisions, herbicide applications for landscape maintenance activities, elevated noise levels, and increased turbidity or introduction of pollutants from site runoff. As described above, mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, given that the tallest structure would be a stack no higher than 66 ft (20 m). Disturbance from daily activities, herbicide applications, or elevated noise levels are likely to have minimal impacts on wildlife and plant species, given that the species identified at the proposed site are generally tolerant of human disturbances because the land has been actively farmed for the past several decades. In response to any disturbances, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat (agricultural fields) Environmental Impacts 4-27 within the vicinity. In addition, SHINE would apply herbicides according to an integrated pest management plan, which would include applicable BMPs or related permit requirements. Operation of the SHINE facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts to aquatic resources, because no aquatic resources occur on site and wastewater would be conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP through a 10-in. (25-cm) sanitary sewer line extended to the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Indirect impacts during operations could include runoff that may contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or herbicides. However, as described in Section 4.3, impacts to aquatic resources are expected to be minimal because of the distance to the nearest tributary and the Rock River, a vegetated onsite detention swale would minimize stormwater runoff, and SHINE would be required to develop a site-specific program to prevent pollution from stormwater runoff. Given that mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, habitat disturbances during operations would be minimal, any disturbed wildlife could find similar habitat in the vicinity, and no aquatic features or Federally or State-listed species occur on the proposed site, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to ecological resources during operations would be SMALL. 4.5.3 Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would have impacts that are similar to the impacts that would occur during construction of the proposed facility. For example, SHINE would use construction equipment to dismantle large buildings, which could result in disturbances to wildlife and birds and potential runoff to nearby waterbodies. In addition, some land on the proposed site could be used as staging areas for the equipment and to conduct certain dismantling activities. As described above, if noise or other activities disturb birds or wildlife, similar habitat is available in nearby offsite areas. Once activities are complete, birds and wildlife could return to the area. No surface water would be used during decommissioning and impacts from runoff would be minimal, based on the distance to the nearest tributary and the Rock River, and because BMPs would be required in SHINE's stormwater permit. Therefore, impacts during decommissioning are expected to be SMALL. 4.5.4 Federally Protected Species Section 3.5 describes the special status species and habitats that have the potential to be affected by the proposed action. The discussion of species and habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., herein referred to as ESA), includes a description of the action area as defined by the ESA section 7 regulations at 50 CFR 402.02. The action area encompasses all areas that would be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. Appendix D contains information on the NRC staff's section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the proposed action. The NRC did not consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as part of the construction permit review because (as described in Sections 3.5) no species or habitats under NMFS's jurisdiction occur within the action area. In Section 3.5, the NRC staff concludes that no Federally listed species are likely to occur in the action area. The NRC staff also concludes that no candidate species, proposed species, or designated critical habitat occur in the action area. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on Federally listed species or habitats under FWS's jurisdiction. Environmental Impacts 4-28 As discussed in Section 3.5, no species or habitats under NMFS's jurisdiction occur within the action area. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on Federally listed species or habitats under NMFS's jurisdiction. As discussed in Section 3.5, NMFS has not designated essential fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; herein referred to as MSA) in the Rock River. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on EFH. 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources 4.6.1 Historic and Cultural Resources This section provides the NRC's assessment of the potential effects of the proposed undertaking on historic and cultural resources under 40 CFR 1508.8. Additionally, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility is an undertaking that could potentially affect historic properties. Historic properties are defined as resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for eligibility are listed in 36 CFR 60.4 and include (1) association with significant events in history, (2) association with the lives of persons significant in the past, (3) embodiment of distinctive characteristics of type, period, or construction, and (4) sites or places that have yielded, or are likely to yield, important information. Regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 36 CFR Part 800 outline the historic preservation review process (Section 106 of the NHPA). 4.6.2 Proposed Action In accordance with the provisions of the NHPA, the NRC is required to make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties included in, or eligible for, inclusion in the NRHP in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE for this undertaking is the 91-ac (37-ha) proposed site and its immediate environs that may be affected by construction-, operation-, and decommissioning-related land-disturbing activities. The APE may extend beyond the immediate environs in those instances where construction and postconstruction land-disturbing operations may potentially have an effect on known or proposed historic sites. This determination is made irrespective of ownership or control of the lands of interest. If historic properties are present within the APE, the NRC is required to contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), assess the potential impact, and resolve any possible adverse effects of the undertaking on historic properties. In addition, the NRC is required to notify the SHPO if historic properties would not be affected by the undertaking or if no historic properties are present. The SHPO is part of the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) in the State of Wisconsin. 4.6.3 Consultation In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), on July 1, 2013, the NRC initiated consultations on the proposed action by writing to the ACHP and WHS (NRC 2013b, 2013c). On July 31, 2013, the NRC staff visited the WHS in Madison, Wisconsin, to perform a cultural resource review of the proposed site. The NRC staff queried the Archaeological Sites Inventory and Architectural History Inventory, Burial Sites Inventory, and the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the WHS. No known historic or cultural resources or historic properties were found at the proposed Environmental Impacts 4-29 project site (NRC 2013d). In July 2015, the NRC received a determination from the WHS that no historic properties would be affected (WHS 2015) (see Appendix D). The closest historic property to the proposed site is the John and Martha Hugunin House, located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) to the northeast. The NRC staff also initiated consultation with the following 13 Federally recognized tribes on July 1, 2013 (see Appendix D for a copy of these letters) (NRC 2013e): Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, Forest County Potawatomi Community, Hannahville Indian Community, Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, Lower Sioux Indian Community, Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Prairie Island Indian Community, Santee Sioux Nation, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Spirit Lake Tribe, Upper Sioux Community, and Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. In its letters, the NRC provided information about the proposed action, defined the APE, and indicated that the NHPA review would be integrated with the NEPA process, according to 36 CFR 800.8. The NRC staff invited participation in the identification and possible decisions concerning any historic properties and also invited participation in the scoping process. The NRC staff received scoping comments from one tribe, the Forest County Potawatomi, in July 2013. The Tribe indicated that the proposed SHINE project occurs within Potawatomi ancestral land and expressed concern for any impacts to historic and cultural properties within the APE (Cook 2013). Attempts to contact representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi to discuss the undertaking are ongoing. The last attempt to contact the Forest County Potawatomi was in March 2015. 4.6.4 Impact Analysis 4.6.4.1 Construction Of the 91 ac (37 ha) comprising the APE, construction would permanently convert approximately 26 ac (10 ha) of agricultural land and open space to industrial facilities and temporarily would disturb 15 ac (6 ha) of agricultural fields, as described in Section 4.1.1. SHINE intends to make connections to the main sewage, commercial natural gas, underground electrical distribution, and municipal water lines but would not construct additional pipelines for the facility (SHINE 2013). Because there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and cultural resources located within the APE, impacts to these resources are not likely during construction. Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would have little or no visual or Environmental Impacts 4-30 aesthetic impact because potential visual impacts during construction would be temporary. The proposed SHINE facility is a low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) away and is surrounded by other residential and commercial properties. However, previously unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-disturbing activities associated with construction. In anticipation of this possibility, SHINE has developed a sitewide cultural resource management plan (CRMP) to manage and protect as-yet unidentified cultural resources. The WHS has reviewed and concurred on the CRMP (SHINE 2013). According to the CRMP, if cultural resources or materials are discovered during construction; the activity would be immediately halted; the area would be protected; the SHINE Environment, Health, and Safety (ES&H) Manager would be notified; and consultation with the WHS might be initiated. Consultation may require additional investigation and preservation plans, which would be developed by the SHINE ES&H Manager. All investigation and preservation plans would be approved by SHINE management and in consultation with the WHS. Work that uncovered potential cultural resources would not recommence without SHINE management approval. If actual or suspected human remains are unearthed during construction, construction activities would halt immediately, and the area would be protected. The procedures for uncatalogued burial sites found in Wisconsin Statute 157.70 would be followed, and local law enforcement would be contacted (SHINE 2013). Additionally, SHINE would educate its employees and contractors engaged in the construction of the proposed site in a capacity that disturbs the ground or that could result in the discovery of cultural resources on requirements of the CRMP. Actions for the special case of the discovery of human remains would be discussed in the training CRMP. Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE's CRMP procedures, and (4) cultural resource assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff, construction of the SHINE facility would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the possibility of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources caused by land disturbance during construction, the overall impact would be SMALL. 4.6.4.2 Operations Because there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and cultural resources located within the proposed SHINE facility site, impacts to these resources are not likely during operations. Operation of the proposed SHINE facility would have little or no visual or aesthetic impact on historic properties in its immediate vicinity because it is a low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is over 1 mi (1.6 km) away and is surrounded by other residential and commercial properties. However, normal maintenance and operation of the proposed facility could result in the inadvertent discovery of previously undiscovered cultural resources. SHINE would continue to follow the procedures specified in its CRMP to manage and protect any such cultural resources for the entire period of facility operation (SHINE 2013). Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE's commitment to follow CRMP procedures throughout the period of facility operation, and (4) cultural resource assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff, operation of the proposed SHINE facility would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the possibility of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources occurring as a result of normal maintenance and operational activities, the overall impact would be SMALL. 4.6.4.3 Decommissioning Because there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and cultural resources located within the proposed SHINE facility site, impacts to these resources Environmental Impacts 4-31 would not be expected during decommissioning. However, similar to construction, previously unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-moving activities associated with decommissioning. Activities during decommissioning would involve the use of heavy equipment and land-disturbing activities to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities within the APE. Land use for the APE after decommissioning is undetermined at this time, but it may be returned to agricultural lands or open space (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would continue to follow the procedures specified in its CRMP to manage and protect previously unidentified cultural resources for the entire period of facility decommissioning (SHINE 2013). Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE's commitment to follow CRMP procedures throughout the period of facility decommissioning, and (4) cultural resource assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff, decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the possibility of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources caused by land disturbance during decommissioning, the overall impact would be SMALL. 4.7 Socioeconomic Impacts The SHINE medical radioisotope production facility and the people and communities surrounding it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The facility needs people, goods, and services from the communities to operate, and the communities, in turn, provide the people, goods, and services to run the facility. Facility employees residing in the community receive income from the plant in the form of wages, salaries, and benefits. Employees and their families, in turn, spend this income on goods and services within the community, thereby creating additional opportunities for employment and income. In addition, people and businesses in the community receive income for the goods and services sold to the facility. Payments for these goods and services create additional employment and income opportunities in the community. The measure of a community's ability to support the operational demands of a facility that stores, generates, or uses nuclear materials depends on its ability to respond to changing socioeconomic conditions. The analysis presented in this section considers four socioeconomic impact areas: (1) employment; (2) housing, recreation, and tourism; (3) tax revenue; and (4) community services and education. For the purposes of this analysis, the ROI is Rock County, Wisconsin, and the City of Janesville. 4.7.1 Construction 4.7.1.1 Employment An estimated 451 workers would be needed to construct the proposed SHINE facility during peak construction (SHINE 2014). Table 4-12 compares construction worker occupations with available labor in the ROI by occupation, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in May 2012. Based on this information, a number of construction workers (56 percent) currently reside within the ROI with shortages in most labor categories. The remaining labor needed from outside the ROI would be expected to commute from adjacent counties and communities. In addition, Blackhawk Technical College, located in Environmental Impacts 4-32 the City of Janesville, offers several technical diplomas to students, which could provide an additional labor resource. However, the total number of jobs generated during construction would represent less than 2 percent of the available labor force reported for both the City of Janesville and Rock County in 2012 (Table 3-13); therefore, employment impacts would be SMALL. 4.7.1.2 Housing, Recreation, and Tourism SHINE estimates 451 workers would be needed during peak construction (SHINE 2014). The percentage of construction workers needed represents less than 1 percent of Rock County's total population of approximately 160,000 (USCB 2010). As discussed in Section 4.7.1.1, the majority of construction workers already reside within the ROI. Any additional construction workers likely would commute from other nearby counties and would not likely relocate to the ROI. This would result in little, if any, increased demand for temporary housing, recreation, and tourism. Any construction workers from outside of the immediate commuting area relocating to the ROI would find available housing in the City of Janesville and Rock County. Because few, if any, construction workers would relocate to the ROI, housing, recreation, and tourism impacts would be SMALL. 4.7.1.3 Tax Revenues The estimated total construction costs expected to be spent in the local community would be approximately $20 to $30 million for labor, electrical equipment, cabling, and concrete, spread over the construction period (SHINE 2013b). As most of the plant equipment is highly specialized, very little of it would be purchased and taxed locally (SHINE 2013, 2015a). SHINE intends to enter into a TIF agreement with the City of Janesville during the first 10 years of the proposed project, covering the entirety of the construction period. The TIF agreement would allow SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes to the City of Janesville. SHINE's estimated payments would total $600,000 per year and would be used to offset the infrastructure expenses for the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would also pay property taxes estimated to be $35,000 per year, based on the assessed property before improvements during this 10-year period (SHINE 2015a). As the proposed SHINE facility would be located in the Janesville School District, schools within the district would receive additional property tax revenue. In addition, there would be an increase in sales tax revenues within the ROI, generated when nonspecialized supplies would be purchased during construction or from workers paying for commercial services within the ROI. However, the total amount of taxes collected within the ROI during the period of construction would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of the City of Janesville and Rock County, even if the entire $635,000 were applied to one taxing jurisdiction; in 2012, the City of Janesville's tax revenue was approximately $35.4 million, whereas Rock County's was $71.5 million (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the tax revenue impacts during construction would be SMALL. Table 4-12. Comparison of SHINE Work Force Estimates by Occupation with Employment by Occupation in ROI Occupation SHINE Peak Workers(a) Available Labor Force in ROI(b) Additional Labor Needed from Outside ROI(c) Construction Boilermaker 26 5 21 Carpenter 48 72 0 Electrician 59 38 21 Ironworker 54 10 44 Environmental Impacts 4-33 Occupation SHINE Peak Workers(a) Available Labor Force in ROI(b) Additional Labor Needed from Outside ROI(c) Laborer(d) 75 68 7 Equipment Operator/Eng.(e) 28 26 2 Plumber/Pipefitter(f) 75 14 61 Sheet Metal Worker 32 16 16 Construction Supervisor(g) 22 32 0 Other 32 6 26 Total 451 287 198 Operation Operation Support(h) 40 34 6 Productions/Operations 37 11 26 Tech Support(i) 40 259 0 Other 33 3 30 Total 150 307 62 Decommissioning Carpenter 20 72 0 Ironworker 20 4 16 Laborer(d) 100 68 32 Equipment Operator/Eng.(e) 20 26 0 Plumber/Pipefitter(f) 30 14 16 Radiation Technicians 30 6 24 Other 41 0 41 Total 261 190 129 (a) Peak month estimated need of labor categories for which need is greater than or equal to 20. (b) Estimated available construction and decommissioning labor force based on 20 percent of BLS-estimated work force in Rock County. Available operational labor force based on 10 percent of BLS-estimated labor force. (c) Additional labor determined by subtracting available labor estimates from SHINE peak worker estimates. (d) Laborer is listed as a Construction Laborer. (e) Equipment Operator/Eng. is listed as Operating Engineers and Other Construction Equipment Operators. (f) Plumber/Pipefitter is listed as Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters. (g) Construction Supervisor is listed as First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers. (h) Operation Support is listed as First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers. (i) Tech Support is listed as Industrial Machinery Mechanics. Source: SHINE 2013a, 2014; BLS 2012 4.7.1.4 Community Services and Education There would be little or no increase in population in the ROI during construction because most of the construction workers already reside in the ROI. These workers would continue to use existing community services and educational facilities. These community services should also be able to handle any temporary increases in demand for services from the small number of additional workers during construction. Therefore, the impact of this increased demand on community services and education during construction would be SMALL. 4.7.1.5 Summary of Construction Impacts The availability of construction workers and housing within the ROI and the short duration of construction (18 months) would minimize any socioeconomic impacts within the ROI. The Environmental Impacts 4-34 creation of 451 jobs would help maintain construction employment and generate property and sales tax revenue, but any changes would be minimal. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.7.2 Operations 4.7.2.1 Employment Approximately 150 jobs would be added to the local economy during SHINE facility operations (SHINE 2014, 2015a). In Table 4-12, SHINE facility operations worker occupations were compared with available labor in the ROI by occupation, as reported by the BLS in May 2012. Based on this information, some specialized workers would be recruited from outside the ROI. The total number of jobs generated during SHINE facility operation represents less than 1 percent of the available labor force in Janesville and Rock County in 2012 (Table 3-13), therefore, employment impacts would be SMALL. 4.7.2.2 Housing, Recreation, and Tourism SHINE estimates that 150 workers would be needed during operations (SHINE 2015a). The percentage of operation workers needed represents less than 1 percent of Rock County's total population of approximately 160,000 in 2010 (USCB 2010). As shown in Table 4-12, Janesville has occupational labor available to perform most of the operational tasks. Additionally, Blackhawk Technical College, located in Janesville, offers several technical diplomas to students who could provide additional labor. However, some specialized workers would likely relocate to the ROI to support SHINE facility operations. Because of the long-term nature of SHINE facility operations, workers relocating to the ROI would likely purchase or rent permanent housing. Any operations workers moving to the ROI would find available housing in Janesville and Rock County. Because few, if any, operations workers would relocate to the ROI, housing, recreation, and tourism impacts would be SMALL. 4.7.2.3 Tax Revenues As discussed in Section 4.7.1.3, SHINE intends to enter into a TIF agreement with Janesville, allowing SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes during the first 10 years of the project. The payments are estimated to total $600,000 per year and would be used to offset the infrastructure expenses for the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE also would pay property taxes estimated to be $35,000 per year based on the assessed property before improvements during this 10-year period. Additionally, when the 10-year TIF agreement with Janesville expires, SHINE expects to pay annual property taxes of approximately $660,000 during the remaining period of operation of the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). As the proposed SHINE facility would be located in the Janesville School District, schools within the district would receive additional property tax revenue. In addition, there would be an increase in sales tax and property tax revenues within the ROI, generated by SHINE facility operations workers in the ROI. However, the total amount of taxes collected within the ROI during operations would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Janesville and Rock County, even if the entire $660,000 tax payment were applied to one taxing jurisdiction; in 2012, Janesville's tax revenue was approximately $35.4 million, whereas Rock County's was $71.5 million (WDOR 2014). Therefore, tax revenue impacts during operations would be SMALL. 4.7.2.4 Community Services and Education As discussed in Section 4.7.2.2, there would be little or no increase in population during SHINE facility operations because most of the operations workers would already reside within the ROI. These workers would continue to use existing community services and educational facilities. These community services should be able to handle any increase in demand for services from Environmental Impacts 4-35 the small number of new operations workers and their families. Therefore, the impact of this increased demand on community services and education during SHINE facility operations would be SMALL. 4.7.2.5 Summary of Operation Impacts The availability of operations workers and housing within the ROI and the small number of specialty workers relocating from outside of the ROI, would minimize any socioeconomic impacts. The creation of 150 jobs would help maintain existing employment and generate property and sales tax revenue, but any changes would be minimal. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.7.3 Decommissioning 4.7.3.1 Employment An estimated 261 workers would be needed to decommission the SHINE facility during peak activity (SHINE 2015a). In Table 4-12, decommissioning worker occupations were compared with Janesville employment by occupation, as reported by the BLS in May 2012. Based on this information, a number of workers currently reside within the ROI. In addition, some operations workers may be kept on to support decommissioning. Some specialized workers may have to be recruited from outside the ROI. The total number of jobs generated during decommissioning would represent less than 1 percent of the available labor force reported for both Janesville and Rock County in 2012 (Table 3-13); therefore, employment impacts would be SMALL. 4.7.3.2 Housing, Recreation, and Tourism SHINE estimated that decommissioning would require a maximum of 261 workers (SHINE 2015a). However, as previously discussed, some operations workers may be kept on to support decommissioning, thereby reducing the need for new hires. As demonstrated in Table 4-12, Janesville and Rock County have workers available to support decommissioning. In addition, Blackhawk Technical College, located in Janesville, offers several technical diplomas to students who would provide additional labor, if needed, and some specialized labor may be needed from outside the ROI. Any additional decommissioning workers would likely commute from other nearby counties and would not likely relocate to the ROI. This factor would result in little, if any, increased demand for temporary housing, recreation, and tourism. Any decommissioning workers from outside the immediate commuting area relocating to the ROI would find available housing in Janesville and Rock County. Because few, if any, decommissioning workers would relocate to the ROI, housing, recreation, and tourism impacts would be SMALL. 4.7.3.3 Tax Revenues SHINE would continue to pay property taxes during decommissioning. The assessed property taxes that would be collected after the completion of the proposed SHINE facility would be based on the property tax rates at the time. Revenue loss would directly affect Rock County and other local taxing districts and communities closest to, and most reliant on, the facility's tax revenue. However, the loss in tax revenue should be small in comparison to the established tax base of Janesville and Rock County. Therefore, tax revenue impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.7.3.4 Community Services and Education Any temporary increase in population during decommissioning would be small relative to the projected population of Janesville and Rock County. Community services currently available in Janesville and Rock County should be able to handle any temporary increases in demand for Environmental Impacts 4-36 services during decommissioning. Therefore, the impact of this potential increased demand on community services and education during decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.7.3.5 Summary of Decommissioning Impacts The availability of decommissioning workers and housing within the ROI and the short duration of decommissioning (6 months) would minimize any socioeconomic impacts within the ROI. Decommissioning activities would temporarily stimulate the local economy with purchasing activity and tax contributions, and SHINE would continue to pay property taxes during decommissioning. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.8 Human Health This section provides the NRC's assessment of the potential radiological and nonradiological effects from the proposed SHINE facility. Radioactive and nonradioactive materials would routinely be used at the proposed SHINE facility. The NRC and State of Wisconsin regulations would control the use and discharge of these materials to protect facility workers and members of the public. Radiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility would include offsite doses to members of the public and onsite doses to facility workers. The NRC has the authority to issue, inspect, and enforce radiation protection standards that provide an adequate level of protection for workers, members of the public, and the environment. The NRC has multiple layers of radiation safety standards to ensure that radioactive material is adequately controlled. The NRC's radiation safety requirements appear in 10 CFR Part 20. Specifically, 10 CFR 20.1301(a) limits the annual dose to members of the public from a licensed facility, such as that proposed by SHINE, to 100 millirem (mrem) (0.1 millisievert (mSv)). In addition, 10 CFR 20.1101(d) imposes a constraint of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) on air emissions to ensure that the dose to members of the public is as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Nonradiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility to workers and members of the public would be regulated by the State of Wisconsin in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (SHINE 2013). 4.8.1 Construction 4.8.1.1 Radiological During construction and pre-operational testing of the facility and equipment commissioning, SHINE would have radioactive material onsite (SHINE 2015b). The possession and use of the radioactive material would require SHINE to obtain an NRC license (e.g., 10 CFR Part 30) before receiving the radioactive material. To obtain a license, the NRC staff would conduct a thorough independent review of SHINE's application for the radioactive material to ensure the material is used in accordance with NRC regulations and there is adequate protection of the workers and the public. The radioactive material brought onsite would not be used for any radioisotope production-related activities. SHINE does not expect any radioactive waste to be generated during construction or pre-operational testing of the facility (SHINE 2015b). Access controls for the construction site would ensure that only authorized personnel would be at the site (SHINE 2015a). Assuming the NRC staff determines SHINE has adequate controls in place to ensure that the dose to workers and the public is within the dose limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to workers and the public would be SMALL. Environmental Impacts 4-37 4.8.1.2 Nonradiological Members of the public would not have access to the construction site. As discussed in Section 4.2 of this document, the NRC expects air pollutants from worker vehicles and fossil-fueled equipment (e.g., excavation and earth-moving equipment and electric generators), but the impact to the public would be SMALL because the effects would not be noticeable. Construction workers would encounter potential hazards typical of any industrial construction site. As discussed in Section 3.8, workplace hazards can be grouped into physical hazards (e.g., slips and trips; falls from height; and those related to transportation, temperature, humidity, and electricity); physical agents (e.g., noise and vibration); petrochemicals; and psychosocial issues (e.g., work-related stress). SHINE would employ normal construction safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, such as safety training, safety equipment, and supervision of the work force to promote worker safety and reduce the likelihood of worker injury during construction (SHINE 2015a). However, construction accidents could occur. Over the projected 12-month period when construction activities would occur, the average number of workers at the site would be 248 with a peak of 451 (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff notes that this 12-month period does not include the 6-month preoperational period because preoperational activities would not including building and other activities that are applicable for construction accidents. The NRC staff used data from BLS for nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses to calculate the potential number of reportable cases at the proposed SHINE construction site based on the average number of workers. The DOL data for 2012 showed that nearly 3.0 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses were reported by private industry employers, resulting in an incidence rate of 3.4 cases per 100 equivalent full-time workers (DOL 2013). Conservatively assuming an average number of 248 workers during the construction period, the NRC staff estimates that there would be 8.4 recordable cases during the 12 months of construction. With the use of normal construction safety practices at the proposed SHINE construction site, the NRC staff concludes that the average number of recordable cases would be consistent with the DOL data. During construction, SHINE would store nonradioactive chemical sources on site in liquid; gaseous; and solid forms, including fuels, oils, and solvents necessary for site preparation and construction. SHINE does not plan to use any products or processes that emit hazardous air pollutants (SHINE 2015a). Toxic chemicals stored or used at the construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code (SHINE 2013). Given that access to the site would be restricted, that SHINE would implement normal construction safety practices contained in OSHA regulations, and that toxic chemicals stored or used at the construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to human health during construction would be SMALL. 4.8.2 Operations 4.8.2.1 Radiological As part of normal operation of the proposed SHINE facility, radioactive material (e.g., nuclear fuel, radioisotopes, and radioactive waste) would be used, produced, handled, stored, released as gaseous effluents into the environment, and transported off site for use in medical procedures or as waste products for disposal (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Environmental Impacts 4-38 As discussed in Section 2.7 of this document, radioactive gaseous effluents containing krypton, xenon, iodine, and tritium would be released into the environment. The NRC staff expects radioactive gaseous effluents to be the only contributor to a radiation dose to members of the public because no radioactive liquid effluents would be released (Section 2.7). Radioactive liquid wastes would be solidified and shipped off site for disposal. SHINE designed the buildings containing radioactive material with shielding to minimize direct radiation outside the facility. Given this shielding, SHINE projected negligible direct radiation at the site boundary (SHINE 2013, 2015a). SHINE estimates that the maximum dose to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous effluents in the offsite environment would be approximately 9.0 mrem (0.9 mSv) (SHINE 2015c). This dose is well below the annual dose limit of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) and is below the ALARA requirements in 10 CFR 20.1101(d) that impose a constraint of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) on the annual dose from radioactive gaseous effluents. SHINE plans to maintain radiation exposure to facility workers to within the occupational dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1201. As discussed in Section 2.7 of this document, radiation exposure within the proposed facility would be minimized using shielding, shielded hot cells, shielded transport containers, access control to radiation areas, ventilation, filters, training, protective clothing, and administrative controls. In addition, SHINE would operate the proposed facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements (SHINE 2015a). As described above, the maximum dose to a member of the public would be within the annual dose limits of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) in 10 CFR 20.1301 (SHINE 2013a). Further, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from operation of the SHINE facility. This independent evaluation will be documented in the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER). If the NRC staff determines in its SER that the maximum dose to workers and the public is within the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential radiological exposures would be SMALL. In addition, the design of the facility incorporates measures to minimize radiation exposure to workers and members of the public by limiting the release of radioactive gaseous effluents, and that SHINE would operate the proposed facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. 4.8.2.2 Nonradiological The proposed SHINE facility would be designed with engineering controls (e.g., shields, double-valves, ventilation system, glove boxes, fume hoods, safety switches, and safe-storage facilities) to minimize the exposure of workers to chemicals (SHINE 2013, 2015c). SHINE would have a Chemical Hygiene Plan to minimize chemical exposure to its workforce. The Chemical Hygiene Plan would incorporate mechanisms for maintaining a safe working environment and would be based on OSHA requirements, industry standards, and the experience of the managerial staff. General areas within the proposed facility and laboratory spaces would be kept clean and orderly. SHINE would store hazardous material (e.g., acids, bases, oxidizers, gases, and pyrophoric metals) in appropriate safety containers and cabinets (SHINE 2013). SHINE would designate a Chemical Hygiene Officer, whose main responsibilities would be to oversee the effective implementation of the Chemical Hygiene Plan. The Chemical Hygiene Officer would coordinate with the Radiation Safety Officer because some chemicals would be used in the radiological areas of the proposed facility. Coordination would help ensure the effectiveness of the overall safety culture at the proposed SHINE facility. In addition to Environmental Impacts 4-39 supervision and oversight of facility operations, SHINE would implement an extensive training program that would emphasize workplace safety (SHINE 2013). In addition to supervision and training, the Chemical Hygiene Plan would describe requirements for protective equipment commensurate with the hazards. These requirements would range from a description of appropriate clothing for workers (e.g., no shorts or open-toed shoes in the facility or the laboratory) to protective equipment (e.g., gloves, safety glasses, and laboratory coats). For more potentially hazardous operations, such as target solution preparation, which involves the handling of acids, workers would be required to use face shields, aprons, and heavy nitrile gloves (SHINE 2013b). As discussed in Sections 2.7, 4.2, and 4.4, nonradioactive pollutants may be present in wastewater and air emissions released into the environment during normal operations. Solid nonradioactive wastes would also be generated. After initial use, SHINE expects the majority of chemicals to be either reused, released into the environment, or shipped off site as waste (SHINE 2015a). Given that SHINE would manage and minimize worker hazards by complying with OSHA and State of Wisconsin regulations and by using multiple planned features (e.g., facility design, Chemical Hygiene Plan, supervision, training, and protective equipment), the NRC staff concludes that impacts to workers and members of the public during routine facility operations would be SMALL. 4.8.3 Decommissioning 4.8.3.1 Radiological The majority of the impacts associated with facility operations would cease with shutdown of the medical radioisotope production process; however, some impacts would remain unchanged, whereas others would continue at reduced or altered levels. Ancillary systems that were used solely to support radioisotope production would cease operations completely; however, because of residual radioactivity in the systems, impacts from their physical presence could continue as long as they remain at the facility (SHINE 2013a). Terminating the medical radioisotope production operations would result in the cessation of actions necessary to maintain the TSV system, neutron generator, and processing vessels in an operable status. In addition, SHINE expects a reduction in the workforce directly supporting the radioisotope production operations. Termination of the medical radioisotope production operations does not automatically mean that immediate decontamination and dismantlement of the facility would occur. After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and associated processing equipment would be made inoperable and maintained in a safe condition (SHINE 2013a). SHINE would store the uranium fuel and other radioactive materials in a safe condition until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. Facility workers would continue to receive radiation exposure during work activities relating to the cleanup, movement, storage, and disposal of radioactive material. The radiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this document would be used to maintain radiation dose to levels that are ALARA. With the termination of radioisotope production, radioactive gaseous effluents released into the environment from operations would effectively stop. However, low levels of residual radioactive material that remain in the radioactive waste treatment systems may be released as effluents into the environment during the decommissioning process or sent to a low-level waste disposal facility. Environmental Impacts 4-40 During decommissioning activities, workers and members of the public would continue to be exposed to negligible or low levels of radioactive material within the facility and from radioactive gaseous effluents resulting from decommissioning activities involving the dismantlement and decontamination of equipment and systems and the handling, packaging, and transportation of radioactive waste to a disposal facility. The NRC's radiation protection standards and dose limits for workers and members of the public during decommissioning are the same as those for the operating facility. The NRC would terminate the license if the decommissioning were performed in accordance with the facility's approved decommissioning plan and if the termination radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrated that the facility and site were suitable for release in accordance with the criteria in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. Based on the expected reduced levels of radioactive material in the facility and the radiological controls expected to be used to ensure compliance with radiation protection standards, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to workers and members of the public from the decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility and site would be SMALL. 4.8.3.2 Nonradiological Nonradiological health impacts on the public and workers from decommissioning and demolition activities would be similar to construction activities. Decommissioning and demolition activities would involve the use of heavy construction and demolition equipment and the transport of new and waste materials and personnel to and from the site. The public and workers could be exposed to dust and vehicle exhaust and noise. Workers could also experience occupational injuries. Nonradiological hazards would also be associated with emissions, discharges, and waste from processes within the facility and from accidental spills and releases. SHINE would manage nonradioactive wastes generated by decommissioning the SHINE facility, including solid wastes, liquid wastes, discharges, and air emissions, in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and with applicable permit requirements discussed in Section 2.7. As discussed in Section 4.2 of this document, the NRC staff determined that air pollutants from worker vehicles and fossil-fueled equipment (e.g., demolition, excavation, and earth-moving equipment and electric generators) would have a SMALL impact on air quality. In addition, SHINE's access controls would help ensure that only authorized personnel would come on site. Given that SHINE would prohibit members of the public from accessing the site during decommissioning and that SHINE would manage nonradioactive wastes generated by decommissioning the SHINE facility in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and with applicable permit requirements, the NRC staff expects decommissioning activities to result in minimal human health impact to members of the public. Decommissioning and demolition workers would encounter potential hazards typical of any industrial construction and demolition site. As discussed in Section 3.8, workplace hazards can be grouped into physical hazards (e.g., slips and trips; falls from height; and those related to transportation, temperature, humidity, and electricity); physical agents (e.g., noise and vibration); chemicals; and psychosocial issues (e.g., work-related stress). SHINE would implement normal construction safety practices contained in OSHA regulations, such as safety training, safety equipment, and supervision of the work force, to promote worker safety and reduce the likelihood of worker injury during decommissioning. However, decommissioning accidents could occur. Over the projected 6-month decommissioning period, SHINE estimated a peak of 261 workers at the site (SHINE 2014). The NRC staff used data from the DOL BLS for nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses to calculate the potential number of reportable cases at the proposed SHINE construction site based on the average number of workers. The Environmental Impacts 4-41 DOL data for 2012 show that private industry employers reported nearly 3.0 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses, resulting in an incidence rate of 3.4 cases per 100 equivalent full-time workers (DOL 2013). Conservatively assuming the peak number of 261 workers during the decommissioning period, the NRC staff estimates that there would be 4.4 recordable cases of nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses during the 6-month decommissioning period. The NRC staff expects that SHINE would use the best available practices, such as proper planning, workplace design, and engineering controls, supplemented by the use of personal protective equipment and administrative controls, to protect workers. With the use of normal construction safety practices at the proposed SHINE decommissioning site, the NRC staff concludes that the average number of recordable cases during decommissioning would be consistent with the DOL data. During decommissioning, nonradioactive chemical sources would be stored or used on site in liquid; gaseous; and solid forms, including fuels, oils, and solvents. SHINE does not plan to use any products or processes that emit hazardous air pollutants. Toxic chemicals stored or used at the construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Given that access to the site would be restricted, that SHINE would implement normal safety practices contained in OSHA regulations, and that toxic chemicals stored or used at the construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to human health during decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.9 Waste Management 4.9.1 Radioactive Waste As described in Section 2.7, operation of the proposed SHINE facility would include the temporary storage and generation of radioactive waste. NRC regulations require that radioactive material within the facility and radioactive effluents released into the environment meet radiation protection dose-based limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20. NRC regulations also require occupational and public exposure to radioactive material be ALARA, as required by 10 CFR 20.1101(b). In addition, the State of Wisconsin is an NRC Agreement State and has its own set of radiation protection regulations with authority to regulate certain radioactive byproduct materials. Wisconsin's rules on radiation protection are contained in the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code DHS 157. Radiation protection standards help to ensure the safety of facility workers and members of the public from operation of the radioisotope production facility. SHINE would implement waste management systems to control, handle, process, store, and transport the types and quantities of radioactive waste expected to be generated by the medical radioisotope production process. For example, SHINE would use radioactive waste management systems, shielding, procedures, protective clothing, and training to control and process radioactive wastes within and outside the facility to ensure public and occupational safety (SHINE 2013, 2015a). As discussed in Section 2.7.1, the radioactive liquid and gaseous wastes would be processed (i.e., temporary storage to allow for radioactive decay) to reduce the levels of radioactive material in the waste. SHINE would solidify some liquid wastes before disposal on site. For example, it would solidify evaporator bottoms and spent ion-exchange column media from the target solution cleanup system. Waste from proprietary processes may be solidified in a hot cell using Portland cement before shipment and disposal (SHINE 2015a). Environmental Impacts 4-42 After SHINE treats, solidifies, and packages liquid radioactive waste, it would be temporarily stored on site only long enough for radioactive decay before offsite disposal shipment and for efficient frequency of disposal shipments (SHINE 2015a). Class A waste would be shipped approximately annually to the EnergySolutions disposal site. No liquid radioactive effluents would be released into the environment. SHINE would use high-efficiency particulate filters and carbon bed filters to treat gaseous radioactive effluents to reduce their radioactivity before they are released through a vent stack in the Production Facility Building (SHINE 2015a). SHINE expects the gaseous radioactive effluents released into the environment to contain measurable quantities of noble gases (i.e., xenon and krypton), radioactive iodine, and tritium (see Section 2.7). The vent stack would have a radiation monitor that would continuously monitor the gaseous effluents to ensure that the effluents are within design parameters and regulatory limits. SHINE would be able to collect samples of the gaseous effluent in the vent stack to perform a detailed analysis of the specific types, concentrations, and quantities of the radionuclides in the gaseous effluents (SHINE 2015a). The proposed SHINE facility design would incorporate features to minimize radioactive contamination of the facility and radioactive effluent releases into the environment. The design would use engineered features, such as shielding, berms, sumps, and drain collection systems with leak detection; ventilation systems with filters; hot cells; glove boxes; shielded transport containers; and protective coatings on floors and walls. Other protection measures for the facility workers include the following: training, protective clothing and equipment, and procedures. Additionally, administrative measures would be used to minimize the movement of contaminated materials out of the facility's RCA and to limit the introduction of unnecessary materials into the RCA that may become contaminated and require disposal as low-level waste (SHINE 2013, 2015a). The waste management systems and engineering designs features would help ensure that the dose to facility workers and members of the public are within the NRC's dose limits and are reduced to levels that are ALARA in accordance with NRC regulations. Further, SHINE would implement procedures to ensure proper operation of the waste systems. Therefore, the NRC staff determined that the waste management systems would be expected to ensure that the radioactive wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance with the regulatory requirements of the NRC, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the State of Wisconsin. A provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) states that DOE would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE) does not have access to a disposal path. For example, if a disposal pathway for greater than Class C waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its disposal. Based on SHINE's proposed waste management systems; engineered designs features to minimize radioactive contamination; and because SHINE would operate within the NRC's, DOT's, and State of Wisconsin's radiation protection requirements, the NRC staff concludes that radioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulatory requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. Environmental Impacts 4-43 4.9.2 Nonradioactive Waste As discussed in Section 2.7, SHINE would acquire, use, and store solid and liquid nonradioactive waste. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste regulations govern the disposal of solid and hazardous waste. RCRA, Subtitle C, establishes a system for controlling hazardous waste, and RCRA, Subtitle D, encourages states to develop comprehensive plans to manage nonhazardous solid waste and mandates minimum technological standards for municipal solid waste landfills. In the State of Wisconsin, EPA has delegated the primary responsibility for implementing RCRA regulations to the State of Wisconsin. For example, Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500. SHINE would implement waste management systems to control, handle, process, store, and transport nonradioactive waste generated during construction, operations, and decommissioning (SHINE 2015a). As described in Section 2.7, SHINE's nonradioactive waste management program is based on a pollution prevention and waste minimization framework. The design of the SHINE facility would also incorporate features to minimize the release of fuel, chemicals, or other nonradioactive materials into the environment (SHINE 2013). Additionally, during operations, SHINE would contain chemicals within closed systems, use the chemicals in controlled processes, and treat chemicals through filters and scrubbers (SHINE 2013, 2015a). (See Section 4.9.2 for additional discussion on nonradioactive gaseous effluents.) The NRC staff expects that the waste management systems would ensure that the nonradioactive wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance with the regulatory requirements of DOT and the State of Wisconsin. Nonhazardous waste would be temporarily stored on site before being transported to a local disposal or recycling facility (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff determined that adequate storage capacity occurs within the facility to accommodate the waste generated and stored between shipments to offsite disposal facilities. Based on SHINE's proposed waste management systems, processes to minimize chemical contamination, and because SHINE would operate within DOT and the State of Wisconsin's nonradiological requirements, the NRC staff concludes that nonradioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 4.10 Transportation 4.10.1 Construction Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would require an average of 420 deliveries per month (14 deliveries per day) and 9 offsite waste shipments per month using heavy vehicles (dump trucks, delivery trucks) (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during construction would add an estimated 451 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff assumed that, with a total of 465 vehicles per day, each having an arrival and departure trip, and with some vehicles making return trips during the day (e.g., off site for lunch), vehicle counts immediately adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility may increase by approximately 1,000 trips per day. Although offsite sources of construction materials, including concrete, have not been specified and routes for delivery of these materials have not been designated, SHINE plans to ensure that Environmental Impacts 4-44 delivery routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas (SHINE 2013). SHINE and the common carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC regulations (10 CFR Parts 20, 40, and 71), the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326, "Transportation," and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure public health and safety on roadways. Table 3-21 indicates that U.S. Highway 51 experiences approximately 9,000 vehicles per day adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility. Although available traffic counts do not distinguish between types of vehicles currently traveling this route, the addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips per day) from construction activities at the proposed SHINE facility would result in an increased traffic volume on U.S. Highway 51 of approximately 11 percent, and the percentage of heavy vehicles on this route would also increase. SHINE's traffic analysis indicated that construction-related traffic would contribute to minor delays during peak-hour traffic at intersections along U.S. Highway 51 in the vicinity of proposed SHINE facility, but not to a degree that would require modifications to the transportation infrastructure (SHINE 2015a). Because traffic to and from the proposed SHINE facility would use both U.S. Highway 51 northbound and southbound routes, the site access point at U.S. Highway 51 would experience the greatest impact on current traffic with impacts decreasing further from the proposed SHINE facility. During construction, SHINE plans to use a staggered work shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013). Based on the overall increase in average daily traffic flow and construction-related truck traffic, the NRC staff concludes that traffic impacts in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. These impacts likely would be temporary and of short duration, and would abate as construction activities wind down. Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the construction phase would be MODERATE. 4.10.2 Operations During operations at the proposed SHINE facility, an estimated maximum of 150 worker vehicles per day would access the site over three work shifts (SHINE 2014, 2015a). In its Environmental Report (ER), SHINE assumed that 75 percent of site-related traffic would come from and go to the north, and 25 percent would come from and go to the south (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff estimated that each vehicle would make separate trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility, plus a number of trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility during the midshift, resulting in approximately 325 additional worker vehicle trips daily. In addition to operations employees commuting to the proposed SHINE facility, SHINE estimates traffic to and from the proposed facility would also include the following: (1) an average of 36 truck deliveries per month to the proposed SHINE facility, which would include both radioactive and nonradioactive materials (SHINE 2015a, 2015b); (2) an average of 39 outbound medical isotope product shipments per month through the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport (SHINE 2015b); (3) an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year (SHINE 2015b); and (4) an average of one shipment per month of nonradioactive domestic and industrial waste (SHINE 2015a, 2015b). SHINE's preferred method of product shipments would be to transport products by truck from the proposed SHINE facility to the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, approximately 0.5 mi Environmental Impacts 4-45 (0.8 km) away, for air transport to customers. These shipments would result in an estimated 1 percent increase in flight operations at the airport. In the event that the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport is unavailable, product shipments would be transported by truck to the nearest secondary airport (SHINE 2015a). SHINE's traffic analysis indicates that a "slight degradation of service" (i.e., traffic delays) would occur at the intersection of westbound State Trunk Highway 11 onto southbound U.S. Highway 51 during the morning peak hour (SHINE 2015a). This impact could be mitigated by optimizing the signal timing for this turning movement, which would improve the level of service to its existing level (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility to increase slightly during the operation phase, but it would not be appreciable when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility, as discussed in Section 3.9.1. As described above and in Section 2.7, SHINE would transport radioactive waste from the proposed SHINE site to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal facility. A common carrier truck would transport the waste. SHINE and the common carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC regulations (10 CFR Parts 20, 40, and 71), the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326, "Transportation"), and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure public health and safety on roadways. Because of the relatively small increase in traffic as compared to the average daily and annual traffic flows near the proposed SHINE site and because SHINE and common carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material, impacts on transportation would generally be SMALL. However, because the additional traffic attributable to SHINE worker vehicles would result in morning peak-hour traffic delays sufficient to reduce the existing level of service (traffic flow) at a key intersection near the SHINE facility, impacts could temporarily be MODERATE. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impact on transportation infrastructure during operations would range from SMALL to MODERATE. 4.10.3 Decommissioning Decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would require an average of 72 truck deliveries and 191 offsite waste shipments per month (a total of approximately 9 heavy-vehicle shipments per day) (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during decommissioning would add an estimated 261 vehicles per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff estimates that there could be an increase of approximately 580 trips a day on local roads during the decommissioning phase, thereby increasing the average daily traffic on roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility from traffic during the operation phase. SHINE assumed that traffic in support of decommissioning, including employee commutes, would be similar to the initial construction phase with the following three exceptions: (1) Production equipment brought to the proposed SHINE facility as clean material and later contaminated from operations would be packaged and transported as radioactive waste. Thus, the ratio of radioactive to nonradioactive shipments would likely be greater than those in the construction phase. As described above, SHINE and common carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material. Environmental Impacts 4-46 (2) Facility upgrades and expansions that would be implemented during the operational life of the proposed SHINE facility and not accounted for under initial construction would add to the ultimate decommissioning waste volume. (3) Size reduction of facilities and process components during decommissioning, such as the compacting of pre-assembled filter plenums and air ducts to minimize waste packaging void space, could reduce the overall volume of both contaminated and noncontaminated wastes generated and shipped for disposal under decommissioning. SHINE could use a staggered work shift schedule, similar to construction, to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013). However, the change in average daily traffic flows in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility and the increase in commuter, truck delivery, and waste traffic directly related to decommissioning could noticeably affect local commuting patterns. Because traffic to and from the proposed SHINE facility would use both U.S. Highway 51 northbound and southbound routes, the site access point at U.S. Highway 51 would experience the greatest impact to current traffic with impacts decreasing further from the proposed SHINE facility. Based on the overall increase in average daily traffic flow and decommissioning-related truck traffic, the NRC staff concludes that traffic impacts in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. These impacts likely would be temporary and of short duration, and would abate as decommissioning activities wind down. Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the decommissioning phase would be MODERATE. 4.11 Accidents This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with potential radiological and hazardous chemical accidents that might occur at the proposed SHINE facility. The information contained in this section comes from the SHINE ER (SHINE 2015a). In addition to this EIS, the NRC staff will perform an independent verification of the potential accident scenarios and associated consequences at the proposed SHINE facility in its SER. The SER is part of the regulatory process used by the NRC to decide whether to issue a construction permit and operating license for the proposed SHINE facility. The term "accident," as used in this section, refers to any off-normal event that releases radioactive or hazardous chemicals into the environment that may affect facility workers and members of the public. The accidents described in this section are associated with the medical radioisotope production process. Potential initiating events and credible operational accidents for the proposed SHINE facility constitute the design-basis accidents (DBAs). For example, SHINE considered a small aircraft collision as a credible DBA scenario. The maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) goes beyond the credible DBA scenarios and represents the bounding case accident (SHINE 2015a). This EIS uses the impacts from the MHA as the basis for the significance determination of the environmental impact from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE classified accidents into two categories: those that are nuclear or involve radiation and those related to handling and storage of hazardous chemicals. The list below includes potential hazards associated with the operation of the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). Environmental Impacts 4-47 (1) Nuclear or Radioactive Material. The types of accidents involving nuclear or radioactive material include the following: criticality accidents associated with handling and storage of fissile source material; criticality accidents associated with fissile solution mixing and TSV or dump tank operation; and radiation doses exceeding regulatory limits to facility workers accidents from the following: irradiated fissile solution and fission/decay (dissolved and gaseous), accelerator/moderator neutron production, and radioactive waste handling and storage (SHINE 2013a). (2) Hazardous Chemicals. The types of accidents involving hazardous chemicals include explosion or fire accidents associated with radiolytic gas generation, collection, or recombination and include the following: hazardous chemical vessel or tank failure accidents caused by natural catastrophic events that result in leaks or spills, hazardous chemical reactivity (heat or pressure) accidents in a vessel or tank exceeding the equipment design that result in a leak or spill, and human-error accidents occurring during hazardous chemical handling that result in a spill inside or outside the buildings (SHINE 2013a). 4.11.1 Maximum Hypothetical Accident This section discusses the potential offsite radiological consequences of the MHA and controls to prevent or mitigate the potential consequences. The results of the analysis are compared to the NRC public dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301. The MHA is a conservative evaluation and represents the bounding consequences for potential DBAs at the proposed SHINE facility. The MHA is an event that could result in radiological consequences exceeding those of any credible accident. It is a bounding calculation on the radiological consequences of postulated DBAs at the proposed SHINE facility. The MHA is based on events unique to the design of the proposed SHINE facility that hypothetically could release radioactive materials into the environment. The proposed SHINE facility would have two major operation facilities involving radioactive and hazardous chemical materials: the irradiation facility and the radioisotope production facility (Chapter 2) (SHINE 2015a). Under normal operating conditions, processes in both of these areas would be of generally low energy (i.e., subcritical and low-heat generation). SHINE designed the facility to withstand credible external events, such as tornadoes and earthquakes, without causing an accident (SHINE 2015a). An internal accident that releases the largest hypothetical quantity of radioactive material would be the initiating event that results in the maximum bounding radiological consequence or MHA (SHINE 2015a). The irradiation facility and radioisotope production facility are designed to function as two physically separated, independent areas within the facility. Although the irradiation facility and radioisotope production facility have interconnected processes and systems, they are physically separated by concrete walls. Additional safety features include shielding, redundant isolation Environmental Impacts 4-48 valves, ventilation systems, and penetration seals that reduce the likelihood that an accident in one area would affect the other area (SHINE 2013a). The SHINE irradiation and radioisotope production facilities are designed to withstand external events, such as tornadoes, maximum expected seismic events, and manmade external events. SHINE states that scenarios involving multiple irradiation units are not credible because there is no initiating event that could produce a breach of more than one irradiation unit (SHINE 2015a). SHINE states that one credible MHA initiating event, a rupture or leakage of the TSV, or TSV dump tank, would affect only one irradiation unit cell. This event would result in a complete release of the target solution and fission product inventory into one irradiation unit cell. Under a worse-case condition, this MHA assumes that the 5.5-day irradiation cycle has just been completed and that decay time has not begun. By design, this event would be confined to the interior of the irradiation unit cell. The calculated radionuclide inventory released from the TSV to the irradiation unit cell would represent the bounding source term for any postulated accident in the irradiation facility (SHINE 2015a). SHINE states that the radiation effects of this MHA would be mitigated by several controlling mechanisms, including confinement provided by the irradiation unit cell's exterior walls; confinement by the RCA ventilation system; radiation monitoring; shielding of the pipe penetrations; and the collection of gas, vapor, or particulates by the TSV off-gas system (SHINE 2015a). Another potential MHA initiating event scenario evaluated by SHINE is a release of the radioactive material inventory held in the noble gas removal system storage tanks when they are at their maximum storage level. By design, this event would be confined to the noble gas storage tank room, located in the radioisotope production facility. The calculated radionuclide inventory released from the noble gas removal system storage tanks represents the bounding source term for any other postulated MHA in the radioisotope production facility. The radiation effects of this MHA in the radioisotope production facility would be mitigated by the walls in the noble gas removal room and isolated by RCA Ventilation Zone 1 (RVZ1) and RCA Ventilation Zone 2 (RVZ2) (SHINE 2015a). SHINE's evaluation of the radioactive material inventory for these two potential MHAs is based on a set of initial conditions that maximize the potential source terms and bound DBA scenarios (SHINE 2015a). SHINE calculated the potential dose to an offsite member of the public for the potential MHAs as follows: (1) A rupture or leakage of the TSV or TSV dump tank scenario would result in a total effective dose equivalent of 16.5 mrem (0.16 mSv) at the site boundary and 2.30 mrem (0.023 mSv) at the nearest residence. (2) A release of the inventory stored in the noble gas removal system storage tanks would result in a total effective dose equivalent of 82.0 mrem (0.82 mSv) at the site boundary and 11.5 mrem (0.11 mSv) at the nearest residence (SHINE 2015b). SHINE has proposed to provide safety-related structures, systems, and components (as defined in the SHINE Preliminary Safety Analysis Report) that would prevent the initiation of accidents or mitigate their consequences (SHINE 2015a). These safety-related structures, systems, and components include the systems described above (i.e., the irradiation unit cell confinement, radiation monitoring system, ventilation system, pipe penetration shields, TSV off-gas system, noble gas removal system walls, RVZ1, RVZ2, secure chemical containers, and other safety-related structures, systems, and components). The NRC staff is conducting a thorough Environmental Impacts 4-49 independent review of these safety-related structures, systems, and components, which it will document in its SER. The NRC staff will determine whether the safety-related structures, systems, and components will be designed, implemented, and maintained to ensure that they are available and reliable to perform their preventive or mitigative functions when needed so that the likelihood of serious consequences is small. If the staff determines, in its SER, that SHINE has met all of the NRC regulatory requirements described above, the likelihood of accidents would be reliably controlled. The calculated doses for the MHA at the proposed SHINE facility would be within the annual dose limits of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) in 10 CFR 20.1301 to a member of the public (SHINE 2015a). Further, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from the MHA. This independent evaluation will be documented in the NRC staff's SER. If the NRC staff determines in its SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential radiological accidents would be SMALL. 4.11.2 Hazardous Chemical Accidents In its ER, SHINE evaluated the consequence of hazardous chemical releases from its proposed facility using dispersion models and/or computer codes that are consistent with methodologies contained in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook (NUREG/CR-6410) (NRC 1998). SHINE used a combination of ALOHA (Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres) code (EPA/NOAA 2013) and EPIcode (Homann Associates, Inc., 2007) computer programs to model chemical releases and to determine the chemical concentration (SHINE 2015a). These codes are widely used to support accident analysis and emergency response evaluations by Government agencies, such as EPA and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). SHINE verified and validated both codes for modeling chemical hazards at the proposed SHINE facility. ALOHA is only able to model about half of the chemicals that would be used at the proposed SHINE facility; therefore, SHINE used the EPIcode to model other chemical dose calculations. SHINE stated that both computer codes give comparable results for the hazardous chemicals they have in common and both implement release and dispersion models that are consistent with the guidance in NUREG/CR-6410. For validation, SHINE used ALOHA to check some of the output values from the EPIcode (SHINE 2015a). In its analysis, SHINE assumed the release of all chemical materials and did not take a reduction credit for the deposition of chemicals within the facility or during transport to the site boundary or the nearest population location. All dispersion calculations were made assuming neutral meteorological conditions and a 4.1-m-per-second (m/s) wind speed. The chemical concentrations reported in Table 4-13 are in units of parts per million (ppm) and milligram per cubic meter (mg/m3). These represent 50th percentile meteorological conditions at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). Ambient temperature was assumed to be 75 °F (24 °C), no deposition of airborne material was assumed, and a receptor height of 1.5 m (4.9 ft) was used to simulate the height of an individual (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). Concentrations produced by the model runs are for plume centerline values. Chemical releases were conservatively modeled at ground level and in the centerline of the plume (SHINE 2015a). SHINE determined the chemical concentrations for nonpropriety hazardous chemicals in the proposed facility inventory. The concentrations were calculated for the maximum offsite individual (MOI) at the site boundary and the nearest residence, 249 m (817 ft) and 788 m (2,585 ft), respectively (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). In its ER, SHINE summarizes the results of the source term and calculated concentrations for the nonpropriety chemicals that would be used at the proposed facility. The NRC staff provides this information in Table 4-13. The material at risk (MAR) category represents the inventory of hazardous material that is available for release Environmental Impacts 4-50 from the postulated accident scenario. The MAR for most of the chemicals represents the amount of material in storage. In some cases, the MAR represents the total facility inventory. For other chemicals, a reduction factor has been applied to account for the total inventory that is not available for release because the material is being stored in separate storage locations, or to account for normal industrial chemicals not interacting with licensed materials or affecting the safety of licensed materials (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). SHINE selected the chemicals for evaluation based on the combination of anticipated bounding facility inventory amounts and toxicity characteristics. As its acceptance criteria, SHINE used the criteria in NUREG/CR-6410, which correspond to Protective Action Criteria (PAC) (DOE 2012a) and which are explained later in this section. The PAC values correspond to Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) in EPA guidance (EPA 2012b), Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) (AIHA 2012), or Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits (TEEL) (DOE 2008) values for the chemicals (SHINE 2015a). Table 4-13. SHINE Hazardous Chemical Source Terms and Concentrations Hazardous Chemical/ Release Mechanism MAR (lb) Source Term(a) (lb) PAC-1 PAC-2 PAC-3 Site Boundary (249 m) Concentration Nearest Residence (788 m) Concentration Nitric Acid, 12 M, associated w/licensed materials (Evaporating liquid) 721 721 0.53 ppm 24 ppm 92 ppm 0.090 ppm 0.012 ppm Sulfuric Acid (Evaporating liquid) 7,770 7,770 0.20 mg/m3 8.7 mg/m3 160 mg/m3 4.7x10-7 mg/m3 6.3x10-8 mg/m3 Calcium Hydroxide (Dispersed solid) 3,182 3.182 15 mg/m3 240 mg/m3 1,500 mg/m3 0.16 mg/m3 0.020 mg/m3 Caustic Soda (Dispersed solid) 1,488 1.488 0.5 mg/m3 5 mg/m3 50 mg/m3 0.073 mg/m3 0.010 mg/m3 Ammonium Hydroxide (Dispersed solid) 59 0.059 61 ppm 330 ppm 2,300 ppm 2.0x10-3 ppm 2.6x10-4 ppm Dodecane associated with licensed material (Evaporating liquid) 304 304 0.0028 ppm 0.031 ppm 7.9 ppm 4.4x10-4 ppm 5.9x10-5 ppm Potassium Permanganate (Dispersed solid) 66 0.066 8.6 mg/m3 14 mg/m3 78 mg/m3 3.3x10-3 mg/m3 4.2x10-4 mg/m3 Tributyl Phosphate (Dispersed solid) 333 0.333 0.6 mg/m3 3.5 mg/m3 125 mg/m3 1.5x10-3 mg/m3 2.0x10-4 mg/m3 Uranyl Nitrate (Dispersed solid- likely in solution) 480 0.480 0.99 mg/m3 5.5 mg/m3 33 mg/m3 0.024 mg/m3 3.1x10-3 mg/m3 Environmental Impacts 4-51 Hazardous Chemical/ Release Mechanism MAR (lb) Source Term(a) (lb) PAC-1 PAC-2 PAC-3 Site Boundary (249 m) Concentration Nearest Residence (788 m) Concentration (a) The source term value has been reduced from the inventory value based on a reduction factor to account for the amount of material available for release into the environment. Source: SHINE 2015a, 2015d Emergency exposure limits are essential components of planning for the uncontrolled release of hazardous chemicals. These limits, combined with estimates of exposure, provide the information necessary to identify and evaluate accidents for the purpose of taking appropriate protective actions. During an emergency response to an uncontrolled release, these limits may be used to evaluate the severity of the event, to identify potential outcomes, and to decide what protective actions should be taken. In anticipation of an uncontrolled release, these limits may also be used to estimate the consequences of an uncontrolled release and to plan emergency responses (DOE 2008). SHINE's analysis indicates that the chemical dose or concentration for the MOI and the nearest residence for the worst-case analysis is below the PAC-1, PAC-2, and PAC-3 levels (equivalent to ERPG-2 and ERPG-3) for all the listed hazardous chemicals. These concentrations are conservatively calculated (i.e., they overestimate the potential consequences of the hazardous chemical release) and are based on the conservative assumption that the liquid hazardous chemicals would be instantaneously released and evaporating over a duration calculated by EPICode. If an accident were to occur, SHINE states that this amount of fluid evaporation would take longer than 1 hour, which would have the effect of reducing the hazardous chemical concentrations at the site boundary and to the nearest resident (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). PAC (AEGLs and ERPGs) are defined below. The AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours. Three levelsAEGL-1, AEGL-2, and AEGL-3are used for each of five exposures periods (10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 4 hours, and 8 hours) and are distinguished by varying degrees of severity of toxic effects. DOE guidance that SHINE followed states that the 1-hour AEGL values should be used to assess the potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous chemicals. The three AEGLs are defined as follows: (1) AEGL-1 is the airborne concentration (expressed in ppm or milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort; irritation; or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects. However, these effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure. (2) AEGL-2 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting, and adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape. (3) AEGL-3 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience life-threatening adverse health effects or death. The three ERPGs are defined as follows: Environmental Impacts 4-52 (1) ERPG-1 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or perceiving a clearly defined objectionable odor. (2) ERPG-2 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms that could impair their abilities to take protective action. (3) ERPG-3 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing life-threatening health effects. SHINE's analysis shows that, for the hazardous chemicals listed in Table 4-13, the concentrations to the MOI and the nearest residence would be below the PAC-1, PAC-2, and PAC-3 levels (equivalent to ERPG-1, ERPG-2, and ERPG-3), except for nitric acid, which exceeds the PAC-1 level for the MOI. For nitric acid, the MOI could be exposed to a concentration above the PAC-1 level (equivalent to ERPG-1) but below the PAC-2 level (equivalent to ERPG-2). ERPG-1 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or perceiving a clearly defined objectionable odor. Exposure below the PAC-2 level (equivalent to ERPG-2) would not likely result in experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects of symptoms that could impair an individual's ability to take protection action (i.e., seek shelter or evacuate to a location further away from the proposed SHINE facility). The NRC staff concludes that the impacts to the MOI from the potential uncontrolled release of hazardous chemicals under accident conditions from the proposed SHINE facility may include mild transient adverse health effects but would not include serious irreversible health effects. Further, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the health impacts to the public from a chemical accident. The NRC will document the independent evaluation in its SER. If the NRC staff determines in the SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 70.61 and if SHINE meets all the performance requirements in 10 CFR 70.61, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential chemical accidents would be SMALL. 4.12 Environmental Justice This section describes the potential human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on minority and low-income populations living near the proposed site. The NRC strives to identify and consider environmental justice issues in agency licensing and regulatory actions primarily by fulfilling its NEPA responsibilities for these actions. Under Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629), Federal agencies are responsible for identifying and addressing, as appropriate, potential disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. In 2004, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states that "[t]he Commission is committed to the general goals set forth in EO 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of its NEPA review process." The CEQ provides the following definitions to consider when conducting environmental justice reviews within the framework of NEPA in Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997): Environmental Impacts 4-53 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. Adverse health effects are measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer fatalities, as well as other fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. A disproportionately high environmental impact that is significant (as employed by NEPA) refers to an impact or risk of an impact on the natural or physical environment in a low-income or minority community that appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts. An adverse environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both harmful and significant (as employed by NEPA). In assessing cultural and aesthetic environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian tribes are considered. The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations that could result from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. In assessing the impacts, the following definitions of minority individuals and populations and low-income population were used (CEQ 1997): Minority individuals. Individuals who identify themselves as members of the following population groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races-meaning individuals who identified themselves on a Census form as being a member of two or more races (e.g., Hispanic and Asian). Minority populations. Minority populations are identified when the minority population of an affected area exceeds 50 percent or the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. Low-income population. Low-income populations in an affected area are identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the [U.S.] Census Bureau's Current Population Reports, Series P60, on Income and Poverty. Methodology for Assessing Environmental Justice Impacts The NRC normally addresses environmental justice issues and concerns by first identifying potentially affected minority and low-income populations and then determining whether there would be any potential human health or environmental effects and whether these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse. Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to impacts or risks of impacts on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income community that are significant and that appreciably Environmental Impacts 4-54 exceed the environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Consistent with the Commission's Policy Statement (69 FR 52040), affected populations are defined as minority and low-income populations who reside within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility site. Data on minority and low-income populations are usually collected and analyzed at the Census tract or Census block group level. The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) compiles demographic information at the Census tract and block group levels in small geographic areas. A Census tract is a small area that is a statistical subdivision of a county or statistically equivalent entity. A block group is a statistical subdivision of a Census tract. A Census block is the smallest geographic entity for which the USCB collects and tabulates data. Minority population data were available for Census block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius around the proposed site. Low-income population data were only available at the Census tract level because of the limited availability of poverty data at the block group level. To protect confidentiality, USCB does not publish information about small geographic areas if the population size is too small. The NRC staff used race and ethnicity and poverty Census data to identify the location of minority and low-income populations near the proposed site. If the Census tract and block group boundaries crossed the 5-mi (8-km) radius boundary, the entire Census tract or Census block group data were used. Geographic information system software was used to create the maps. Minority Population According to the 2010 Census, approximately 12 percent of the City of Janesville population (which includes more than one Census tract and block group) identified themselves as minority. In Rock County, approximately 15 percent of the population identified themselves as minority (UCSB 2014a). Within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park, 12.5 percent of the population identified themselves as minority individuals (Table 4-14) (UCSB 2014a). The largest minority group was Hispanic or Latino (of any race) at 6 percent, followed by Black or African American at 3 percent (USCB 2014a). Figure 4-2 shows minority population block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility site. Census block groups were considered minority population block groups if the percentage of the minority population within any block group exceeded 12.5 percent. Eleven of the 25 Census block groups were found to have meaningfully greater minority populations. The proposed SHINE facility site is located in Census Tract 14, Block Group 3, with a minority population of 17.6 percent. This block group is considered a minority population block group because it has a greater percentage of minority people than that in the 5-mi (8-km) radius. Environmental Impacts 4-55 Figure 4-2. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site in Janesville Source: Modified from UCSB 2014a Environmental Impacts 4-56 Table 4-14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site in Janesville Census Tract Block Group Total Population(a) Percent Minority Total Minority Population(a) Hispanic or Latino Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Two or More Races 2 3 1,206 12.4 150 74 31 5 13 0 27 3 1 863 23.8 205 100 65 3 14 0 23 3 2 1,079 30.2 326 147 82 7 54 0 36 3 3 763 19.7 150 45 32 3 55 0 15 4 4 1,060 21.4 227 153 19 4 31 0 20 10 1 1,534 12.6 193 100 41 10 16 0 26 10 2 1,745 14.9 260 196 28 5 11 0 20 11 1 1,610 7.1 115 48 28 2 17 0 20 11 2 779 9.1 71 30 10 1 12 1 17 11 3 1,128 19.9 225 107 78 1 9 0 30 11 4 1,021 6.5 66 30 9 3 6 0 18 11 5 941 16.7 157 108 26 2 11 0 10 12.01 2 1,515 4.8 72 39 17 1 4 0 11 12.01 3 2,728 4.9 135 48 11 11 22 1 42 13.02 3 972 7.7 75 26 33 0 9 0 7 13.02 4 609 2.6 16 7 3 0 0 0 6 14 1 574 4.7 27 6 6 3 7 0 5 14 2 1,287 15.5 200 136 49 3 1 0 11 14 3 1,224 17.6 215 133 38 4 20 3 17 14 4 2,725 7.4 203 112 42 6 15 0 28 22 2 1,186 6.2 73 24 13 7 5 0 24 24 1 1,641 10.0 164 53 60 1 29 0 21 24 2 1,168 10.1 118 59 38 2 10 0 9 26.01 1 1,637 28.2 461 180 230 1 19 0 31 26.02 1 1,648 11.0 182 74 65 1 28 0 14 (a) Total population includes all minority and nonminority groups. Source: USCB 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table P9, Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race Environmental Impacts 4-57 Low-Income Population According to 2006-2010 American Community Survey estimates, an average of 10.7 percent of families and 14.3 percent of all people residing in Rock County were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold. In addition, the City of Janesville had an average of 11.4 percent of families and 14.8 percent of all people identified as living below the Federal poverty level. The 2010 Federal poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four (USCB 2014b). Table 4-15 lists low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility site; 13.5 percent of the total population within that radius was identified as living below the Federal poverty level (USCB 2014b). Census tracts were considered low-income population Census tracts if the percentage of individuals living below the Federal poverty threshold exceeded 13.5 percent. Figure 4-3 shows low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility site. Four of the 11 Census tracts were found to have meaningfully greater low-income populations. These Census tracts are concentrated north of the proposed SHINE facility site near the City of Janesville. The existing industrial park and proposed SHINE facility site are located in Census Tract 14 with an estimated 11.2 percent of its population living below the poverty level (USCB 2014b). Figure 4-3. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville Source: Modified from UCSB 2014b Environmental Impacts 4-58 Table 4-15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville Census Tract Census Tract Total Populations Number of People Below Poverty Level for Census Tract Percentage Below Poverty Level for All People (Estimated) 3 2,955 1,489 50.4 4 3,207 824 25.7 10 3,022 453 15.0 11 5,625 793 14.1 12.01 5,378 231 4.3 13.02 7,178 516 7.2 14 5,917 662 11.2 22 2,521 274 10.9 24 3,678 305 8.3 26.01 5,808 679 11.7 26.02 3,599 388 10.8 Sources: USCB 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics; USCB 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B01003 Total Population (USCB 2014b) Impact Analysis As previously discussed, the environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. Some of these potential effects have been described in the other resource areas discussed in this EIS. Chapter 4 presents the assessment of environmental and human health impacts for each environmental resource area. In the impact analysis, the NRC first identified all potential human health and environmental effects and then determined the significance of the impact and whether or not minority or low-income populations would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. The NRC then considered whether the radiological or other health effects were significant or above generally accepted norms, whether the risk or rate of hazard was significant and appreciably in excess of the general population, and whether the radiological or other health effects would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards. The NRC determined whether the following human health and environmental effects have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living near the proposed SHINE facility site: (1) radiological human health impacts (Sections 4.8.1.1, 4.8.2.1, and 4.8.3.1); (2) nonradiological human health impacts (Sections 4.8.1.2, 4.8.2.2, and 4.8.3.2); (3) noise impacts (Section 4.2.2.2); and (4) traffic impacts (Section 4.10.2). The NRC also considered whether there would be an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly and adversely affects a particular group, whether there would be any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or (are) likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population, and whether environment effects would occur in Environmental Impacts 4-59 populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from an environmental hazard. Construction Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental effects during construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities (Section 4.2). Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic. However, because of the temporary nature of construction, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited time period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of construction workers and the likelihood that most of them would already reside within the ROI (Rock County), workers would likely commute to the construction site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing. Operations Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations during SHINE facility operations would mostly consist of radiological and nonradiological human health and environmental (e.g., noise and traffic) effects. Everyone living near the existing industrial park and proposed SHINE facility site would be exposed to the same potential operational effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change from current environmental conditions. As discussed in Section 4.8.2.1 of this EIS, the level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory limits. As a result, minority or low-income populations and the general population living near the proposed SHINE facility site would not be adversely affected by radiation exposure during facility operations. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are also expected to be within regulatory standards (Section 4.2.2.1). As discussed in the Section 4.2.2.2 of this EIS, noise emissions during SHINE facility operations would occur because of increased commuter traffic on U.S. Highway 51. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE facility buildings at the site. However, additional noise emissions caused by worker vehicles would be minor (1 dBA), and noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels beyond current airport operations across the street. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic during facility operations. However, as discussed in Section 4.10.2 of this EIS, the only appreciable impact would be a "slight degradation of service" (i.e., traffic delays) at the intersection of westbound SH 11 onto southbound U.S. Highway 51 during the morning peak hour (SHINE 2013a). The overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility would increase slightly during facility operations but would not be of an appreciable nature when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility as discussed in Section 3.9.1. Therefore, offsite noise and traffic impacts caused by the proposed SHINE facility operations would be SMALL for both these resource areas. Based on this information, neither minority nor low-income populations, nor the general population living near the proposed SHINE facility site, would be adversely affected by noise and traffic during facility operations. Environmental Impacts 4-60 Decommissioning Similar to construction impacts, potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects during decommissioning (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during the decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities (Section 4.2). Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust during decommissioning. However, because of the temporary nature of decommissioning, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited time period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for rental housing during decommissioning could cause rental costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of decommissioning workers and the likelihood that most of them would already reside within the ROI, workers would likely commute to the site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing. In addition, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL for all resource areas. There is no evidence that impacts from decommissioning would be disproportionately high and adverse on minority or low-income populations. Subsistence and Special Conditions The special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the environmental justice analysis because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area, such as migrant workers or Native Americans. Section 4-4 of EO 12898 directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and appropriate, to collect, maintain, and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations that rely principally on fish or wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these consumption patterns to the public. In this EIS, the NRC considered whether there were any means for minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by examining impacts to American Indians, Hispanics, migrant workers, and others with traditional lifestyle special pathway receptors. Based on the air- and water-quality discussions and the discussion of human health effects in this EIS, the NRC finds it unlikely that there would be any disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, and wildlife. Thus, the operation of the SHINE facility would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on these populations. Summary Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the proposed site could be affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicle traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations would not adversely affect minority and low-income populations living near the proposed SHINE facility site. The level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income populations residing near the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park would not experience disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects from the proposed action. Environmental Impacts 4-61 4.13 Cumulative Impacts The NRC staff considered potential cumulative impacts in the environmental analysis of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the potential SHINE facility. Cumulative impacts may result when the environmental effects associated with the proposed action are overlaid or added to temporary or permanent effects associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. An impact that may be SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE cumulative impact when considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it contributes to, or accelerates, the overall resource decline. For the purposes of this cumulative analysis, past actions are those before the receipt of the SHINE application. Present actions are those related to the resources at the time of construction of the SHINE facility, and future actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of operation and decommissioning. The geographic area over which past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would occur depends on the type of action considered and is described below for each resource area. To evaluate cumulative impacts, the incremental impacts of the proposed action, as described in Sections 4.1 to 4.12, are combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. The NRC staff used the information provided in the ER; responses to requests for additional information; information from other Federal, State, and local agencies; scoping comments; and information gathered during the visits to the potential SHINE facility site to identify other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Table 4-16 identifies recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic extent of analysis. To be considered in the cumulative analysis, the NRC staff determined whether the project would occur within the noted geographic areas of interest and within the noted timeframes, whether it was reasonably foreseeable, and whether there would be potential overlapping effects with the proposed project. For past actions, consideration within the cumulative impacts assessment is resource- and project-specific. In general, the effects of past actions are included in the description of the affected environment in Chapter 3, which serves as the baseline for the cumulative impacts analysis. However, past actions that continue to have an overlapping effect on a resource potentially affected by the proposed action are considered in the cumulative analysis. Table 4-16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Project Name Summary of Project Location Status Energy Projects Alliant Energy Generation Facility Existing power generation facility 3.2 mi (5.1 km) south of site Existing operating facility, stack visible in site viewshed (WDNR 2013b) Industrial Parks and Manufacturing Facilities NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes Medical radioisotope facility 7.7 mi (12 km) south of site Construction began in 2014 (NorthStar 2014) Environmental Impacts 4-62 Project Name Summary of Project Location Status TIF District No. 35 Two parcels zoned for industrial use as a TIF district The first parcel is just north of the site. The second parcel includes the site. Approved by City of Janesville (City of Janesville 2012); potential construction of a large distribution center in late 2015, with operations beginning in 2016 (NRC 2013f, 2015a) TIF District No. 34 Area that encompasses the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport 1.0 mi (1.6 km) southwest of site Approved by City of Janesville (City of Janesville 2009); no reasonably foreseeable projects other than SHINE (NRC 2013f, 2015a, 2015b) United Ethanol Facility upgrades at an ethanol production plant 11 mi (18 km) northeast of site Existing operation with new construction permitted to start in 2014 (WDNR 2014) Medical Facilities Mercy Clinic South Medical services facility 1.8 mi (2.9 km) north of site Operational (Mercy Health System 2014a) Mercy Hospital Medical services facility 4.4 mi (7.1 km) north of site Operational (Mercy Health System 2014b) Other Projects/Actions Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport Public airport 1.0 mi (1.6 km) southwest of site Operational; ongoing improvements through 2015 (SWRA 2012) Glen Erin Golf Course 7,000-yd public golf course 1.6 mi (2.6 km) southwest of site Operational (Wisconsin Golf Courses 2013) 4.13.1 Land Use and Visual Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 3.1 serves as baseline conditions for the land use and visual resources cumulative impact assessment. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.1. 4.13.1.1 Land Use Resources The projects and activities described in Table 4-16 would result in minimal changes to existing land uses because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas currently zoned for industrial use. For example, in 2012, the City of Janesville approved a new industrial park within TIF District No. 35 (City of Janesville 2012). The proposed SHINE facility is part of this larger development project. TIF District No. 35 has been zoned for light industrial use and is "shovel ready" for future development. As of August 2015, a large distribution center has expressed interest in a plot of land in TIF District No. 35. If TIF District No. 35 were to be selected as the preferred site, the distribution center would be constructed and operated on a 124 ac (9.7 ha) parcel of land (NRC 2015). Given that TIF District No. 35 is currently zoned for light industrial use, any new development within this area would be compatible with current land use plans and zoning requirements. Environmental Impacts 4-63 Future urbanization and global climate change could contribute to additional decreases in agricultural lands, forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Urbanization in the vicinity of the proposed site would alter important attributes of land use. Urbanization would reduce natural vegetation and agricultural fields, resulting in an overall decline in the extent and connectivity of wetlands, forests, grasslands, and wildlife habitat. Global climate change could reduce crop yields and livestock productivity (USGCRP 2014), which may change portions of agricultural land uses. However, existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas. In addition, zoning laws and comprehensive land use plans would help ensure a proper balance of development (Rock County 2009). Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) and its implementing regulations, the presence of important farmland soils (7 CFR 657.5), including prime farmland, was included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Development projects listed in Table 4-16 would incrementally and cumulatively add to the loss of important farmland soils, including prime farmland soils, in the region surrounding the proposed site and across Rock County. With respect to the build-outs of TIF District Nos. 34 and 35, the City of Janesville has committed the districts to developed nonfarming uses. Otherwise qualifying farm lands in or already committed to urban development; lands acquired for a project on or before August 4, 1984; and lands acquired or used by a Federal agency for national defense purposes are exempt from Farmland Protection Policy Act provisions (7 CFR 658.2 and 658.3). Because the proposed TIF Districts Nos. 34 and 35 have been committed to development, the sites do not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial use, cumulative land use impacts would be SMALL. 4.13.1.2 Visual Resources The projects and activities described in Table 4-16 would result in minimal changes to the existing viewshed because most new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial use. Furthermore, the viewshed within the vicinity of the proposed site is agricultural, light industrial, or residential. Within nondeveloped areas, where a new structure would change qualities of the existing landscape, the viewshed is generally of low scenic quality because of a lack of notable features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, and mute colors. Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial use and of low scenic quality, cumulative visual impacts would be SMALL. 4.13.2 Air Quality and Noise This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality and noise when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 3.2 provides baseline conditions for the assessment of cumulative impacts on air quality and noise. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality and noise would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.2. 4.13.2.1 Air Quality As described in Section 3.2.2, the ROI considered for the air quality analysis of the proposed SHINE facility is defined as Rock County. The ROI considered in the cumulative air quality Environmental Impacts 4-64 analysis is also Rock County because air quality designations for criteria air pollutants are generally made at the county level. The incremental impact on air quality from construction, operations, and decommissioning activities from the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Present-day activities in Rock County that could potentially result in cumulative impacts include 12 major sources of air emissions identified on EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) air data search tool (EPA 2014). Minor sources of air emissions are also present in Rock County; however, a minor source classification typically indicates that the facility has little to no potential for significantly affecting air quality or interfering with plans to achieve compliance with NAAQS (EPA 2014). Classification as a major source requires a permit that will include provisions on how much and what is allowed to be emitted. Because major sources must meet permitting requirements, this minimizes cumulative impacts on air quality. Additional activities near the proposed SHINE facility that could potentially result in cumulative impacts on air quality include other present-day construction activities, seasonal agricultural activities, and future projects within the county (Table 4-17); however, as noted in Table 4-17, the impacts are minimal because of low emissions, short term/temporary duration of activities, and/or the distance from the proposed SHINE facility. Cumulative impacts to air quality could occur if project schedules overlap. For example, operation of the proposed SHINE facility and the planned NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility approximately 7.7 mi (12 km) south could overlap. However, both projects must meet the permitting and licensing requirements, which would minimize cumulative impacts. Climate change can affect air quality as a result of changes in meteorological conditions. The formation, transport, dispersion, and deposition of air pollutants depend, in part, on weather conditions (IPCC 2007). Air pollutant concentrations are sensitive to winds, temperature, humidity, and precipitation (EPA 2009a). Ozone levels have been found to be particularly sensitive to climate change influences (IPCC 2007; EPA 2009b). Ozone is formed, in part, as a result of the chemical reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of heat and sunlight. Sunshine, high temperatures, and air stagnation are favorable meteorological conditions leading to higher levels of ozone (IPCC 2007; EPA 2009b). Climate model simulations (from 2021 to 2050 relative to the reference period (1971 to 1999)) indicate an increase in the annual mean temperature in the midwestern region from 2.5 to 3.5 °F (NOAA 2013). The predicted increase in temperature during this time period occurs for all seasons with the largest increase occurring in the summer months (June, July, and August). Although surface temperatures are expected to increase in the midwestern region, ozone levels would not necessarily increase because ozone formation also depends on the relative amount of nitrogen oxides and VOC precursors available (NASA 2004). The combination of higher temperatures, stagnant air masses, sunlight, and emissions of precursors may make it difficult to meet ozone NAAQSs (USGCRP 2014). However, states must continue to comply with the Clean Air Act and must ensure that air quality standards are met. Overall, the potential cumulative air quality impact associated with SHINE operations in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects is considered SMALL, primarily because any of the projects with overlapping impacts with the proposed SHINE facility would have low-emission rates and sufficient distance between the two facilities. Environmental Impacts 4-65 Table 4-17. Cumulative Air Emission Effects Summary During SHINE Operation Project Name Emissions (Annual) Impacts TIF District No. 35 Air emissions from construction activities would be limited, local, and temporary. Air emission sources during operations of the distribution center would include vehicles (approximately 100 truck trips per day). Potential construction of a large distribution center in late 2015, with operations beginning in 2016. Alliant Energy 15 tons of NOx (WDNR 2013b) Operation would overlap with all phases of the SHINE project, but the cumulative impact is considered minimal because of the low-emission rate. NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes 6.5 tons of CO 8.7 tons of NOx 0.3 tons of PM10 0.7 tons of VOC 0.01 tons of SO2 40,000 tons of CO2 (DOE 2012b) Operation is expected to overlap with SHINE, but the cumulative impact is considered minimal because of the low-emission rates and the distance between facilities. United Ethanol 13 tons of CO 52 tons of NOx 56 tons of PM10 7.2 tons of hydrocarbons 0.2 tons of SO2 39,000 tons of CO2 (WDNR 2013b) Operation is expected to overlap with SHINE, but the cumulative impact is considered minimal because of the low-emission rates and the distance between facilities. 4.13.2.2 Noise The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the proposed SHINE facility. Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When distance is doubled from a point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (MPCA 2014). Generally, a 3-dBA change over existing noise levels is considered to be a "just noticeable" difference, and a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (NWCC 2002). Potential cumulative noise impacts could occur during the construction or decommissioning phases in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable activities occurring within a few hundred feet of the proposed SHINE facility. Primarily, these activities would be transportation-related noise from aircraft traffic at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and from traffic on U.S. Highway 51. Occasional noise from farming equipment on nearby agricultural fields also may coincide with the proposed SHINE construction noise. In addition, noise from a future industrial development in the TIF District No. 35 area could occur simultaneously with the proposed SHINE construction or decommissioning operations. Construction of the large distribution center in TIF District No. 35 would not overlap with construction of the proposed SHINE facility, given that construction of the distribution center would occur in late 2015. Additional vehicle noise would result from operations of the distribution center in TIF District No. 35 (approximately 100 truck trips per day), but the additional noise should not cause an appreciable increase in noise levels given current traffic volumes from nearby roads and highways (see Section 3.9.1). Environmental Impacts 4-66 The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport currently operates approximately 105 flights per day. Flight operations may increase because of the demand to transport materials to and from the proposed SHINE facility and the planned NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility. Up to 468 medical shipments associated with the proposed action would occur each year with most being air transported (SHINE 2015a). However, these increases are not anticipated to cause an appreciable increase in noise above the current operations. As a result, the cumulative noise impacts would be SMALL. 4.13.3 Geologic Environment This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on the geologic environment when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts on the geologic environment primarily relate to land disturbance, the potential for soil erosion and loss, and the projected consumption of geologic resources. The description of the affected environment in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 (Site Geology and Soils, respectively) serves as the baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of the geologic environment. The geographic area of analysis for evaluation of cumulative impacts on soil resources includes the 5-mi (8-km) vicinity surrounding the proposed site. For geologic resources, the extent of the geologic area of analysis has been expanded to all of Rock County to encompass potential commercial sources of rock and mineral resources to support construction activities at the proposed site and vicinity. Because the aspects of land disturbance and conversion are addressed separately in Section 4.13.1.1, the cumulative impacts analysis here will focus on soil loss, including the loss of prime farmland soils and other important farmland soils, and the consumption of geologic resources. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on the geologic environment, including geologic and soil resources, would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.3. Soil Resources New construction projects identified in Table 4-16 within the immediate 5-mi (8-km) radius would result in the conversion and loss of soils, including important farmland soils, caused by land use conversion and soil erosion. However, in accordance with State and local requirements, development activities would be subject to BMPs for soil erosion and sediment control, which would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss. Some topsoil removed by ground-disturbing activities would likely be reclaimed for use at the proposed site of disturbance or reused elsewhere. Following the completion of construction activities, continued soil loss would be minimal as the remaining soils would lie beneath impervious surfaces or would have been revegetated. Although developed land areas could be reclaimed and sufficiently restored to support certain agricultural and nondevelopment uses at some point in the future, such lands and associated soils would not be restorable to prime or other important farmland status. Based on the foregoing, cumulative impacts on soil resources would be SMALL. Geologic Resources New facility construction and expansion (Table 4-16) would specifically require the use and consumption of geologic resources, including rock and mineral assets, such as ore and aggregate materials (e.g., sand and gravel). Construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would use many of the same materials, including concrete, gravel, and sand (Section 3.4.1) required for the other identified projects. As noted in Section 3.3.1, construction aggregate is widely available throughout Rock County and the greater southeastern Wisconsin Environmental Impacts 4-67 region. Likewise, products derived from geologic materials, including concrete and asphaltic materials used in construction, are widely available on a regional basis. It is not likely that the geologic resource requirements to construct the proposed SHINE facility or the resource requirements of other identified projects are of such a scale as to affect regional sources and supplies of the identified resources. In addition, there are no developed geologic assets (mines or quarries) at or near the proposed SHINE facility site that would be rendered inaccessible for future use as a result of the proposed projects. In total, cumulative impacts on geologic resources would be SMALL. 4.13.4 Water Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on water resources when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts on surface-water resources include issues concerning water use, water quality, and potential climate change and specifically include issues related to water withdrawal, effluent discharges, accidental spills and releases, and stormwater drainage and runoff. The description of the affected environment in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 (Surface Water Resources and Groundwater Resources, respectively) serves as a baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of water resources. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on the geologic environment includes the 91-ac (37-ha) area within the site boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility. For surface-water resources, the extent of the geologic area of analysis has been expanded to include the Lower Rock River Basin within Rock County and downstream of the proposed site. For groundwater resources, the area considered encompasses the local groundwater basin in which groundwater is recharged and flows to discharge and those aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn through wells. Specifically, the cumulative impacts analysis focuses on those projects and activities, when combined with the proposed action, that would (1) withdraw water from, or discharge wastewater to, the segment of Rock River downstream of the proposed site or (2) would use groundwater or could otherwise affect the same aquifers that would supply water to the proposed site. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on surface-water and groundwater resources would be SMALL, as described in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2, respectively. The proposed SHINE facility site and adjoining areas at the center of the geographic area of analysis for the analysis of cumulative impacts are encompassed by the local watershed that contributes drainage to Rock River, as described in Section 3.4.1 (Figure 3-8). The State has established water-quality standards and numeric criteria for Rock River. The main stem of Rock River is regulated in accordance with established uses for waste assimilation, recreation, fish and aquatic life, irrigation, stock and wildlife watering, and hydropower, as further described in Section 3.4.1. Rock River is not a major source for water supply. The source of water for the municipal water supply and for individual property owners in Rock County is groundwater. Likewise, the extensive surficial aquifer system and portions of the underlying bedrock aquifers in Rock County provide base flow to Rock River. As a result of climate change, shifts in the timing, intensity, and distribution of precipitation would be likely to result in changes in surface-water runoff affecting water availability across the Midwest. The Midwest may continue to experience an increase in annual precipitation, with much of the increase attributable to an increase in the frequency of heavy rainfall. Runoff and streamflow at a regional scale for the midwestern region indicate no clear trend during the last half century. However, annual runoff and river flow are projected to increase in the upper Environmental Impacts 4-68 Midwest, and soil moisture increased in most seasons in the upper and eastern Midwest between 1998 and 2010 (despite an increase in average temperature) (USGCRP 2014). Climate change impacts on groundwater availability depend on basin geology, frequency and intensity of high rainfall periods, recharge, soil moisture, and interactions between groundwater and surface water. Precipitation and evapotranspiration are key drivers in aquifer recharge (USGCRP 2014). Surface-Water and Groundwater Resources No surface water would be used for the construction, operations, or decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility; therefore, there would be no incremental contribution to cumulative effects of surface-water use. Existing water quality within the main stem of Rock River and throughout the Lower Rock River Basin is the result of historic land use changes and current land uses (e.g., urban, agricultural, and mining) and its associated development activities. As discussed in Section 3.4.1, the Federal Clean Water Act requires states to identify all waters for which effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water-quality standards in such waters and establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to ensure future compliance with water-quality standards. EPA delegated the authority for issuing NPDES permits in the State of Wisconsin to the WDNR. Because of total suspended solids and total phosphorous, the 12.4-mi (20-km) segment of Rock River between the Janesville WTP and the Illinois State line is listed as impaired, and TMDLs have been established. It is this segment that receives drainage from the proposed SHINE facility site and its local watershed. As noted in Section 4.13.1.1 and listed in Table 4-16, the proposed SHINE facility is part of a larger development, TIF District No. 35. Development projects disturbing greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha) of land, such as the proposed SHINE facility and the potential distribution center, have to obtain and comply with the provisions of WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4. As discussed in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1, the permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific construction site erosion control plan, including specific BMPs, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management). Permits issued to all new stormwater and industrial wastewater dischargers would include provisions to comply with the wasteload allocation established for downstream receiving waters. Beyond the activities listed in Table 4-16, future industrial development or major expansion projects also would be subject to NPDES permitting requirements within the ROI and Lower Rock River Basin. The proposed SHINE facility is not expected to require either a permit to authorize the discharge of stormwater associated with industrial activity to support operations or an NPDES individual permit for industrial (process) wastewater discharges to surface water. Further, there are few large industrial wastewater dischargers with NPDES permits immediately upstream or downstream of the local watershed encompassing the SHINE facility site. The closure of the General Motors assembly plant in Janesville eliminated one such industrial wastewater point source to Rock River. As part of the build-out of TIF District No. 35, the resulting growth district will be served by the extension of public infrastructure by the City of Janesville, including public water and sanitary sewer service. These utility systems would also provide for sanitary sewer service and a potable water supply to the proposed SHINE facility. Operation of the SHINE facility would produce an estimated 5,850 gpd (22,145 Lpd), or about 0.006 mgd (23 m3/day) of sanitary and some industrial wastewater (Section 4.4.1.2). No radiological effluent would be discharged. All wastewater conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP also would have to meet influent acceptance requirements for industrial users. Such acceptance standards and any necessary Environmental Impacts 4-69 pretreatment requirements are imposed, in part, so that the WTP can comply with the WPDES permit effluent limitations imposed on its discharges to Rock River and on waste load allocations (TMDLs) established by the WDNR. The WTP has a treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd (72,290 m3/day) with an average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd (54,900 m3/day). Thus, the incremental contribution of influent from the proposed SHINE facility is a very small percentage (i.e., 0.13 percent) of the available treatment capacity and would not affect the WTP's ability to provide for the treatment of other current or reasonably foreseeable residential, commercial, and industrial dischargers to the WTP. Wastewater generated by the proposed SHINE facility and conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP would contribute very little to the facility's treatment burden with negligible impacts on receiving water quality. Therefore, the cumulative impacts on surface-water use and quality would be SMALL. Groundwater Resources Groundwater is the source of water supply for municipal water suppliers and individual users in Rock County. The City of Janesville Water Utility provides water service to connected customers within the city's developed areas and growth boundaries. Section 3.4.2 provides a detailed discussion of the City of Janesville Water Utility capacity wells, groundwater basin, and aquifer system. As noted previously, water service would be extended to the proposed SHINE facility site and other properties within TIF District No. 35. In total, the City of Janesville's groundwater supply system has a capacity of approximately 32 mgd (121,100 m3/d) and the current demand is approximately 10 mgd (37,900 m3/d) (City of Janesville 2013). The city's groundwater production (pumpage) peaked in 2000, averaging 13.9 mgd (52,600 m3/d). However, overall groundwater demand within the City of Janesville is projected to increase by 50 percent by 2030 with a similar increase countywide. Although the City of Janesville Water Utility has enjoyed stable water levels, other municipalities in the basin have seen declines. Consequently, the city has developed a water conservation plan in anticipation of future growth (City of Janesville 2010). Operation of the SHINE facility is estimated to require a total of about 6,073 gpd (22,990 Lpd), or 0.006 mgd (23 m3/day), of water. This incremental water requirement is a very small percentage of the available groundwater supply capacity (0.03 percent) of the City of Janesville Water Utility. This additional demand, combined with current and forecast demands and considering the potential for climate-change-related impacts, would not be expected to affect the utility's ability to provide adequate water supplies and would not be likely to affect regional groundwater conditions. Taken together, the cumulative impacts on groundwater resources would be SMALL. 4.13.5 Ecological Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on ecological resources when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 3.5 serves as a baseline for the ecological cumulative impact assessment. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on ecological resources includes the Rock River watershed in the vicinity of the proposed site. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.5. Before European settlement, the main land cover types within the Rock River watershed included prairies, forests, and wetlands (WDNR 2002; USDA 2007). Since that time, these habitats have been greatly reduced, by at least 50 to 80 percent and converted into agricultural fields, industrial uses, and residential and commercial areas, as described in Section 3.5. The Environmental Impacts 4-70 remaining tracts of grasslands, forests, and wetlands tend to be relatively small and isolated, which provides lower quality habitats than large tracts of habitat because of the different biological and physical characteristics along the edge of a habitat patch (WDNR 2013c). Environmental management practices over the past few decades have slightly increased the quality and extent of terrestrial and aquatic habitats. For example, the amount of forested habitats has increased because of changes in land management and forestry laws. Water quality in streams has increased primarily because of more effective treatment at WTPs (WDNR 2002). Current threats to terrestrial and aquatic habitats include increased soil, nutrients, and other pollutants washing into streams and lakes from urban and agricultural stormwater runoff, continued conversion and fragmentation of wildlife habitat from development, and the introduction of invasive species (WDNR 2002, 2013c). These activities will likely decrease the overall availability and quality of forested, grassland, and wetland habitats. Species with threatened, endangered, or declining populations are likely to be more sensitive to declines in habitat availability and quality and the introduction of invasive species. New development projects identified in Table 4-16, such as the potential distribution center, are likely to have minimal impacts on ecological resources because all the projects are sited within areas that are currently agricultural land, open space, or developed. These types of land covers provide low-quality habitats for wildlife, birds, and aquatic resources. State parks and wildlife refuges located near the proposed site provide valuable habitat to native wildlife and migratory birds. As agricultural activities, development, and urbanization increase habitat conversion and fragmentation, these protected areas will become ecologically more important because they provide continuous areas of minimally disturbed habitat. Climate change in the midwestern United States is likely to include an increase in the annual mean temperature combined with an increase in the frequency, duration, and intensity of droughts (USGCRP 2014). As the climate changes, ecological resources will either need to be able to tolerate the new physical conditions, such as less water availability, or to shift their population range to new areas with a more suitable climate. Some species may be more prone to changes in climate. For example, migratory birds that travel long distances may not be able to pick up on environmental clues that a warmer, earlier spring is occurring in the United States, while the birds are still overwintering in the tropics. Fraser et al. (2013) found that songbirds overwintering in the Amazon did not leave their winter sites earlier, even when spring sites in the eastern United States experienced a warmer spring. As a result, the song birds missed periods of "peak food" availability. Climate changes could also favor nonnative invasive species and promote population increases of insect pests and plant pathogens, which may be more tolerant to a wider range of climate conditions (USGCRP 2014). Physiological stressors associated with climate change may also exacerbate the effects of existing stresses in the natural environment, such as those caused by habitat fragmentation, invasive species, nitrogen deposition and runoff from agriculture, and air emissions. Section 4.5 of this EIS concludes that the impact from the proposed facility construction, operations, and decommissioning would not noticeably alter the terrestrial and aquatic environment and, thus, would be SMALL. However, as environmental stressors, such as runoff from agricultural fields and urban areas and climate change, continue over the proposed construction, operational, and decommissioning periods, certain attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (such as habitat quality) are likely to noticeably change. The staff does not expect these impacts to destabilize any important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment because such impacts will cause gradual change, which should allow the terrestrial and aquatic environment to appropriately adapt. The staff concludes that the cumulative Environmental Impacts 4-71 impacts of the proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions would result in MODERATE impacts to terrestrial and aquatic resources. 4.13.6 Historic and Cultural Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on historic and cultural resources. The geographic area considered in this analysis is the APE associated with the proposed SHINE facility, the Janesville site, and its immediate vicinity. As discussed in Section 4.6, the impacts to historic and cultural resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility would be SMALL. The archaeological record for the region indicates prehistoric and historic occupation; the APE and its immediate environs appear to have been traditionally used as agricultural fields from the protohistoric period onward. Historic land development and prolonged agricultural use of the APE resulted in impacts on, and the loss of, cultural resources in the APE and its immediate vicinity. As described in Section 3.6.2, no known historic or cultural resources or historic properties are present within the APE, and the closest historic property is approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) to the northeast of the proposed site. However, there remains the possibility for inadvertent discovery of historic and cultural resources within the APE. Direct impacts would occur if newly discovered historic and cultural resources were to be physically removed or disturbed. Indirect visual (viewshed) impacts could occur from new construction within the APE. The only foreseeable project within the APE is the SHINE facility and the potential discovery of historic and cultural resources on the proposed site. Should they be discovered, any cultural resources would be managed using SHINE's BMPs (e.g., cultural resource management procedures and training) (SHINE 2013). Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed SHINE facility, combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities on historic and cultural resources, would be SMALL. 4.13.7 Socioeconomics This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on current socioeconomic conditions within the ROI. The description of the affected environment in Section 3.7 serves as a baseline for the cumulative socioeconomic impact assessment. The geographic area of analysis is the ROI, Rock County. Section 4.7 found that socioeconomic impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Table 4-16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Relevant "other actions" that are considered in this cumulative impacts analysis are future construction within TIF District No. 35 (including utility lines for the proposed SHINE facility) and the construction and operation of the NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility. The proposed SHINE facility is located in TIF District No. 35, an area on the south side of Janesville designated for light industrial use. TIF District No. 35 is large enough for the construction and operation of several industries. A large distribution center has expressed interest in a 124-ac (9.7-ha) plot of land in TIF District No. 35 (NRC 2015). If the site is selected, construction would occur in late 2015, which would not overlap with construction of the Environmental Impacts 4-72 proposed SHINE facility. Demand for construction workers and other labor would not create a shortage because Rock County has sufficient labor to meet the needs for both facilities, especially given that the construction schedules would not overlap (Table 3-7). The NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility being constructed in Beloit, Wisconsin, 13 mi (21 km) to the south of Janesville would likely compete for some of the same skilled labor as the proposed SHINE facility. In the Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99, an estimated 150 operations workers would be needed (DOE 2012b). However, this demand for skilled labor would not create a shortage because Rock County has sufficient skilled labor to meet the needs for both facilities (Table 3-7). Construction and operation of the NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility could cause an increase in population, employment, and tax revenue and an increased demand for public services in the ROI. However, this increase is likely to be small because most of the construction and operations workers would likely already reside within the ROI. The overall contributory socioeconomic effect of this action would be small. Therefore, the contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility, when added to the operation of the NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities, would be SMALL. 4.13.8 Human Health The geographic region of interest for the evaluation of cumulative effects on human health is that within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility. Within this ROI, there are no nuclear power plants that would contribute to radioactive or nonradioactive exposure. As discussed in Section 4.8.2, the NRC reviewed the information provided by SHINE regarding the proposed radiological and nonradiological safety programs that would be implemented to protect the workers and members of the public from operations at the proposed SHINE facility. In Section 4.8.2, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from operations at the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. For this evaluation of cumulative impacts, the NRC staff considers the impacts in the ROI associated with the operations of other facilities using radioactive and nonradioactive material in the recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future. This assessment evaluates the potential cumulative impacts from the proposed SHINE facility, the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility, and two medical facilities located in Janesville, Wisconsin: the Mercy Clinic South and the Mercy Hospital. Mercy Clinic South provides imaging services to patients. Mercy Hospital provides medical services to patients that include imaging services, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine (SHINE 2015a). A third medical facility within the ROI, First Choice Women's Health Center, does not use radioactive material and is not considered in this evaluation. The SHINE and NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities are proposed future actions, whereas the hospital and clinic are operating. In its environmental assessment for the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility, DOE stated that no radioactive emissions are expected during operation. DOE stated that the design of the proposed NorthStar facility is expected to control radioactive and nonradioactive effluent releases to negligible amounts and are not expected to violate Federal or State criteria applicable to facility workers or members of the public. Additionally, liquid waste generated during operations at the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility would be collected, temporarily stored on site, and sent off site for treatment and disposal in accordance with the Federal and State of Wisconsin regulations (SHINE 2013a; DOE 2012b). DOE also stated that operations at the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes production facility would be Environmental Impacts 4-73 conducted in accordance with State of Wisconsin regulatory limits (DOE 2012b). Further, the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility would be approximately 7.7 mi. (12. km) from the SHINE facility, which would minimize the potential cumulative radiological exposure because there would be sufficient distance between the two facilities. Given that the expected radiological and nonradiological impacts from each facility would be limited, the NRC staff does not expect that the combined operation of these facilities would result in a cumulative impact to the workers or members of the public in excess of NRC or State of Wisconsin regulatory limits. Mercy Clinic South and Mercy Hospital in Rock County, Wisconsin, provide imaging services to patients that include radiation oncology and nuclear medicine. Both facilities are within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed SHINE facility. Mercy Clinic South is approximately 1.6 mi (2.6 km) away, and Mercy Hospital is approximately 4.4 mi (7.1 km) away. SHINE (2013a) determined that radiological exposure to members of the public outside these facilities is negligible. Based on the low levels of radiation exposures from these medical facilities and the proposed SHINE facility, and factoring in the distance between the medical facilities and the proposed SHINE site, the NRC staff does not expect the cumulative impacts to workers at the SHINE facility or members of the public would be in excess of NRC or State of Wisconsin regulatory limits. As discussed in Section 4.8.2.2 of this EIS, the NRC staff concluded that the nonradiological impacts from the proposed SHINE facility to workers and members of the public would be SMALL. Given that the nonradiological impacts from the facilities listed in Table 4-16 would be within regulatory limits of the State of Wisconsin and the distance between the facilities and the proposed SHINE facility, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impact to workers and members of the public would be SMALL. The NRC staff is currently conducting a thorough independent safety evaluation to verify that the radiological exposure to the members of the public would be below regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20. If the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative dose to workers and the public would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts would be SMALL. 4.13.9 Waste Management The geographic region of interest for the evaluation of cumulative impacts from the disposal of radioactive and nonradioactive waste is that area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility. Table 4-16 lists the facilities considered within this ROI. There are no nuclear power plants that would contribute to radioactive or nonradioactive exposure. There are two medical facilities: Mercy Clinic South and Mercy Hospital. In Section 4.9, the NRC staff reviewed SHINE's radioactive and nonradioactive management programs for the safe handling and disposal of its waste. Based on information provided by SHINE in its ER, the NRC staff found that the expected design features and management programs (i.e., temporary storage, packaging, transportation, and disposal) would adequately control radioactive and nonradioactive waste. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts would be SMALL. This evaluation considers the cumulative impacts within the ROI associated with the operations of other facilities using radioactive and nonradioactive material in the recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future. This cumulative impact assessment is based on the proposed SHINE facility and the facilities listed in Table 4-16, including the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility and two medical facilities located in Janesville, Wisconsin: the Mercy Clinic South and the Mercy Hospital. The proposed SHINE and NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities are proposed Environmental Impacts 4-74 future actions, whereas the two medical facilities are operating. Radioactive and nonradioactive waste are and would be generated as part of the operation of many of the facilities listed in Table 4-16. The waste from these facilities, in some cases, are and would likely go to the same waste disposal sites. For radioactive waste, two facilities are available for the disposal of low-level waste from the proposed SHINE facility and the medical facilities: EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah, and Waste Control Specialists in Andrews County, Texas. EnergySolutions is authorized to dispose of only Class A low-level waste, whereas WCS is authorized to dispose of Class A, B, and C low-level waste (SHINE 2015a). In the event that SHINE loses access to a low-level waste disposal facility, the NRC staff expects that any low-level waste would have to be stored either within the facility or in a new storage facility constructed either on site or at an offsite location. The storage of low-level waste would continue until a low-level waste disposal facility is available. Low-level waste, regardless of its location, must be stored in accordance with Federal and State requirements to ensure the safety of workers and members of the public. As discussed in Section 4.9, multiple physical barriers (i.e., shielded walls, hot cells, shielded storage containers, protective equipment, and ventilation systems) and administrative controls (i.e., procedures and training) would be used to limit the impacts to workers and members of the public from radioactive material in the proposed SHINE facility. The NRC staff expects that similar facility design and management programs would be used to ensure safety during the temporary storage of low-level waste at NorthStar and the medical facilities. A provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) states that DOE would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE or NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities) does not have access to a disposal path. For example, if a disposal pathway for greater than Class C waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its disposal. As discussed in Section 4.4, nonradioactive wastewater from the proposed SHINE facility would be sent to the Janesville municipal sanitary system. The NRC staff expects that most of the facilities listed in Table 4-16 would also send their wastewater to the Janesville municipal sanitary system. The WTP has a treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd (72,290 m3/day), with an average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd (54,900 m3/day). The average daily treatment and discharge flow includes the operating Mercy Clinic South and Mercy Hospital (SHINE 2013). Sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment for the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility would be provided by the City of Beloit (DOE 2012b). Based on the capacity of the Janesville municipal sanitary system, the NRC staff concludes that there would be adequate capacity to process wastewater from the proposed facility, in addition to existing and reasonably foreseeable residential, medical, and commercial facilities. Solid nonradioactive waste, such as general office trash and industrial waste generated during the operation, maintenance, and day-to-day office operations of the proposed facility, would be handled by the City of Janesville's sanitation department (SHINE 2013b). Rock County has a State-licensed landfill (License No. 3939) authorized to receive the following materials: asbestos, contaminated soil, demolition, garbage, noncombustible material, refuse, and shredder fluff (WDNR 2013d). The NRC staff reviewed information on solid-waste management on the WDNR and EPA Web sites; no known capacity constraints exist for the disposal of such waste either within Wisconsin or the Nation as a whole (WDNR 2013d; EPA 2013). Environmental Impacts 4-75 As discussed in Sections 2.7 and 4.9 of this document, SHINE would have waste management systems and programs to control, handle, process, store, and transport the types and quantities of nonradioactive waste expected to be generated by the medical radioisotope production process. The waste management systems and programs are expected to ensure that the radioactive wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance with the regulatory requirements of the NRC, DOT, and the State of Wisconsin. The NRC staff expects that nonradioactive waste generated by the facilities listed in Table 4-16 will be managed in accordance with the State of Wisconsin requirements. Based on the information on waste disposal in Wisconsin and the United States, the NRC staff concludes that there would be adequate disposal space on a State and national level for radioactive and nonradioactive waste from multiple current and reasonably foreseeable sources and that the waste would be handled and disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and local requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts would be SMALL. 4.13.10 Transportation This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on transportation infrastructure. The geographic area of analysis for evaluation of cumulative impacts on transportation is primarily the same as that used in Section 4.10 and includes the 91 ac (37 ha) within the site boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility. However, the roads for routes that could be used for delivery of medical isotopes (if air transport is not possible) or disposal of wastes were also considered. Transportation infrastructure includes roadways, rail lines, airports, and traffic control devices. As discussed in Section 4.10, the traffic impacts would be MODERATE during construction and decommissioning and SMALL to MODERATE during operations. Construction projects in Table 4-16 could produce an increase in vehicle traffic on roads within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE site. For example, the NorthStar medical radioisotope project would involve the construction of a facility and would add additional employees commuting on roads near the SHINE site. In addition, new construction projects could occur within TIF Districts Nos. 34 and 35. A large distribution center has expressed interest in a 124-ac (9.7-ha) plot of land in TIF District No. 35 (NRC 2015). If the site is selected, construction would occur in late 2015, which would not overlap with construction of the SHINE facility. During operations, associated activities could include approximately 100 truck trips per day. Overlap with the SHINE project during operations of the distribution center could increase traffic impacts on access roads. Most existing roads would be sufficient to handle the project transportation activities, and alternative routes could be used to minimize transportation impacts. In some cases, however, a noticeable increase in traffic could occur, especially if SHINE construction workers and vehicles used the same roads as the trucks leaving the distribution center. Traffic from facilities, such as the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, Glen Erin Golf Course, Mercy Clinic, Mercy Hospital, and Alliant Energy Generation Facility, would not likely have a noticeable impact on transportation, given that the facilities are currently operating and that a need for additional transportation infrastructure has not occurred. Therefore, depending on whether increased vehicular activity from workers or residents on roads near the proposed SHINE site had a noticeable impact on traffic volumes, the cumulative effect of transportation-related traffic impacts during SHINE facility construction, operations, and decommissioning would be SMALL to MODERATE. Environmental Impacts 4-76 4.13.11 Environmental Justice The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential contributory human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on minority and low-income populations and whether these effects might be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing near the Janesville site in the existing industrial park, and everyone would be exposed to the same environmental effects generated by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. The geographic area of analysis is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site. As discussed in Section 4.12, the proposed SHINE facility site and industrial park are located in a minority population block group because it has a greater percentage of minority people than the 5-mi (8-km) radius. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicle traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Janesville site would not have high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. As a result, minority and low-income populations residing near the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park would not experience disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects from the proposed action. Table 4-16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic area of analysis that could contribute cumulative human health and environmental effects. Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would mostly consist of environmental effects caused by construction and operations of new commercial and industrial developments (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, noise and dust impacts during construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by commuter vehicle and truck traffic. However, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited time period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the availability of workers and the likelihood of workers commuting to the construction site, the need for rental housing would be reduced. Operational emissions from commercial or industrial facilities could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living near the new commercial and industrial facility. However, everyone would be exposed to the same potential contributory effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions. Permitted air emissions from all commercial and industrial facilities, including the contributory effects from the proposed SHINE facility, would be expected to remain within regulatory standards. Based on this information and the analysis of human health and other environmental impacts presented in this EIS, the contributory effects of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SHINE facility are not likely to create high and adverse cumulative human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living near the Janesville site. Environmental Impacts 4-77 4.13.12 Summary Table 4-18 summarizes the cumulative impacts in all resource areas. Cumulative impacts would range from SMALL to MODERATE depending on the resource area. Specifically, these cumulative impacts would be SMALL for all resource area components other than ecological resources and transportation. Table 4-18. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of the Proposed Project Resource Category Cumulative Impact Level Description of Impacts Land Use and Visual Resources Land Use SMALL New construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial use. Visual Resources SMALL New construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial use and of low scenic quality. Air Quality and Noise Air Quality SMALL Other sources of air emissions in Rock County are too small or are located too far away to have any significant cumulative effects. Noise SMALL Noise levels associated with the proposed SHINE facility would be localized and restricted to within a few hundred feet of the proposed SHINE facility. Geologic Environment SMALL Important farmland soils would be lost but would primarily occur in areas committed to development. Consumption of rock and mineral resources would not affect regional availability of the materials. Water Resources SMALL Projected water use and wastewater generation would be within the capabilities of the affected utility systems to provide adequate service. Ecological Resources MODERATE As climate change and runoff from agricultural fields and urban areas continue over the proposed construction and operational period, certain attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (such as habitat quality) are likely to noticeably change. No impacts are expect to destabilize any important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment because changes will be gradual, thus allowing the terrestrial and aquatic environment to appropriately adapt. Environmental Impacts 4-78 Resource Category Cumulative Impact Level Description of Impacts Socioeconomics SMALL Most of the construction and operations workers already reside within the ROI. Therefore, the cumulative effects from the construction and operation of the proposed SHINE facility in TIF District No. 35, combined with the construction and operation of the NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility in the ROI, would result in little, if any, change in population or increased demand for housing and public services. The combined effect would create minimal socioeconomic impacts. Historic and Cultural Resources SMALL No ground-disturbing activities would occur within the APE besides the proposed SHINE facility. BMPs would be employed in case of any future inadvertent discoveries of historic and cultural resources on SHINE property. Human Health SMALL Radiological doses and nonradiological exposures would be within NRC and the State of Wisconsin's limits. Waste Management SMALL Adequate radioactive and nonradioactive disposal space occurs on a state and national level and waste would be handled and disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and local requirements. Transportation SMALL TO MODERATE Commercial development within the ROI has not resulted in the need for additional transportation infrastructure improvements. Current infrastructure is sufficient to handle the projected growth in TIF Districts Nos. 34 and 35, but traffic monitoring as development progresses would identify potential problem areas and could point to traffic control improvements that could alleviate episodic or peak traffic congestion. Cumulative transportation impacts would be MODERATE during construction and decommissioning and SMALL during SHINE facility operations. Environmental Justice - - Cumulative human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations are not expected to be disproportionately high and adverse. Environmental Impacts 4-79 4.14 References 7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, "Important farmlands inventory." 7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, "Farmland and protection policy act." 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." 10 CFR Part 30. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 30, "Rules of general applicability to domestic licensing of byproduct material." 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, "Domestic licensing of source material." 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." 10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, "Domestic licensing of special nuclear material." 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and transportation of radioactive material." 36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 60, "National Register of Historic Places." 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 800, "Protection of historic properties." 40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, "Standards of performance for new stationary sources." 40 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 63, "National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for source categories." 40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112, "Oil pollution prevention." 40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, "EPA administered permit programs: The national pollutant discharge elimination system." 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1508, "Terminology and index." 49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, "Hazardous materials table, special provisions, hazardous materials communications, emergency response information, training requirements, and security plans." 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, "Shippers-general requirements for shipments and packaging." 59 FR 7629. Executive Order No. 12898. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." Federal Register 59(32):7629-7633. February 16, 1994. Environmental Impacts 4-80 69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register 69(163):52040-52048. August 24, 2004. 75 FR 31514. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule [Final rule]." Federal Register 75(106):31514-31608. June 3, 2010. 78 FR 73698. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers-Significant Impact Levels and Significant Monitoring Concentration: Removal of Vacated Elements [Final rule]." Federal Register 78(236)73698-73702. December 9, 2013. [AIHA] American Industrial Hygiene Association. 2012. AIHA Emergency Response Planning Committee. Available at <https://www.aiha.org> (accessed 15 January 2015). [BLS] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Available at <www.bls.gov> (accessed 12 August 2013). Cai H, Burnham A, Wang M. 2013. Updated Emission Factors of Air Pollutants from vehicle Operations in GREET Using MOVES. Available at <file:///C:/Users/NXM5/Downloads/Updates%20to%20Vehicle%20Operation%20Emission%20Factors%20in%20GREET1_2013%20(4).pdf> (accessed 15 September 2014). [CEQ] Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/ resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf> (accessed 22 May 2012). ADAMS No. ML082520150. City of Janesville. 2009. Economic Development Memorandum-Action on a Resolution Approving the Project Plan for and Establishing the Boundaries for Tax Increment Finance District No. 34 at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport (File Res. No. 20090577). Available at <http://cms.ci.janesville.wi.us/WebLink8/0/doc/195551/Page31.aspx> (accessed 1 September 2014). City of Janesville. 2010. Water Utility, Water Conservation Plan. April 2010. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=573> (accessed 20 December 2013). City of Janesville. 2012. Tax Increment Finance District No. 35, Project Plan, Amendment No. 1. City of Janesville, WI: Economic Development Agency, Accounting Division. February 13, 2012. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1463> (accessed 25 June 2013). City of Janesville. 2013. Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville, Title 13, Water and Sewers, 13.16, Wastewater Facilities and Sewer Ordinance. Updated November 2005. Available at <http://cms.ci.janesville.wi.us/weblink8/Browse.aspx?dbid=0> (accessed 20 December 2013). Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2008. DOE Handbook: Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits for Chemicals: Methods and Practice. DOE-HDBK-1046-2008. August 2008. Environmental Impacts 4-81 [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2012a. Protective Action Criteria (PAC): Chemicals with AEGLs, ERPGs, and TEELs. Revision 27, February 2012. Available at <http://www.atlintl.com/DOE/teels/teel.html> (accessed 2 December 2014). [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. 2012b. Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99 (DOE/EA-1929). Available at <http://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/ea-1929-final-environmental-assessment> (accessed 8 May 2013). [DOL] U.S. Department of Labor. 2013. Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses-2012. Available at <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh.pdf> (accessed 29 January 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. An Update on the Use of Particulate Ratios to Assess Likely PM10 Attainment Status. [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Clarification of Prevention of Significance Deterioration (PSD) Guidance for Modelling Class I Area Impacts. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr/gen/u3-11.txt> (accessed 14 August 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 3.3 Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/> (accessed 14 October 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Finding for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009b. Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone. [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Available at <http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html> (accessed 31 October 2013). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Acute Exposure Guidelines (AEGL). Available at <http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/> (accessed 2 December 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Municipal Solid Wastes in the United States: 2012 Facts and Figures Fact Sheet. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm> (accessed 24 March 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO). Available at <http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/> (accessed 10 October 2014). [EPA/NOAA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA), Version 5.4.3. March 2012. [FAA] Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. National Based Aircraft Inventory. Available at <http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=JVL&AptSecNum=2> (accessed 14 October 2014). Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq. Forest County Potawatomi. 2013. Letter from Cook M, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, to Wong MC, NRC.

Subject:

Request for scoping comments concerning the SHINE Medical Technologies radioisotope production facility. July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13224A164. Environmental Impacts 4-82 Fraser J, Silverio C, Kramer P, Mickle N, Aeppli R, Stutchbury BJM. 2013. A trans-hemispheric migratory songbird does not advance spring schedules or increase migration rate in response to record-setting temperatures at breeding sites. PLoS ONE 8(5):e64587. Homann Associates, Inc. 2007. EPIcode Based on Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis- Emergency Planning for Extremely Hazardous Substances, U.S. EPA, FEMA, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Version 7.0. 2007. [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, and Miller HL (editors)). Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York: Cambridge University Press, 996 p. Mercy Health System. 2014a. Mercy Clinic South. Available at <http://mercyhealthsystem.org/location/mercy-clinic-south/> (accessed 17 December 2014). Mercy Health System. 2014b. Mercy Hospital and Trauma Center. Available at <http://mercyhealthsystem.org/location/mercy-hospital-and-trauma-center/> (accessed 17 December 2014). [MPCA] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2014. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota. Available at <http://www.nonoise.org/library/sndbasic/sndbasic.htm> (accessed 24 February 2014). [MRI] Midwest Research Institute. 2006. Background Document for Revisions to Fine Fraction Ratios Used for AP-42 Fugitive Dust Emission Factors. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/bgdocs/b13s02.pdf> (accessed 10 October 2013). [NASA] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2004. Tango in the Atmosphere: Ozone and Climate Change. Available at <http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200402_tango/> (accessed 30 September 2013). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321, et seq. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §470, et seq. [NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 3. Climate of the Midwest. NOAA Technical Report NESDID 142-3. [NorthStar] NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes, LLC. 2014. NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes Breaks Ground for New Facility in Beloit, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.northstarnm.com/news/groundbreaking> (accessed 18 August 2014). [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. 1998. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. NUREG/CR-6410. March 1998. ADAMS No. ML072000468. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors, and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. October 17, 2012. ADAMS Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075. Environmental Impacts 4-83 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 1, Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. NUREG-1437. June 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13107A023. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013b. Letter from Wong MC, NRC, to Nelson R, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Subject:

SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production Facility Application Review. July 1, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13136A011. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013c. Letter from Wong MC, NRC, to Born E, Wisconsin Historical Society.

Subject:

SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production Facility Application Review. July 1, 2013. ADAMS No. ML3135A365. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013d. Meeting Summary: NRC Visit to Wisconsin Historical Society on July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13226A537. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013e. Letters from Wong MC, NRC, to 13 Tribes.

Subject:

Request for Scoping Comments concerning the SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production Facility Application Review. July 1, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13136A014. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013f. Meeting Summary: NRC Visit to Janesville Community Development Department on July 18, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13247A400. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. Telephone Summary: NRC Teleconference with Janesville Community Development Department on July 7, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15236A331. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Web Soil Survey, Soil Map-Rock County, Wisconsin. (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit description; suitabilities and limitations for use, building site development). Updated February 15, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. Available at <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app> (accessed 20 December 2013). [NWCC] National Wind Coordinating Committee. 2002. Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: A Handbook. NWCC Siting Subcommittee, Washington, DC. Available at <http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/permitting2002.pdf> (accessed 13 February 2015). Ogden, LJ. 1996. Collision Course: The Hazards of Lighted Structures and Windows to Migrating Birds. Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP). Paper 3. Available at <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/flap/3?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fflap%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages> (accessed 31 January 2014). Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. Rock County. 2009. Rock County Comprehensive Plan 2035. Janesville, WI: Rock County Planning, Economic and Community Development Agency. September 10, 2009. Available at <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/planning-comprehensive-plan-2035> (accessed 20 December 2013). [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189. Environmental Impacts 4-84 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 13, "Accident Analysis," and Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015c. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. March 23, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15092A397. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015d. Letter from Vann Bynum R, SHINE, to NRC, Document Control Desk.

Subject:

SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Revision to Sections 13b.3 and 19.4 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A131. [SWRA] Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. 2012. Airport Investments. Available at <http://jvlairport.com/NewsUpdates/CapitalImprovementPlans.aspx> (accessed 29 August 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 American Community Survey Demographic Profile, Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. American FactFinder, 2010 American Community Survey and Data Profile Highlights Information on Rock County, City of Janesville, and Block Groups within Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. American FactFinder, 2006-2010 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey Data Profile and Highlights Information on Rock County, City of Janesville, and Census Tracts within Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USDA] United Stated Department of Agriculture. 2007. Rapid Watershed Assessment Lower Rock River. October 2007. Available at <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_020057.pdf> (accessed 28 January 2014). [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013. Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Available at <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Wisconsin/st55_2_025_025.pdf> (accessed 4 October 2013). [USGCRP] U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2014. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. (Melillo JM, Richmond TC, and Yohe GW (editors)). New York: Cambridge University Press. Available at <http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/> (accessed 25 November 2014). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. National Land Cover Database. ESRI ArcGIS 9.3.1 software. Available at <http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer> (accessed 4 October 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 151. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation Chapter NR 151. Runoff Management. Revised May 2013. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/nr> (accessed 3 January 2013). Environmental Impacts 4-85 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 216. Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Chapter NR 216. Storm Water Discharge Requirements. Revised April 2013. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/nr> (accessed 3 January 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406. Construction Permits. March 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/406.pdf> (accessed 13 February 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 460. Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories-General Provisions. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/460/Title> (accessed 17 January 2014). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code. Chapter DHS 157. Radiation Protection. Available at <http://dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/P4/P45059.pdf> (accessed 17 January 2014). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326. Motor Carrier Safety Requirements for Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/326> (accessed 17 November 2014). [WCMP] Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 2007. Wisconsin Coastal Management Program: A Strategic Vision for the Great Lakes. Madison, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Documents/DIR/Coastal%20Management/Program%20Docs/WCMP%20Strategic%20Vision%20for%20Great%20Lakes%202007.pdf> (accessed 1 October 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Watershed-Rock River-Milton (LR04). Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/watershedDetail.aspx?code=LR04&Name=RockRiver-Milton> (accessed 29 January 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. Construction Site Storm Water Permit Overview. Web page updated November 12, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Stormwater/construction/overview.html> (accessed 3 January 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013b. Air Management Program Permit Tracking Tool. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTrackingSearch.aspx> (accessed 9 October 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013c. South Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=9> (accessed 23 December 2013. [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013d. Wisconsin Solid Waste Management. Available at <http://www.dnr.wi.gov/topic/Waste/Solid.html> (accessed 24 March 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014. Air Management Program Permit Tracking Tool. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=19955911> (accessed 21 November 2014). Environmental Impacts 4-86 [WDOR], Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2014. County and Municipal Revenues and Expenditures 2012. Bulletin No. 112, January 2014. Available at <http://www.revenue.wi.gov/slf/cotvc/cmreb12.pdf> (accessed 27 February 2014). [WHS] Wisconsin Historical Society. 2015. Letter from Eisenberg L, Compliance Archeologist, to Bladey C, Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Subject:

Draft EIS for the Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Janesville, Wisconsin. June 26, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15191A323. Wisconsin Golf Courses. 2013. Glen Erin Golf Course, Janesville, WI. Available at <http://gleneringolf.com>. Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 285. Air Pollution. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/285.pdf> (accessed 15 January 2015) Wisconsin Statute 157.70. Burial Sites Preservation. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/157/III/70> (accessed 15 January 2015) 5-1 5.0 ALTERNATIVES This chapter describes alternatives to granting a construction permit for the proposed SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) and the environmental impacts of those alternatives. The need to compare the proposed action with alternatives arises from the requirement in Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). NEPA states that an environmental impact statement (EIS) shall include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implements this requirement through regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51 and its Interim Staff Guidance in NUREG-1537 (NRC 2012), which state that the EIS will include an analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. The NRC standard of significance for impacts uses the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significantly" (40 CFR 1508.27). Since the significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, the NRC considered both "context" and "intensity," as defined in the CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1508.27. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects would occur. Intensity is the severity of the impact. Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. For this EIS, the NRC staff characterized impact levels for each resource area using the following three definitions of significance levels, which are presented in the Interim Staff Guidance to NUREG-1537: SMALL-environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. In assessing radiological impacts, the NRC has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the NRC's regulations are considered small. MODERATE-environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource. LARGE-environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. In this EIS, the NRC staff analyzed four alternatives to the proposed action. In Section 5.1, the NRC staff analyzed the no-action alternative or the environmental consequences if the NRC denies the construction permit. In Section 5.2, the NRC staff examined the environmental consequences if the SHINE facility were constructed and operated at an alternative location. Based on an in-depth site selection process, the NRC staff examined in depth two alternative sites, Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point. Section 5.3 examines the environmental impacts of constructing and operating a medical radioisotope production facility at the proposed SHINE site but using alternative technology. Section 5.4 describes the benefits and costs of the various alternatives. 5.1 No-Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would deny the construction permit, and the SHINE facility would not be constructed. The no-action alternative does not involve the determination of whether radioisotopes are needed or should be generated. The decision to produce radioisotopes is at the discretion of applicants (NRC 2012). Alternatives 5-2 Under the no-action alternative, no changes would occur to the proposed SHINE site in Janesville, Wisconsin. The site would remain zoned for industrial use. Therefore, impacts on all resource areas would be SMALL. The no-action alternative is the only alternative considered by the NRC that does not satisfy the purpose and need for this EIS, because this alternative does not satisfy the need for a U.S. supply of molybdenum-99. Assuming that the need for a U.S. supplier of molybdenum-99 continues to exist, another private company would likely construct and operate a medical radioisotope production facility. 5.2 Alternative Sites The NRC staff considered the environmental impacts of locating the proposed SHINE facility at alternative sites. SHINE identified and selected reasonable alternative sites, using the alternative site-selection process described below, in Section 5.2.1 (SHINE 2015a). Unless indicated otherwise, the following discussion is a summary of information presented in SHINE's Environmental Report (ER) (SHINE 2015a). 5.2.1 Description of Alternative Site-Selection Process SHINE's site-selection process assessed a variety of economic and environmental factors to determine reasonable regions, states, and, ultimately, sites to construct and operate the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE determined that proximity and access to customers was one of the most important factors in determining site location, because molybdenum-99 decays or disappears at a rate of about 1 percent per hour after production. To identify a potential region that is central to the locations of its customers, SHINE first identified the locations of their three most likely customers: Nordion Inc. in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Covidien Ltd. in St. Louis, Missouri; and Lantheus Medical Imaging Inc. in Billerica, Massachusetts. SHINE determined that locating the facility in the midwestern U.S. region provides proximity to these three customers, as well as to potential future customers, which could include hospitals and radiopharmacies throughout the country. The Midwestern States considered by SHINE included Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. SHINE also considered Louisiana because of potential financial incentives. SHINE evaluated potential Midwestern States based on their proximity to available and potential customers, financial incentives, and seismic considerations. To initially evaluate seismic concerns on a regional level, SHINE reviewed major fault-line seismic conditions within the midwestern region and determined that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Louisiana do not have any major fault lines. To better understand potential financial incentives, SHINE contacted economic development offices in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Michigan, and Louisiana. Ohio and Michigan were eliminated from further consideration because neither of the economic development offices in these States responded to SHINE's request. Wisconsin offered what SHINE considered to be a superior financial incentives package. Wisconsin is also the most centrally located State to SHINE's three prospective customers and is the home State of several project partners, including the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Morgridge Institute for Research, and Phoenix Nuclear Labs. Based on these factors, SHINE eliminated Minnesota and Louisiana from further consideration. Therefore, based on communication with economic development offices, a review of major fault lines, and the location of potential customers, SHINE determined that Wisconsin was the preferred State within the region. Alternatives 5-3 Within the State of Wisconsin, SHINE identified four locations that met certain basic geographic and infrastructure requirements for the proposed facility. Specifically, based on the relatively fast decay rate of molybdenum-99, SHINE required that sites met two fundamental criteria: (1) build-to-suit land available for development with proximity and access to an interstate highway, and (2) an airport within approximately 10 minutes of the proposed facility location, capable of handling radioisotope distribution aircraft. Based on these criteria, SHINE identified four cities for further consideration: Madison, Chippewa Falls, Janesville, and Stevens Point. Of these four cities, three city councils offered financial incentive packages to SHINE: Chippewa Falls, Janesville, and Stevens Point. No incentive package was offered for Madison and, therefore, SHINE eliminated this city from further consideration. For the remaining three cities, SHINE staff determined an approximate parcel size appropriate for the facility and requested that the city councils or other local government entities identify a potential site that met the size requirements and prepare an incentive proposal detailing the advantages of the site. SHINE developed a set of 11 criteria to score the three potential sites and to ultimately identify the site with the best economic advantage and fewest potential environmental impacts. SHINE scored each site using the following criteria: local government and community support, financial incentives, distance to the site boundary, access to a skilled workforce, proximity to potential future customers, proximity to an airport, proximity to an interstate highway, anticipated depth to the groundwater table, seismic characteristics, presence of endangered resources and wetlands, and presence of historic and archaeological resources. Local Government and Community Support SHINE determined that a supportive local government and a supportive local community are important factors in its facility site-selection process, because this support would be essential to complete the proposed construction and operations. SHINE weighted this factor (along with the financial incentives below) more heavily than the other nine factors in the scoring process because of the level of importance SHINE felt these factors would contribute to the successful construction and operation of the proposed facility. SHINE assigned these two factors a maximum score of 10. When evaluating this criterion, SHINE found that all three local governments showed an interest in the project, and it assigned all three sites a score of 10 out of 10. Financial Incentives SHINE determined that the financial incentive offered by each local government is an important factor in the site-selection process, because this support would be key to successfully completing the proposed construction and operating the facility. As with local government and Alternatives 5-4 community support, SHINE assigned this factor a possible 10 out of 10. During its evaluation, SHINE determined that all three communities provided competitive financial incentives; however, the cities of Janesville and Stevens Point provided slightly larger incentive packages than the city of Chippewa Falls. SHINE assigned the Janesville and Stevens Point sites a score of 9 out of 10 and the Chippewa Falls site a slightly lower score (8 out of 10). Distance to the Site Boundary SHINE assessed the distance from the facility to the site boundary, because a greater distance would lower the likelihood of a potential adverse impact on the public. The Janesville site had the furthest distance to the site boundary, approximately 1,000 ft (305 m) in all directions. The Stevens Point site was similar, with a minimum distance to the boundary just under 1,000 ft (305 m) in all directions. The Chippewa Falls site had a considerably smaller distance to the site boundary in some directions because of the site's smaller, oblong shape. Based on this information, SHINE assigned the Janesville and Stevens Point sites a score of 5 out of 5 and the Chippewa Falls site a slightly lower score of 4 out of 5. Access to a Skilled Workforce SHINE determined that proximity to large cities, as well as cooperation with local universities or technical colleges, was indicative of the accessibility to a skilled workforce. Proximity to large cities provides access to a diverse workforce, while relationships with local universities provide access to skilled training for the workforce. SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest score (4 out of 5), because of its proximity to Madison, Milwaukee, and Chicago. Janesville is close to Blackhawk Technical College, which would offer future training for SHINE's workforce, if the facility were located at the Janesville site. The Chippewa Falls site ranked evenly with the Stevens Point site, and SHINE assigned both sites a score of 3 out of 5. Chippewa Falls is approximately 100 mi (161 km) from Minneapolis-St. Paul, but none of the local schools offer any workforce training options, while Stevens Point is more remote than the other two sites but is in close proximity to the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, which would offer training to SHINE's workforce if the Stevens Point site were selected. Proximity to Potential Customers As described earlier in this section, SHINE determined that, because molybdenum-99 decays or diminishes at a rate of about 1 percent per hour after production, proximity to potential customers is a site-selection factor. Based on the locations of its three prospective customers (in Ottawa, Missouri, and Massachusetts) in comparison to the locations of the three potential sites, SHINE determined that radioisotopes shipped from the Janesville location have the shortest overall distance for air travel to each of SHINE's potential customers. SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest score for this category (5 out of 5), followed by the Stevens Point site (4 out of 5) and then the Chippewa Falls site (3 out of 5). Proximity to Airport SHINE determined that the closer the potential site is to the airport, the quicker its product would be delivered to the customer, and it analyzed this distance as a site-selection factor. The Janesville site is directly across the highway from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, with a distance of less than 0.5 mi (0.8 km). The Stevens Point site is approximately 4 mi (6 km) from the Stevens Point Municipal Airport. The Chippewa Falls site is approximately 10 mi (16 km) from the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport. During instances of local airport closures, radioisotopes would need to be transported by truck to the nearest secondary airport. The Janesville site is approximately 1 hour from Dane County Regional Airport in Madison and within 2 hours of both O'Hare International Airport in Chicago Alternatives 5-5 and Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee. The Chippewa Falls site is within 2 hours of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The Stevens Point site is more than 2 hours from all of these airports. Based on proximity to local and major airports, SHINE assigned the Janesville site a score of 5 out of 5, while the Stevens Point and Chippewa Falls sites received lower scores (3 out of 5). Proximity to an Interstate Highway If the local airport closes, SHINE determined that transporting radioisotopes by truck either to the closest secondary airport or directly to the customer would be necessary. To minimize travel time, SHINE made proximity to an interstate highway a site-selection factor. The Janesville site is approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) from Interstate 39. The Stevens Point site is less than 2 mi (3.2 km) from Interstate 39, and the Chippewa Falls site is approximately 18 mi (29 km) from Interstate 94. SHINE assigned the Stevens Point site the highest score in this category (5 out of 5), followed by the Janesville site (4 out of 5) and then the Chippewa Falls site (3 out of 5). Anticipated Depth to Groundwater SHINE made depth to groundwater a site-selection factor, because greater depth to groundwater would minimize facility impacts from spills, given that potential groundwater contamination from a leak or spill of oil or chemicals is less likely with further depth to the water table. Based on boreholes and wells drilled on site, SHINE determined that groundwater at the Janesville site was located 55 to 65 ft (17 to 20 m) below grade. Using records from onsite boreholes, SHINE determined groundwater to be approximately 50 ft. (15.2 m) below grade at the Chippewa Falls site. Using similar methods as at the Chippewa Falls site, SHINE determined that groundwater at the Stevens Point site was located 8.0 to 11.0 ft (2.4 to 3.4 m) below grade. SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest points for this category (5 out of 5), followed by the Chippewa Falls site (4 out of 5) and then the Stevens Point site (2 out of 5). Seismic Characteristics SHINE evaluated the seismic characteristics at each proposed site by reviewing the seismicity of the site area (based on peak ground accelerations) and historic records of seismic activity in the site area. SHINE found that the Janesville site is slightly more likely than the other two sites to experience a very weak shaking event. However, SHINE also noted that both the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point sites are located on glacial sands and may have higher amplification factors than at the Janesville site. SHINE also conducted a geotechnical investigation of the Janesville site that indicated that glacial deposits occur at the Janesville site, as well. Based on this information, SHINE assigned all three sites a score of 3 out of 5. Presence of Protected Species To score each of the three sites based on the presence of endangered resources and wetlands, SHINE requested information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) regarding the potential occurrence of Federally or State-listed species at the three sites. Because the Janesville site is an active agricultural field far from any wetlands, water, or buffer areas, WDNR and FWS determined it was an unsuitable habitat for listed species. Both the Chippewa Falls and the Stevens Point site contain forested areas, which the FWS noted is a potential habitat for migratory birds. WDNR also recommended that the small wetland community on the eastern edge of the Chippewa Falls site be protected as much as possible to avoid affecting any potential rare or declining species. FWS identified a portion of the Stevens Point site as having a high potential for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), a Federally listed endangered species in Wisconsin. Alternatives 5-6 Based on the input from WDNR and FWS, SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest score in this category (5 out of 5), and assigned the Stevens Point and Chippewa Falls sites a 2 out of 5, based on the potential habitats for protected species. Presence of Historic and Archaeological Resources To evaluate the presence of historic and archaeological resources, SHINE reviewed the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as well as the Wisconsin Historic Preservation Database. This search did not identify significant archaeological sites or other cultural resources on or near any of the proposed or alternative sites. As described in Chapter 3, SHINE completed a Phase I archaeological survey of the Janesville site. The survey did not identify any precontact or historic Euro-American archaeological sites. Based on this information, SHINE assigned all three sites a 5 out of 5. Summary SHINE assigned each site a score of either 1 to 10 or 1 to 5, based on the criteria discussed above. These scores are summarized in Table 5-1. Table 5-1. Proposed SHINE Site-Selection Scoring Criteria (Max Score) Janesville Stevens Point Chippewa Falls Local Government and Community Support (10) 10 10 10 Financial Incentives (10) 9 9 8 Minimum Distance to Site Boundary (5) 5 5 4 Access to a Skilled Workforce (5) 4 3 3 Proximity to Potential Future Customers (5) 5 4 3 Proximity to Airport (5) 5 3 3 Proximity to Interstate Highway (5) 4 5 3 Anticipated Depth to Groundwater Table (5) 5 2 4 Seismic Characteristics (5) 3 3 3 Presence of Endangered Resources and Wetlands (5) 5 2 2 Presence of Historic and Archaeological Resources (5) 5 5 5 Total 65 60 51 48 Source: SHINE 2013a Based on these scores, SHINE selected the Janesville site, with a total score of 60 out of 65, as the proposed location for the SHINE facility. SHINE determined that the Chippewa Falls site (48 out of 65) and the Stevens Point site (51 out of 65) were reasonable alternatives to the Janesville site. The NRC staff evaluated the site-selection methodology described above and concluded that the process for selecting and evaluating alternative sites, including the proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin, is reasonable and consistent with guidelines presented in NUREG-1537 and the associated Interim Staff Guidance (NRC 2012). The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impact of the two alternative sites, Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point, in the following sections. 5.2.2 Chippewa Falls Site The NRC staff evaluated the Chippewa Falls site as a reasonable alternative site. The City of Chippewa Falls is in Chippewa County in northwestern Wisconsin, approximately 13.4 mi Alternatives 5-7 (21.6 km) north of Eau Claire, Wisconsin (Figure 5-1). Specifically, the site is located in the Wissota Lake Business Park near the northern edge of the corporate boundaries of the City of Chippewa Falls in Chippewa County, Wisconsin. The site is bordered to the west by Commerce Parkway, to the north by County Highway S, to the east by State Highway 178, and to the south by forested and open land (Figure 5-2). The site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the southwest. Cropland, including corn and soybeans, comprises the majority of the site. No residences or other buildings are located on site. Figure 5-1. Population Centers and Transportation Features in Chippewa County, Wisconsin Source: SHINE 2013a Alternatives 5-8 Figure 5-2. Chippewa Falls Site Source: SHINE 2013a 5.2.2.1 Land Use and Visual Resources Land Use The Chippewa Falls site includes 76 acres (ac) (31 hectares (ha)) of land within the northern portion of the City of Chippewa Falls (Figure 5-2). The site is currently zoned for light industrial use and is part of the Wissota Lake Business Park (City of Chippewa Falls 1999; WEDC 2014a). Based on a review of the National Land Cover Database, the Chippewa Falls site is composed of 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) of cultivated agricultural land, 9.1 ac (3.7 ha) of developed land, and 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of deciduous forest (Table 5-2) (USGS 2006; SHINE 2013a). State Highway 178 borders the western boundary of the site. Warehouses and other buildings are located immediately to the west of State Highway 178. Agricultural fields surround the remaining portions of the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2015a). An abandoned railroad right-of-way runs diagonally through the southern portion of the site. Some of the land south of this right-of-way has been graded for use for the Wissota Lake Business Park. No residences, other structures, special land uses, or mineral resources are located within the Chippewa Falls site boundaries. The entire site is composed of prime farmland soils where otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013a; 7 CFR 657.5). Prime farmland is defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) as "land that has the best combination of Alternatives 5-9 physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary [of Agriculture]." The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with State and local agencies, defines and delineates the soils to consider as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance (7 CFR Part 657). However, otherwise qualifying "farmland" soils do not include those on land already in or committed to urban development or water storage, as defined in 7 CFR 658.2. Table 5-2. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the Chippewa Falls Site Land Use Category Permanently Disturbed Temporarily Disturbed Total On Site Total Within 5-mi (8-km) Radius Percentage Within 5-mi (8-km) Radius Developed Land 2.6 ac (1.0 ha) 0.01 ac (0.004 ha) 9.1 ac (3.7 ha) 8,966 ac (3,629 ha) 18 Cultivated Crops 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) 19,133 ac (7,743 ha) 38 Pasture/Hay - - - 3,237 ac (1,310 ha) 6 Grassland/ Herbaceous - - - 896 ac (362 ha) 2 Shrub/Scrub - - - 569 ac (230 ha) 1 Deciduous Forest 0.5 ac(a) (0.2 ha) 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) 7,301 ac (2,955 ha) 15 Evergreen Forest - - - 1,116 ac (452 ha) 2 Mixed Forest - - - 496 ac (201 ha) 1 Woody Wetlands - - - 1,269 ac (514 ha) 3 Emergent, Herbaceous Wetlands - - - 733 ac (297 ha) 1 Open Water - - - 6,549 ac (2,650 ha) 13 Totals 17.9 ac (7.3 ha) 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) 76.4 ac (30.9 ha) 50,265 ac (20,342 ha) 100 Notes: The footprint of the facility would permanently convert 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). In addition, up to 0.3 ac (0.1 ha) could also be cleared to comply with security requirements or other measures. Source: USGS 2006, SHINE 2013a Construction Construction at the Chippewa Falls site would permanently disturb and convert 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) of agricultural land, 2.6 ac (1.0 ha) of developed land, and 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) of deciduous forest into an industrial area (Table 5-2). If SHINE needed to clear additional portions of the site to comply with security requirements or other measures, the total amount of affected forested areas could be up to 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) (SHINE 2015a). In addition, 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) of agricultural Alternatives 5-10 land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking area and construction material staging or laydown areas. Once construction activities are complete, SHINE would likely restore temporarily affected areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie (SHINE 2015a). The remaining portion of the site would likely remain as open area, forested areas, or agricultural fields, or would be converted to cool season grasses or native prairie. The potential conversion of up to 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) currently used for agricultural and cultivated crops to other uses would be minor when compared to the 19,133 ac (7,743 ha) of agricultural land remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the site. Similarly, the conversion of up to 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of deciduous forest to industrial facilities would be minor when compared to the 7,301 ac (2,955 ha) of deciduous forest remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site. The Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations require agencies to make Farmland Protection Policy Act evaluations part of the NEPA process to reduce the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by Federal projects and programs. Construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would permanently convert 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) and temporarily convert 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) of prime farmland soils to industrial use. However, this is a small percentage of the prime farmland within the region surrounding the Chippewa Falls site. Furthermore, the Chippewa Falls site is currently zoned for light industrial uses and is part of a larger development project to create the Wissota Lake Business Park (City of Chippewa Falls 1999; WEDC 2014a). Because the Chippewa Falls site has been committed to urban development and zoned for light industrial use, the Chippewa Falls site does not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Act. Impacts on land use from construction would be SMALL, based on the relatively small amount of farmland and deciduous forest that would be permanently converted to other uses, the lack of qualifying prime farmland soils within affected areas, and the location of the proposed facility within an area zoned for light industrial use, as well as the fact that no effects were expected on special land use or mineral resources. Operations Operation of the SHINE facility would not require any new land or require land use changes beyond those required for construction. Therefore, impacts on land use during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Land requirements to perform these activities would be similar to those required during construction. After decommissioning activities are complete, the Chippewa Falls site could remain industrial or be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. Given that land requirements would be similar to those described during construction and that, after decommissioning is complete, the land would be industrial, agricultural, or open space, the NRC staff determined that the impacts on land use during decommissioning would be SMALL. Visual Resources The visual setting of the area that would be affected by the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site includes agricultural, forested, and light industrial viewsheds. The viewshed to the north, south, and east of the Chippewa Falls site is mainly flat or has slightly rolling cultivated fields. In addition, trees are visible in many directions. The viewshed to the west is a light industrial landscape, with a few warehouses and other buildings adjacent to the proposed site. Alternatives 5-11 Construction The activities associated with constructing the proposed SHINE facility (e.g., excavation, earthmoving, pile driving, and erecting the facility) would require large pieces of construction equipment, significantly altering the appearance and partially obstructing views of the existing landscape. However, the Chippewa Falls site has low scenic quality caused by a lack of notable features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, mute colors, cultural modifications to adjacent scenery, and a commonality within the physiographic province. The Chippewa Falls site also has a low-to-moderate sensitivity rating, as it is in an area with low scenic values and a lack of special natural and wilderness areas. However, several potentially sensitive viewing areas exist within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Chippewa Falls site, including the following: more than 100 residences, a hospital, nursing home, child daycare facility, adult daycare facility, several medical clinics, and two colleges. Nonetheless, trees and existing buildings would block the view from most of these locations, which would result in a partial view of the Chippewa Falls site during construction. In addition, the viewshed surrounding the Chippewa Falls site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, such as warehouses and other buildings, and agricultural fields. Based on the low scenic quality and light industrial viewshed in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site, construction-related aesthetic impacts would be SMALL during construction. Operations After the facility is constructed, the appearance of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would not change during operations, other than a small steam plume that may be visible coming from the exhaust stack. The steam plume from the exhaust stack is expected to be minimal, because opacity associated with the natural-gas-fired boiler and heaters tends to be low, as described in Section 4.2.2.1. The steam plume would be more visible during periods of cold weather, although the size of the steam plume would still be relatively small. Therefore, visual impacts during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. After SHINE completed decommissioning activities, the Chippewa Falls site could remain industrial, or be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. As the facility would be located in a district zoned for light industrial use and the viewshed surrounding the Chippewa Falls site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, the NRC staff would not expect any changes to the landscape during decommissioning to significantly affect any viewsheds. Therefore, visual impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. 5.2.2.2 Air Quality and Noise Air Quality The climate in Chippewa Falls is similar to that in Janesville, which was described in Section 3.2. According to National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) records for the years 1981 to 2010 (NCDC 2010a), the annual average temperature near Chippewa Falls was 44.8 °F (7.1 °C), annual snowfall is about 47 in. (119 cm) and average annual precipitation (rain) is 31 in. (78.8 cm). July is the warmest month of the year and January, the coldest. The NCDC records identify the following extreme weather events in Chippewa County from 1996 to 2013: thunderstorms (88 events), lightning (8 events), hail (76 events), tornadoes (2 events), heavy rain (23 events), and floods (2 events) (NCDC 2014a). Alternatives 5-12 The Chippewa Falls site is located in Chippewa County and is part of the Southeast Minnesota-La Crosse (Wisconsin) Interstate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.66). Chippewa County is designated as an attainment area for sulfur dioxide and an attainment/unclassifiable area for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter (40 CFR 81.350). Therefore, criteria pollutant concentrations in the county are lower than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or there is insufficient data to determine if the NAAQS are met. The region of influence (ROI) for the air quality analysis discussed below is Chippewa County, because air quality designations are made at the county level. The nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, about 208 mi (334 km) from the site (EPA 2014).5 Construction Sources of air pollutant emissions during construction of the Chippewa Falls site would include fugitive dust from earth-moving equipment and other vehicles, criteria pollutants from diesel engines, and exhaust gases from worker vehicles as they commute to and from the Chippewa Falls construction site. Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since construction activities and the number and type of sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel combustion). Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4-3. Construction air emissions would be temporary and localized. Chippewa County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from a facility at the Chippewa Falls site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Chippewa County's attainment/unclassifiable designation. Furthermore, SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated in the WDNR Type A Registration Construction Permit. Given the temporary nature of construction activities (18 months), the air quality designation of Chippewa County, and the pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from WDNR, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL. Operations Sources of air emissions from operating the facility would be from radioisotope production, fuel combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and vehicular traffic from workers commuting and from monthly truck shipments in and out of the facility. Air pollutants from these sources would include nitrogen oxides (from radioisotope production, fuel combustion, vehicular traffic), sulfur dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), particulate matter (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), carbon dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), and carbon monoxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic). Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since operation activities and the number and type of sources would be similar (worker vehicles, fuel combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and the production process). Chippewa County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from a facility at the Chippewa Falls site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate 5 Rainbow Lake in Wisconsin is the nearest Class 1 area (about 117 miles (188 km) from the Chippewa Falls site); however, in 1980, Rainbow Lake was excluded for purposes of visibility protection as a Class I area. Alternatives 5-13 Chippewa County's attainment/unclassifiable designation. Furthermore, SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated within the Type A Registration Operation Permit from WDNR. Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded, that the Chippewa County air quality is good, and that pollution control measures would be required in air permits from WDNR, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during operation would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities in type and duration. Sources of air emissions would be diesel equipment, vehicle worker emissions, and fugitive dust from earth-moving activities. Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), because decommissioning activities and sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel combustion). Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4-10. Air emissions from decommissioning would be temporary and localized. Chippewa County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from decommissioning at the Chippewa Falls site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Chippewa County's attainment/unclassifiable designation. Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded and the Chippewa County air quality is good, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. Noise The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the proposed SHINE facility. There are a number of noise-sensitive receptors within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the Chippewa Falls site, and the closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 2,112 ft (644 m) from the production building and approximately 530 feet (162 m) from the site boundary. As discussed above, the Chippewa Falls site is bordered to the west by Commerce Parkway, to the north by County Highway S, and to the east by State Highway 178. Existing noise sources near the proposed site include vehicular traffic on these roads. The NRC staff did not identify available noise surveys of the Chippewa Falls site and surrounding area. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.1 above, the Chippewa Falls site and surrounding area are cultivated agricultural land. Background noise levels are approximately 45 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) in agricultural cropland areas (EPA 1978). Construction Noise sources during construction of the Chippewa Falls site would include construction equipment on site and increased traffic volumes. The maximum number of worker vehicles expected on site during construction is 451. The Chippewa Falls site is bordered to the west by Commerce Parkway, to the north by County Highway S, and to the east by State Highway 178, and site access would be from Commerce Parkway. While workers would be able to access the site using a combination of routes (Section 5.2.2.10), it is reasonable to assume that Commerce Parkway, County Highway S, and State Highway 178 will experience an increase in traffic volumes. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.10, peak traffic on these roads averages around 400 vehicles per hour, similar to Highway 51 near the Janesville site. The NRC staff estimates that an increase in vehicular traffic caused by 451 peak construction workers will increase noise levels no more than 3 dBA near these roads in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. A 3-dBA Alternatives 5-14 change over existing noise levels is considered to be a "just noticeable" difference, while a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (NWCC 2002). The types of equipment that would be used on site during construction are listed in Table 4-2. Blasting and pile driving would not be required for excavation or installation of foundations (SHINE 2013a). The closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 2,112 ft (644 m) from the center of the site and approximately 530 ft (162m) from the site boundary. The NRC staff estimates noise levels of 64 dBA at the residence nearest to the Chippewa Falls site. Background noise levels are assumed to be around 45 dBA. The increase in noise levels could be noticeable to residents. Given the closeness of the nearest resident to the Chippewa Falls site and the noise levels from construction activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Operations Noise sources during operation of the Chippewa Falls site would be traffic from worker vehicles. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and is not expected to be audible outside the proposed SHINE building facility. The number of worker vehicles expected during operation is 150 (SHINE 2015a). Commerce Parkway, County Highway S, and State Highway 178 in the vicinity of the Chippewa Fall site will experience an increase in traffic volumes. The NRC staff does not expect that noise levels will increase beyond 1 dBA near these roads in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site and should not be noticeable. For this reason, the NRC staff concludes that noise impacts from facility operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Noise sources during decommissioning of the facility would include construction equipment on site and increased traffic volumes, similar to construction activities. The maximum number of worker vehicles expected on site during decommissioning is 261. Commerce Parkway, County Highway S, and State Highway 178 in the vicinity of the Chippewa Fall site will experience an increase in traffic volumes. The NRC staff does not expect that noise levels will increase beyond 2 dBA near these roads in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site and should not be noticeable. The types of equipment that would be used on site during decommissioning are listed in Table 4-9. The closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 2,112 ft (644 m) from the production building and approximately 530 ft (162 m) from the site boundary. The NRC staff estimates noise levels of about 64 dBA at the nearest residence to the Chippewa Falls site. Background noise levels are assumed to be around 45 dBA. Given the closeness of the nearest resident to the Chippewa Falls site and the noise levels from decommissioning activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. 5.2.2.3 Geologic Environment The Chippewa Falls site is located within the Wisconsin Central Plain physiographic province. This province is situated near the boundary between the Superior Upland and Central Lowland physiographic provinces of the United States (USGS 2003; SHINE 2013a). The site location is near a dividing line between areas affected by the younger Wisconsin glaciations that ended about 11,700 years ago and older glaciations of the Illinoian age (WGNHS 2011). These events are further discussed in Section 3.3.1. Alternatives 5-15 The topography of the site is relatively flat, with an average elevation of approximately 930 ft (283 m) mean sea level. During the NRC environmental site audit, evidence of earthwork and stockpiles of topsoil were observed in the central portion of the site. Geologic map coverage indicates that the site is located on a glacial outwash plain (Copper Falls outwash plain) formed by meltwater associated with the Chippewa ice lobe between approximately 26,000 and 9,500 years ago, during the latter part of the Wisconsin glaciation. The meltwater deposited sediment characterized as brown to pale brown sand, gravelly sand, and sandy gravel with developed soil profiles of 3.2- to 3.9-ft (1- to 1.2-m) thick. Depth to the uppermost bedrock surface is estimated to range from 49- to 98-ft (15- to 30-m) below ground surface (bgs) (Syverson 2007). Bedrock in the vicinity of the site is mapped mainly as Cambrian age sandstones and locally (in the Chippewa Falls area), as Precambrian granitic intrusive rocks (Mudrey et al. 1982; WGNHS 2005). A single geotechnical boring was completed in the north-central portion of the proposed site (AET 2011, SHINE 2013b). At this location, the boring encountered fill extending to a depth of approximately 3.5 ft (1.1 m) and underlain by a buried soil horizon (sandy silt) approximately 1.5-ft (0.45-m) thick. Below 5 ft (1.5 m), coarse sediments composed of poorly graded sands and gravels were found. A static water table elevation of 50-ft (15-m) bgs is inferred from the boring log. The boring was terminated in dense sandy gravel at 82-ft (25-m) bgs without encountering bedrock (AET 2011). Sand is being mined in several locations around Chippewa County (where the Chippewa Falls site is located) for use in hydraulic fracturing associated with natural gas production (SHINE 2013a; WGNHS 2014). Construction sand and gravel is also a commodity in the county (USGS 2013a), as are peat, glacial clay, and crushed Precambrian igneous or metamorphic rocks (Chippewa County 2010). Soil unit mapping by NRCS identifies natural soils across the site as consisting of Sattre loam, 0- to 3-percent slopes. This soil mapping unit is composed of well-drained loams and fine sandy loams and is found on outwash plains and stream terraces that developed from loamy glacial drift atop gravelly outwash. The profiles of these soils grade to a gravelly coarse sand or sand at depths greater than about 34 in. (86 cm). The depth to the water table in these soils is generally greater than 80 in. (200 cm) and they are not prone to ponding. The only building site limitation these soils have is that excavations tend to be very unstable because of the coarse sandy texture of subsoils and gravelly content. These soils are all prime farmland soils, where otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013a; 7 CFR 657.5). As further described in Section 3.3.3, the State of Wisconsin lays within the central portion of the stable North American craton. Regional seismicity is characterized by relatively infrequent, small-to-moderate earthquakes that are typical of much of the central and eastern United States (USGS 2013b). Similar to the Janesville site, seismic hazard estimates prepared by the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) indicate that the site is located within one of the lowest earthquake hazard areas in the conterminous United States (Petersen et al. 2011). Within a radius of 200 mi (322 km) of the Chippewa Falls site, only 2 earthquakes with a magnitude equal to or greater than 2.5 have been recorded since 1973. These events occurred in January 1988 and February 1994. The closest was a magnitude 3.6 earthquake with an epicenter approximately 140 mi (225 km) north of the site in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (USGS 2013c). Construction Ground-disturbing activities associated with facility construction would have impacts on geologic and soil resources similar to those discussed for the Janesville site (Section 4.3.1). Earthwork Alternatives 5-16 requirements and the ease of excavation would be very similar, as soils and surficial strata are comparable for the two sites. The depth to bedrock is not a concern for excavation work for the below-grade portions of the facility. As at the Janesville site, shallow excavations could be prone to slumping, caused by the texture of the soils. The potential for soil erosion and loss would be similar to that at the Janesville site. However, as described in Section 4.3.1, adherence to standard best management practices (BMPs) for soil erosion and sediment control and compliance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff (Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-S067831-4) would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss. Site work and the creation of an impervious surface would result in the irretrievable loss of prime farmland soils equal to the acreage disturbed and converted to an impervious surface. Given that the potential for soil erosion and loss is minimal and that SHINE would be required to comply with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), the NRC staff finds that the impacts on the geologic environment from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Operations There would be no additional impact on geology and soils from facility operations at the Chippewa Falls site. Land temporarily disturbed during construction within the site boundary and lying outside the facility footprint would be revegetated. Regardless of the site location, the proposed SHINE facility would be sited, designed, and constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes, which provide for the evaluation of site geologic and soil conditions, including potential seismic hazards. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that the operational impacts associated with the geologic environment at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Decommissioning Facility demolition and other ground-disturbing activities associated with decommissioning would have impacts on soils and sediments similar to those described for construction. As site activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable local, State, and other Federal regulations and permits, the NRC staff finds that the impacts on the geologic environment from facility decommissioning at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. 5.2.2.4 Water Resources Surface Water No streams or other surface-water bodies exist within the boundaries of the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2013a). The major surface-water feature in the vicinity of the site is Lake Wissota, an impoundment of the Chippewa River, located about 0.8 mi (1.3 km) east of the site. From the downstream end of the lake, the Chippewa River flows to the west immediately south of the site before taking a more southerly course toward Eau Claire (SHINE 2015a). Drainage from the site would be expected to travel south and southeast toward the Chippewa River. The Chippewa River is one of the largest rivers in Wisconsin. Within the subbasin in which the Chippewa Falls site is located, the river flows for 103 mi (166 km), extending from the Holcombe Dam in northern Chippewa and southern Rusk counties to the Mississippi River. This river section includes five flowages created by dams owned and operated by Northern States Power Company for hydropower generation and some 69 mi (111 km) of free-flowing river. The largest of these flowages (Lake Wissota) comprises 6,212 ac (2,500 ha) (WDNR 2013a). The nearest USGS gaging station on the Chippewa River is just southwest of the site in Chippewa Falls (Station 05365500). The mean annual discharge measured at the USGS gage Alternatives 5-17 for water years 1888 to 2012 is 4,974 cubic ft per second (cfs) (140.5 cubic m per second (m3/s)). The 90-percent exceedance flow, indicative of drought conditions, is 1,320 cfs (37.3 m3/s). For water year 2012, the mean discharge was 3,619 cfs (102 m3/s). The drainage area of the river upstream of the station encompasses 5,560 mi2 (14,630 km2) (USGS 2012a). No floodplains have been delineated on or near the site or within the Lake Wissota Business Park (Chippewa County 2010; SHINE 2013a; WEDC 2014a), and no tributaries to the Chippewa River originate on or near the site that could present backwater flooding concerns. The State of Wisconsin has established water-quality standards and numeric criteria and associated designated-use categories for all waters of the State, as previously described in Section 3.4.1, and in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 102 and NR 104). Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify "impaired" waters for which effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water-quality standards in such waters. The Chippewa River at Lake Wissota has a designated use for fish and aquatic life and is identified as impaired because of contaminated fish stemming from polychlorinated biphenyls and, historically, mercury (WDNR 2013a). In Chippewa County, surface water is used for self-supplied industrial and commercial uses and with minor use for irrigation, livestock watering, and mining. However, groundwater is the primary and almost exclusive source for the domestic and municipal water supply (Buchwald 2011; Chippewa County 2010). No industrial wastewater discharges have been identified in the site vicinity. Sanitary sewer service is provided to Wissota Business Park by the City of Chippewa Falls through a 24-in (61-cm) sanitary sewer line (WEDC 2014a). The Chippewa Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) has a capacity of 5.6 million gallons per day (mgd) (21,200 m3 per day (m3/d)), and demand is approximately 2.2 mgd (8,330 m3/d) (Chippewa County 2010; WEDC 2013a). Groundwater The surficial aquifer system occurs in the Chippewa River Basin and its associated drainages across Chippewa County (Olcott 1992). It is predominantly composed of Pleistocene-age glacial sediments and younger alluvial sediments that lie atop the bedrock surface (Olcott 1992). At the Chippewa Falls site, the surficial aquifer resides in the thick blanket of the Copper Falls glacial outwash identified at the site (Section 5.2.2.3). Consolidated bedrock aquifers of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system and of the Jacobsville sandstone and crystalline rock aquifers underlie the site or are present in the region. In the vicinity of the site, potential yields from wells screened in the surficial aquifer can yield up to 500 gallons per minute (gpm) (1.9 m3/min) of water (Lippelt 1988). The depth to groundwater at the site is 50 ft (15 m), as noted in Section 5.2.2.3. Groundwater beneath the site would also be expected to flow south and southeast toward the Chippewa River. No groundwater quality data are available for the surficial (sand and gravel) unit beneath the site, and no wells are known to have been drilled on the site location. Groundwater across the county is generally suitable in quantity and quality to meet domestic potable, agricultural, municipal, and industrial needs (Chippewa County 2010). The water is generally soft with local high concentrations of iron (Chippewa County 2010). Nitrate is a contamination of concern in many areas. The State of Wisconsin regulates groundwater quality and administers groundwater protection programs in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 140). As previously noted, municipalities in Chippewa County obtain potable water from groundwater sources. The Wissota Business Park, in which the Chippewa Falls site is located, would be Alternatives 5-18 served by a 16-in. (41-cm) water main with water originating from the City of Chippewa Falls (WEDC 2014a). The City of Chippewa Falls has nine wells and can supply 2.4 mgd (9,100 m3/d) of water (Chippewa County 2010). These wells are all completed in the surficial unit at depths ranging from 43 to 97 ft (13 to 30 m) (WDNR 2013b). Communities that provide water service through municipal wells must follow Chippewa County's wellhead protection plan (Chippewa County 2010). Construction Facility construction activities at the Chippewa Falls site would not have any direct impact on surface-water resources, as no streams or other surface-water bodies originate within the boundaries of the site. The major surface-water feature in the vicinity of the site is Lake Wissota, located about 0.8 mi (1.33 km) east of the site. In addition, construction and excavation activities would not be expected to have any impact on groundwater hydrology at the Chippewa Falls site, as the depth to groundwater is about 50 ft (15 m) (American Engineering Testing 2011). As discussed above (Geologic Environment) and detailed in Section 4.4.1.1 for the Janesville site, ground-disturbing activities at the Chippewa Falls site would be subject to a Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This General Permit requires the development of appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures and spill prevention and waste management practices to minimize suspended sediment, the transport of other deleterious materials, and potential water-quality impacts. No surface water would be withdrawn to support construction at the site (SHINE 2013a). The relatively small volume of water required to support construction activities (averaging about 0.012 mgd (45 m3/day)) would be supplied by the City of Chippewa Falls, which uses groundwater. Water could either be supplied by a temporary water tap or trucked to the point of use. Wastewater generation would be limited to sanitary waste from the construction workforce and would likely be accommodated through the use of portable restroom facilities. As no natural surface-water features occur on the site, SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility construction, there would be no onsite withdrawal of groundwater, and SHINE would be subject to the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface and groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water use from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Operations Normal facility operations would not have any direct impact on surface water or groundwater hydrology or quality. Compliance with the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), as described for construction, specifically requires the development of a stormwater management plan with appropriate BMPs to address runoff from buildings and other impervious surfaces. As detailed in Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.2.2 for the Janesville site, the design, construction, and operation of the proposed facility would include necessary structural controls, and operations would be subject to appropriate plans and procedures (including a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan) to prevent any spills or other releases from reaching soils or surfaces where they could be conveyed to surface waters or groundwater. Total water use is projected to be 6,073 gpd (22,990 liters per day (Lpd)), or 0.006 mgd (23 m3/day) and would be supplied by the City of Chippewa Falls by a service connection from the Wissota Business Park (SHINE 2013a, 2013b, 2014). Estimated demand is a small percentage of the City of Chippewa Falls' supply capacity. Alternatives 5-19 Operation of the proposed SHINE facility would entail no direct discharge of wastewater effluents to either surface water or groundwater. Wastewater generated by facility operations, composed primarily of sanitary waste, would be discharged to the City of Chippewa Falls WTP (SHINE 2015a). Section 5.2.2.9 discusses the management of other waste forms. Given that SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility operation and would develop and implement spill prevention and response procedures, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface and groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water use from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Decommissioning Facility decontamination, demolition, and site-restoration activities would be similar, regardless of the site, with the potential magnitude of the impacts on surface water and groundwater similar to those discussed for construction. Specifically, SHINE would conduct site activities in accordance with appropriate BMPs and would observe waste handling and pollution prevention practices and spill prevention and response procedures during decommissioning, so that no materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater, where they could contaminate water resources. Small quantities of water that may be required for dust control and soil compaction in association with site restoration activities would be supplied from municipal sources, as discussed for construction. Given that no natural surface-water features occur on the site, that water requirements would be minimal, and that SHINE would develop and implement spill prevention and response procedures as part of State permit requirements for ground-disturbing activities, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on water resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL. 5.2.2.5 Ecological Resources The Chippewa Falls site consists of 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) of agricultural land, 9.1 ac (3.7 ha) of developed land, and 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of deciduous forest (Table 5-2). As described in Section 5.2.2.1, these land use covers are based on the USGS (2006) land cover database. During a field reconnaissance survey, the SHINE staff observed a small wetland community in a narrow drainage way along the eastern edge of the site that was not included in the USGS land cover database. Plant species on the site vary depending on previous land uses. For example, actively cultivated crops on the site include corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). Fallow agricultural land on the southern portion of the site has been graded in preparation for use by the Wissota Lake Business Park. Plants in this portion of the site are typical of an old field plant community, such as goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and aster (Symphyotrichum spp.). An abandoned railroad right-of-way crosses the site and is surrounded by a few deciduous tree species (trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides and dogwoods (Cornus spp.)); a few prairie remnant species; and plants tolerant of physical disturbances. Wetland species observed in the narrow drainage way along the eastern edge of the site include common cattail (Typha latifolia), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), dock (Rumex spp.), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and spikerush (Eleocharis spp.) (SHINE 2015a). The Chippewa Falls site provides habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other wildlife tolerant of open fields, cultivated grasses, and frequent disturbances from human activity. During a reconnaissance survey, SHINE observed several birds at the Chippewa Falls site, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), and various sparrows (SHINE 2015a). Common Alternatives 5-20 mammals that inhabit the site likely include deer, raccoons, squirrels, and rabbits. Common reptiles and amphibians that inhabit the site likely include frogs and snakes. Other than the one wetland identified along the eastern edge of the site, no water bodies or aquatic habitats exist within the boundaries of the Chippewa Falls site. The closest aquatic features to the Chippewa Falls site include a wetland that is 0.25 mi (0.4 km) from the site, Lake Wissota, that is approximately 0.8 mi (1.3 km) north-northwest of the site, and the Chippewa River that is approximately 0.9 mi (1.4 km) south of the site (SHINE 2013a). Lake Wissota and the Chippewa River are important ecological habitats for fish, invertebrates, and other aquatic organisms and plants (WDNR 2014a, 2014b). In correspondence with the NRC, FWS (2013) did not identify any Federally listed species on or near the Chippewa Falls site (FWS 2013). Three species of special concern and one State-endangered fish could occur within 6 mi (10 km) of the Chippewa Falls site (Table 5-3) (SHINE 2013a; WDNR 2014a). While these species may occur within the vicinity of the site, the Chippewa Falls site provides unsuitable habitat for any of the four State-protected species (SHINE 2015a; WDNR 2014a). SHINE did not observe any Federally or State-protected species on the Chippewa Falls site during reconnaissance surveys (SHINE 2015a). Table 5-3. Federally and State-Protected Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Chippewa Falls Site Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) State Rank(b) Bird Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus bald eagle BGEPA SSC S4 Fish Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SSC S3 Insects Ophiogomphus smithi sand snaketail SSC S3 (a) BGEPA= Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; E = endangered; SSC = Species of Special Concern (b) S3 = Rare or uncommon in Wisconsin; S4 = Secure in Wisconsin with many occurrences. Sources: FWS 2013, WDNR 2014a, SHINE 2013a The FWS administers the BGEPA, which prohibits anyone from taking bald (Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus) or golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), including their nests or eggs, without a permit issued by the FWS. FWS (2013) determined that bald eagles occur within the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. The FWS also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which prohibits anyone from taking native migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The majority of the bird species that occur in Wisconsin, except for resident games birds and feral species, are protected under this Act (WDNR 2014c). In the vicinity of the site, migratory birds rely on riparian, forested, grassland, and wetland habitats as important areas for foraging, resting, avoiding predators, and, for some species, breeding. On the Chippewa Falls site, migratory birds likely use trees for resting and possibly breeding, nesting, and foraging. Construction Construction of the SHINE facility would result in permanently converting 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) of deciduous forest and 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) of agricultural fields into an industrial facility or developed open space, such as parking lots. The deciduous forest would include trees growing along the Alternatives 5-21 abandoned railroad right-of-way. The agricultural fields would include part of the cropland in the northern half of the site and part of the fallow field in the southern part of the site. In addition, 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) of cropland in the northern part of the site would be temporarily disturbed during construction. Agricultural and open fields are abundant within the region and provide relatively low-quality habitat for birds and wildlife in comparison to forests, grasslands, and wetland habitats. In addition to a loss of habitat, noise from construction activities could disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such disturbances, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity. During construction, bird collisions with construction equipment and the new facility could result in mortality from the presence of tall structures (e.g., stacks or cranes) and artificial night lighting during nighttime construction. The size of structures and the likelihood of mortality from bird collisions would be similar to that described in Section 4.5 for the proposed SHINE site in Janesville. In that analysis, the NRC staff determined that impacts from bird collisions would be negligible and unlikely to affect local or migratory populations, based on previous reviews of bird collisions at nuclear power plants that are similar or larger in height and size than the proposed SHINE facility. Construction at the Chippewa Falls site is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic resources, such as habitat loss, because no aquatic resources would be within the footprint of the proposed facility or the construction laydown areas. Runoff from the site could affect the onsite wetland or offsite aquatic resources by increasing turbidity or introducing various chemicals or other pollutants. WDNR recommended that SHINE implement strict erosion and siltation controls during the entire construction period to minimize impacts on State-protected species that could use Lake Wissota and the Chippewa River (SHINE 2015a). SHINE (2013a) stated, in its ER, that if the Chippewa Falls site were selected, SHINE would implement appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs to minimize the transport of suspended sediment and other pollutants. In response to the NRC staff's request for endangered and threatened species that could be affected by the proposed construction and operations, FWS (2013) stated that bald eagles and migratory birds could be found either on or within the vicinity of the site. FWS (2013) recommended further discussions if any active bald eagle nests are identified on the site. In addition, if the Chippewa Falls site is selected, FWS (2013) recommended that any tree removal occur before May 1 or after August 30 to minimize impacts on breeding migratory birds, which may use the trees for breeding, nesting, foraging, or resting. Given that construction would not permanently or temporarily affect any high-quality habitats, such as grasslands, undisturbed forests, or wetlands; permanently and temporarily affected habitats are abundant within the region; and mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on ecological resources during construction would be SMALL. If the Chippewa Falls site were selected, FWS (2013) recommended that SHINE survey the site for any active bald eagle nests and refrain from tree removal from May 1 to August 30. If SHINE identified active bald eagle nests at the site, or removed trees from May 1 to August 30, the impacts would be greater. Operations During operations, impacts on ecological resources could result from bird collisions, herbicide applications for landscape maintenance activities, elevated noise levels, and increased turbidity or introduction of pollutants from runoff. As described in Section 4.5, mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, given that the tallest structure would be a stack approximately 66 ft (20 m) tall. Disturbance from daily activities, herbicide applications, or elevated noise levels is likely to have minimal impacts on wildlife and plant species, given that Alternatives 5-22 the species identified at the Chippewa Falls site are generally tolerant of disturbance, because the land has been actively farmed or modified for human use over the past several decades. In response to any disturbances during operations, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity. Operation of the facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic resources, because wastewater would be discharged to the City of Chippewa Falls sanitary sewer system after being treated (SHINE 2013a). Indirect impacts during operations could include runoff that may contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or herbicides. However, as described above, impacts on aquatic resources are expected to be minimal because of the distance to Lake Wissota and the Chippewa River, and SHINE would be required, in its stormwater permit, to use appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs. Given that mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, habitat disturbances during operations would be minimal, any disturbed wildlife could find similar habitat in the vicinity, BMPs would be required in the SHINE stormwater permit, and no Federally or State-listed species occur on the SHINE site, impacts on ecological resources during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would have similar impacts on those that occur during construction of the proposed facility. For example, SHINE would use construction equipment to dismantle large buildings, which could result in disturbances to wildlife and birds and potential runoff to nearby water bodies. In addition, some land on the site could be used as staging areas for the equipment and to conduct certain dismantling activities. As described above, if noise or other activities disturb birds or wildlife, similar habitat is available in nearby offsite areas. No surface water would be used during decommissioning, and SHINE would develop and implement spill prevention and response procedures as part of State permit requirements for ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, impacts during decommissioning are expected to be SMALL. 5.2.2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources A review of databases maintained by the National Park Service indicates that there are 12 historic properties listed in the NRHP within Chippewa County (NPS 2015a). These properties reflect the historic cultural contexts for the proposed Chippewa Falls site and include buildings, structures, and districts dating from the mid-19th to mid-20th centuries. However, no historic properties are located within the area of potential effect (APE), the Chippewa Falls site, or its immediate vicinity. The closest NRHP-listed property is the Notre Dame Church and Goldsmith Memorial Chapel, approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) southwest of the Chippewa Falls site. The Church and Chapel are Romanesque in style. They are significant for their architectural design and for being the first church established in Chippewa County (NHRP 2013a). No archeological survey was commissioned by SHINE for the Chippewa Falls site. The NRC staff queried the Archaeological Sites Inventory and Architectural History Inventory, the Burial Sites Inventory, and the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS). No known historic or cultural resources or historic properties were found at the Chippewa Falls site (NRC 2013). In July 2015, the NRC received a determination from the WHS that no historic properties would be affected (WHS 2015) (see Appendix D). As there are no known historic properties, under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), or historic and cultural resources located within the APE, impacts on these resources are not likely during the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. The facility would also have little or no visual or aesthetic impact, as potential visual impacts during construction and decommissioning would be temporary. The proposed SHINE facility is a Alternatives 5-23 low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) away and is surrounded by residential and commercial properties. However, previously unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-disturbing activities associated with construction, maintenance during operations, and decommissioning. It is expected that SHINE would employ a cultural resource management plan (CRMP), similar to the one discussed in Section 4.6, to manage and protect as-yet-unidentified cultural resources. Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) CRMP procedures, and (3) cultural resource assessment and consultations, construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the possibility of the inadvertent discovery of unidentified cultural resources caused by land disturbance during construction, operations, and decommissioning, the overall impact would be SMALL. 5.2.2.7 Socioeconomics Affected Environment For the purposes of this analysis, the ROI is Chippewa County, Wisconsin, with special consideration being given to the site of the facility in Chippewa Falls. The City of Chippewa Falls is the county seat in Chippewa County. According to the 2010 Census, the total population of Chippewa Falls was 13,661 and the total population of Chippewa County was 62,415 (USCB 2014a). The population in Chippewa County steadily increased from 1970 to 2010, with a large increase of 13.1 percent from 2000 to 2010. According to the 2010 Census, there were 6,304 total housing units in the City of Chippewa Falls and 27,185 total housing units for Chippewa County. The total number of vacant housing units in the City of Chippewa Falls was 408 (6 percent) and 2,775 (10 percent) in Chippewa County (USCB 2014b). Chippewa County had the highest employment by industry in manufacturing with employment at 5,121 (26.97 percent), followed by the trades, transportation, and utilities (BLS 2013). Several industries are represented in the City of Chippewa Falls; the top employers are in the medical, education, retail, government, and manufacturing industries. The top three employers in Chippewa County were TTM Advanced Circuits Inc., Chippewa Falls Public School, and Saint Joseph's Hospital, as reported by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (WDWD) for the first quarter of 2013 (WDWD 2013). There was a slight decline in the labor force total between 2011 and 2012 in the City of Chippewa Falls. However, during this same time period, the unemployment rate in the City of Chippewa Falls dropped from 9.5 percent to 7.6 percent. In 2011, the Chippewa County unemployment rate was 6.5 percent, while the State of Wisconsin unemployment rate was 6.9 percent. Both were lower than in the City of Chippewa Falls (BLS 2013). According to the 2011 Migrant Population Report issued by the WDWD, there are no migrant workers in Chippewa County (WDWD 2014). According to 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the median family income for the City of Chippewa Falls for 2007-2011 was $51,486, while for Chippewa County, it was $58,544. The Chippewa County per capita income was $23,777 and the City of Chippewa Falls was slightly higher, with a per capita income of $23,885 (USCB 2014a). Tax rates vary by jurisdiction. The City of Chippewa Falls has a fire and emergency services department and police department and houses the Chippewa County Emergency Management Department. This Department is responsible for developing hazardous materials plans, maintaining public files for facilities storing more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kg) of hazardous materials, conducting Alternatives 5-24 disaster exercises and training activities, coordinating highway safety programs and grants, and coordinating Chippewa County radio communications (Chippewa County 2013). The City of Chippewa Falls Water Department gets its water supply from nine drilled wells. In addition to supplying water, it is responsible for preventing groundwater contamination. The Chippewa Falls Area Unified School District had a total of 5,007 students enrolled in pre-kindergarten to grade 12 for 2012-2013 in six elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and one alternative school (Chippewa Area Unified School District 2013). There are also several higher education schools in the area, including: the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Chippewa Valley Technical College, and Lakeland College-Chippewa Falls Center (Chippewa Area Unified School District 2013). The City of Chippewa Falls has a number of recreational facilities, including several trails for walking, biking, and cross-country skiing, and an ice arena. In addition, there are 31 campgrounds in the City of Chippewa Falls, numerous community parks, and 2 golf courses (WDNR undated). Cultural institutions include the Chippewa Falls Museum of Industry and Technology, the County Historical Society & Genealogical Society, the Cook-Rutledge Mansion, the Eau Claire Regional Arts Center (Eau Claire), the Fanny Hill Dinner Theater (Eau Claire), the Heyde Center for the Arts, and the Irvine Park and Zoo. Impact Analysis The estimated number of workers needed to construct, operate, and decommission the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be the same as the number of workers required for the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site. Construction The 451 workers needed to construct the proposed SHINE facility would represent 3 percent of the total population (13,661) of Chippewa Falls and less than 1 percent of the population of Chippewa County (62, 415) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Most construction workers would likely reside within the ROI and would not permanently relocate because of the relatively short duration (18 months) of construction. In addition, support infrastructure within the ROI would be able to accommodate a temporary increase in population. Since most of the 451 construction workers would likely already reside in the ROI, there would be no increase in demand for public services. Assuming that SHINE would enter into a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement with the City of Chippewa Falls, similar to the agreement with the City of Janesville, in the first 10 years of the proposed project, the TIF agreement would allow SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes to the City of Chippewa Falls. Tax payments totaling $600,000 per year would be used to offset infrastructure expenses (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would also pay property taxes, estimated to be $35,000 per year, based on the assessed property before improvements during this 10-year period (SHINE 2015a). The Chippewa Area Unified School District would receive a portion of the property tax benefits, since the Chippewa Falls site is located in that district. Sales tax revenue would also increase if materials and services were purchased within the ROI during construction. However, the total amount of tax revenue generated within the ROI during construction would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Chippewa Falls and Chippewa County; Chippewa Fall's 2012 collected taxes were approximately $7.6 million, while Chippewa County collected approximately $20.6 million in taxes in 2012 (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-25 Operations The 150 operations workers would represent 1 percent of the total 2010 population of Chippewa Falls (13,661) and less than 1 percent of Chippewa County (62,415) (USCB 2014a). It is likely that some workers would relocate to the ROI. However, the total number of operations workers would not create a significant socioeconomic impact. There is sufficient housing available in the ROI to accommodate any increase in the population from the proposed SHINE facility. There is also sufficient capacity in the public schools to accommodate the small increase in the school-age population when the proposed SHINE facility operations workers and their families relocate to the ROI. Public services, including water utilities, would be able to support the increased needs of operations workers and their families. SHINE would continue to make payments in lieu of taxes (estimated $600,000) and property taxes (estimated $35,000) during facility operations (SHINE 2015a). However, after expiration of the 10-year TIF agreement with the City of Chippewa Falls, SHINE would pay property taxes of approximately $660,000 per year (SHINE 2015a). The amount of property taxes could change, depending on the assessed value of the proposed SHINE facility. The Chippewa Area Unified School District would also continue to receive property tax revenue from SHINE during facility operations. In addition, overall sales and property tax revenues would increase within the ROI, caused by the increase in the population from operations workers relocating to the ROI. However, the total amount of tax revenue generated during this period within the ROI would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Chippewa Falls and Chippewa County. In 2012, Chippewa Falls received approximately $7.6 million in tax revenue, while Chippewa County received approximately $20.6 million (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during SHINE facility operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning The 261 decommissioning workers would represent 2 percent of the total population of Chippewa Falls (13,661) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Because of the short duration of decommissioning (6 months), workers would not likely relocate permanently to Chippewa Falls, and some of the SHINE operations workers could transition to decommissioning. Since it is likely that most decommissioning workers would already reside in the ROI, there would be little or no increased demand for public services. In addition, support infrastructure within the ROI would be able to accommodate any temporary increase in population. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during the decommissioning of the SHINE facility would be SMALL. 5.2.2.8 Human Health Construction The construction of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to that for the Janesville site. For example, there would be no significant physical differences in the design of the facility, workers would be exposed to similar construction hazards, and SHINE would implement similar construction methods and safety practices (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Operations The radiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to that for the Janesville site. Radiological exposures associated with a SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would include similar radiation sources and radioactive effluents, as well as Alternatives 5-26 implementation of a radiation protection program to minimize and ensure compliance with worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 (SHINE 2015a). The nonradiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site also would be similar to that for the Janesville site. Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive material, would be essentially the same as those for a SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from operation of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the radiological and nonradiological impacts on human health from operations at the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Decommissioning The decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to that proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the two sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2015a). After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. Facility workers would continue to receive radiation exposure during work activities relating to the cleanup, movement, storage, and disposal of radioactive material. The types and amounts of nonradioactive material generated during decommissioning would be similar to those generated at the Janesville site. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIS would be used during decommissioning to ensure that worker and public radiation doses and exposure to nonradioactive chemicals remain within NRC and State limits. In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there would be no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and operations, and radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to ensure hazards to workers and the public would be within NRC and State limits, the NRC staff concludes the impacts on human health from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. 5.2.2.9 Waste Management Construction The construction of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would generate similar types and volumes of waste to those for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from construction (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-27 Operations The radiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would generate similar types and volumes of radioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). In addition, management of the radioactive waste would be similar, regardless of the location of the proposed facility. Implementation of a radiation protection program to minimize radiation exposure from the radioactive waste and to ensure compliance with worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 would be essentially the same as those discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS for a proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). The nonradiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would generate similar types and volumes of nonradioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive material, would be essentially the same as those discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS for a proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from radiological and nonradiological waste generated during facility operations at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the radiological and nonradiological impacts on human health from waste generated from operating the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to that proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the two sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2015a). After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. The types and amounts of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes generated during decommissioning would be similar to those generated at the Janesville site. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIS would be used during decommissioning to protect workers and the public from the waste (SHINE 2013a). In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there would be no significant differences between the two sites or the facility's design and operation, and radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to protect workers and the public from the waste, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from waste during decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-28 5.2.2.10 Transportation Major roads and transportation features in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site are shown in Figure 5-1. The site lies northeast of the City of Chippewa Falls and is bordered by Commerce Parkway (Old State Trunk Highway 178) to the west, County Highway S to the north, and State Trunk Highway 178 (Seymour Cray Boulevard) to the east. Commerce Parkway is a two-lane road along which access to the site would be constructed. At the northwest corner of the site, Commerce Parkway intersects with County Highway S at a two-way stop. South of the site, Commerce Parkway intersects with County Highway I at a signalized intersection. Like Commerce Parkway, County Highway S is also a two-lane road with paved shoulders, while County Highway I is a four-lane road with curbed shoulders and a two-way turning lane as the median. The nearest major highway to the Chippewa Falls site is U.S. Highway 53, located approximately 5 mi (8 km) to the west, while Interstate 94 is located approximately 13 mi (21 km) to the south (SHINE 2013a). Annual average daily traffic volumes for various roads and locations in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site are listed in Table 5-4. Morning, midday, and evening peak hourly traffic counts for associated locations are listed in Table 5-5. Available traffic data for Commerce Parkway near the Chippewa Falls site suggests that peak traffic along this corridor averages between 200 and 300 vehicles per hour (WDOT 2011a). Table 5-4. Annual Average Daily Traffic CountsVicinity of Chippewa Falls Site Traffic Count Location Vehicles Per Day Commerce Parkway, between County Highway S & County Highway I 3,700 County Highway S, west of Commerce Parkway 4,600 County Highway S, east of Commerce Parkway 3,800 County Highway I, west of Commerce Parkway near 140th Street 3,400 County Highway I, between Commerce Parkway and State Highway 178 5,600 Interstate 39, U.S. Highway 53, north of County Highway S 11,100 Source: WDOT 2008a Table 5-5. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic CountsVicinity of Chippewa Falls SiteNumber of Vehicles WDOT Count Site # Location Year of Count A.M. Peak(a) Midday Peak(b) P.M. Peak(c) Daily Total 090200 Commerce Parkway (Old State Trunk Highway 178), south of County Highway S 2011 207 211 284 3,050 090882 County Highway S, west of State Trunk Highway 178 2011 355 344 439 5,166 090198 County Highway S, between State Trunk Highway 24 & 149th Street 2011 347 341 394 4,923 090796 County Highway I, between Scheidler Road & State Trunk Highway 178 (Seymour Cray Blvd) 2011 457 488 529 6,098 090794 State Trunk Highway 178 (Seymour Cray Boulevard), between County Highway I and Chippewa River 2011 670 656 890 9,895 Alternatives 5-29 WDOT Count Site # Location Year of Count A.M. Peak(a) Midday Peak(b) P.M. Peak(c) Daily Total (a) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 00:00 and 09:59. (b) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 10:00 and 14:59. (c) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 15:00 and 23:59. Source: WDOT 2011a Construction Given that construction at the Chippewa Falls site would be very similar to that described for the proposed Janesville site, SHINE estimated that construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would require an average of 420 deliveries per month (14 deliveries per day) and 9 offsite waste shipments per month using heavy vehicles (dump trucks/delivery trucks) (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during construction would add an estimated 451 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff similarly assumed that, with a total of 465 vehicles per day, each having an arrival and departure trip, and some vehicles making return trips during the day (e.g., offsite trips for lunch), vehicle counts immediately adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility may temporarily increase by approximately 1,000 trips per day. As with the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, no sources or routes for construction materials, including concrete, have been specified, and SHINE plans to ensure that delivery routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas associated with the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2013). SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC's regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin's Administrative Code, Chapter 326, "Transportation"; and the Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). Table 5-4 indicates that Commerce Parkway experiences approximately 3,700 vehicles per day adjacent to the Chippewa Falls site. Accordingly, the addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips per day) from SHINE construction activities would result in an increased traffic volume on Commerce Parkway of up to 27 percent. Additionally, the percentage of heavy trucks on this route would temporarily increase. However, available traffic counts do not distinguish between types of vehicles currently traveling this route, and the increase in traffic volume would be temporary and limited to the period of construction. SHINE's traffic analysis indicated that projected levels of peak construction-related traffic could noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, but these delays would not be sufficient to destabilize the transportation infrastructure (SHINE 2015a). SHINE plans to use a staggered construction work shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto Commerce Parkway and schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help mitigate the potential two-to-three-fold increases in traffic that could occur during peak periods (SHINE 2013b). Increased traffic volumes on Commerce Parkway may also merit mitigation in the form of infrastructure upgrades at its intersections with County Highways S and I. Increased traffic volumes on other roads in the vicinity are expected to be less but could still be significant (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during construction would be MODERATE. Alternatives 5-30 Operations Given that operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls sites would be very similar to that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that a maximum of 150 worker vehicles distributed over three work shifts per day would access the site using Commerce Parkway (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff estimated that each vehicle would require separate trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility, plus a number of trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility during the midshift, resulting in approximately 325 additional worker vehicle trips daily. The additional 325 vehicle trips associated with the Chippewa Falls site represents an increase of less than 10 percent of the average annual daily traffic on roads in the area. In addition to operations employees commuting to the proposed facility, SHINE estimated that additional traffic to and from the facility would also include: an average of 36 truck deliveries per month to the proposed SHINE facility, which would include both radioactive and nonradioactive materials (SHINE 2015a, 2015b); an average of 39 outbound product shipments per month through the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport (SHINE 2015b); an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year (SHINE 2015b); and an average of one shipment per month of nonradioactive domestic and industrial waste (SHINE 2015a, 2015b). SHINE's preferred method of product shipments would be to transport product by truck from the Chippewa Falls site to the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, approximately 10 mi (16 km) away, for air transport to customers. The next closest available airport for product shipment is the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, located approximately 2 hours west of the Chippewa Falls site on Interstate 94 (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility to increase slightly above current levels during operation but not to an appreciable extent when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site, as presented in Tables 5-3 and 5-4. Similar to the activities that would occur at the Janesville site, SHINE would transport radioactive waste from the Chippewa Falls site to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal facility. A common-carrier truck would likely transport the waste. SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC's regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin's Administrative Code, Chapter 326, "Transportation"; and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure public health and safety on roadways. Based on the relatively small increase in traffic compared to the average daily and annual traffic flows near the Chippewa Falls site, and because SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and the State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material, the NRC staff concludes that the impact on transportation infrastructure during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Given that decommissioning the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be very similar to that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that an average of 72 truck deliveries and 191 offsite waste shipments per month, (a total of approximately nine heavy-vehicle shipments per day) would be required (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during Alternatives 5-31 decommissioning would add an estimated 261 vehicles per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff estimates that there could be an increase of approximately 580 trips a day on local roads during the decommissioning phase, increasing average daily traffic on roads in the immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site from what was being experienced during the operations phase. Peak decommissioning-related traffic could noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, but these delays would not be sufficient to destabilize the transportation infrastructure. SHINE could use a staggered work shift schedule, similar to that employed during construction, to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto Commerce Parkway and schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013b). However, the change in average daily traffic flows in the immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site and an increase in commuter, truck delivery, as well as waste traffic directly related to decommissioning activities, could affect local commuting patterns. Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the decommissioning phase would be MODERATE. 5.2.2.11 Accidents SHINE stated, in its ER, that no conditions have been identified for the Chippewa Falls site that would significantly affect the radiological or nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents differently than at the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff considers this assumption reasonable, because the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be essentially the same as at the Janesville site since the design, construction, operations, and decommissioning are similar. In addition, the same radiological and nonradiological safety regulations applicable to the Janesville site would apply to the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.11 of this EIS, the NRC concluded that the impacts from radiological and nonradiological accidents at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Given that no significant differences exist between the two sites or their facility design and operations, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. 5.2.2.12 Environmental Justice This section describes the potential human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. The NRC addresses environmental justice issues and concerns by first identifying potentially affected minority and low-income populations and then determining whether there would be any potential human health or environmental effects and whether these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority-population data were available for Census block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius around the Chippewa Falls site. Low-income population data were only available at the Census tract level, because of the limited availability of poverty data at the block group level. To protect confidentiality, the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) does not publish information about small geographic areas if the population size is too small. Race and ethnicity and poverty Census data were used to identify the location of minority and low-income populations near the Chippewa Falls site. If the Census tract and block group boundaries crossed the 5-mi (8-km) radius boundary, the entire Census tract or Census block group data were used. Geographic information system software was used to create the maps. Alternatives 5-32 Minority Population According to 2010 Census information, 6.5 percent of the total population in the City of Chippewa Falls identified themselves as a minority. The largest minority group was Black or African American, followed by Hispanic or Latino (of any race). In Chippewa County, 5.4 percent of the total population identified themselves as a minority (USCB 2014c). Table 5-6 lists minority population block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site; 4.7 percent of the total population within that radius identified themselves as a minority (UCSB 2014a). The largest minority group was Hispanic or Latino (of any race) at 1.3 percent, followed by Asian at 1.1 percent (USCB 2014c). Figure 5-3 shows minority population block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site. Census block groups were considered minority population block groups if the percentage of the minority population within any block group exceeded 4.7 percent. Seven of the 20 Census block groups were determined to have meaningfully greater minority populations. The Chippewa Falls site is located in Census Tract 105, Block Group 4, which has the highest minority population, at 12.4 percent. Figure 5-3. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site Source: USCB 2014c, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race Alternatives 5-33 Table 5-6. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site Census Tract Block Group Total Population Percent Minority Total Minority Population Hispanic or Latino Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Two or More Races 102 1 2,312 4.2 98 30 12 14 30 0 12 102 2 2,764 6.9 191 67 16 8 72 0 28 102 3 1,691 4.6 78 28 6 10 14 0 20 103 1 729 5.8 43 16 12 4 1 0 10 103 2 791 3.7 30 14 0 5 1 1 9 103 3 754 3.3 25 4 5 4 4 0 8 103 4 944 3.8 36 13 6 7 1 0 9 103 5 1,281 3.7 48 14 4 4 14 0 12 103 6 966 5.5 54 25 1 2 19 0 7 104 1 2,340 2.2 52 22 3 7 10 0 10 104 3 1,345 5.8 79 10 5 5 57 0 2 105 1 778 3.8 30 14 7 0 4 0 5 105 2 1,076 5.6 61 11 13 1 14 1 21 105 3 1,047 5.4 57 7 6 13 6 0 25 105 4 2,477 12.4 306 55 158 36 27 1 29 107 2 2,505 2.7 69 20 7 3 18 0 21 107 3 3,760 4.2 158 43 17 16 38 0 44 110 4 1,395 2.0 28 7 1 2 6 0 12 110 5 1,403 2.4 35 6 8 2 4 0 15 112 4 1,288 1.0 13 7 1 0 3 0 2 Source: USCB 2014c, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race. Alternatives 5-34 Low-Income Population According to the 2006-2010 American Community Survey estimates, 10.7 percent of families and 14.3 percent of all people residing in Chippewa County were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold. In addition, in the City of Chippewa Falls, 11.4 percent of families and 14.8 percent of all people were identified as living below the Federal poverty level. The 2010 Federal poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four (USCB 2014d). Table 5-7 lists low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site; 9.3 percent of the total population within that radius was identified as living below the Federal poverty level (UCSB 2014d). Census tracts were considered low-income population tracts if the percentage of individuals living below the Federal poverty level exceeded 9.3 percent. Figure 5-4 shows low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site. Two of the seven Census tracts were found to have meaningfully greater low-income populations. The Chippewa Falls site is located within Census Tract 105 and has the highest percentage (15.3 percent) of population living below the Federal poverty level. Table 5-7. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site Census Tract Census Tract Total Population Estimates Number of People Below Poverty Level for Census Tract Percentage Below Poverty Level for All People (Estimates) 102 6,349 599 8.8 103 5,518 723 13.1 104 4,644 223 4.8 105 5,221 779 15.3 107 7,295 635 8.7 110 6,990 594 8.5 112 6,428 431 6.7 Source: USCB 2014d, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics Alternatives 5-35 Figure 5-4. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site Source: USCB 2014d, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics Analysis of Impacts As previously discussed, the environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. Some of these potential effects have been described in the other resource areas discussed in this EIS. Chapter 5 presents the assessment of environmental and human health impacts for each environmental resource area. In the impact analysis, the NRC first identified all potential human health and environmental effects and then determined the significance of the impact and whether or not minority or low-income populations would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. The NRC then considered whether the radiological or other health effects were significant or above generally accepted norms, whether the risk or rate of the hazard was significant and appreciably in excess of that of the general population, and whether the radiological or other health effects would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards. The NRC determined whether the following human health and environmental effects have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility site: radiological and nonradiological human health impacts (Section 5.2.2.8), noise impacts (Section 5.2.2.2), and Alternatives 5-36 traffic impacts (Section 5.2.2.10). The NRC also considered whether there would be an impact on the natural or physical environment that would significantly and adversely affect a particular group, whether there would be any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or are likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population, and whether environment effects would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from an environmental hazard. Construction Similar to constructing the SHINE facility at the Janesville site, potential impacts on minority and low-income populations residing near the Chippewa Falls site would mostly consist of environmental effects during construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads, particularly in Census Tract 105, could be disproportionately affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust from construction. However, because of the temporary nature of construction, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations within the ROI (Chippewa County), who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of construction workers and the likelihood that most workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could commute to the construction site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing. Operations Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations during SHINE facility operations at the Chippewa Falls site would mostly consist of radiological and nonradiological human health and environmental (e.g., noise and traffic) effects. Everyone living near the Chippewa Falls site would be exposed to the same potential operational effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions. As discussed in the Human Health section of this EIS (Section 5.2.2.8), the level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and State of Wisconsin regulatory limits. As a result, minority or low-income populations, as well as the general population living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility site, would not be adversely affected by radiation exposure during facility operations. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are also expected to remain within regulatory standards. As discussed in the Noise section of this EIS (Section 5.2.2.2), noise emissions from commuter traffic during SHINE facility operations would increase. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE facility buildings at the site. However, additional noise emissions from worker vehicles would be minor (1 dBA), and noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels beyond current levels. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic during facility operations. However, as discussed in the Transportation section of this EIS (Section 5.2.2.10), the only appreciable impact would be a "slight degradation of service" (i.e., traffic delays) at intersections during the morning peak hour. The overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility would increase slightly during facility operations but would not be of an Alternatives 5-37 appreciable nature when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. Therefore, offsite noise and traffic impacts caused by the proposed SHINE facility operations would be SMALL for both of these resource areas. Nevertheless, given the fact that the Chippewa Falls site is located in a designated minority block group and low-income Census tract, minority and low-income populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility during operations could be disproportionately affected. However, based on the analyses of impacts conducted for other resource areas discussed in this EIS, impacts on minority or low-income populations, as well as to the general population living in close proximity to the Chippewa Falls site, would not be considered high and adverse. Decommissioning Similar to construction impacts, potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects during decommissioning (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during the decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads, particularly in Census Tract 105, would be disproportionately affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust during decommissioning. However, because of the temporary nature of decommissioning, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for rental housing during decommissioning could cause rental costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of decommissioning workers and the likelihood that most workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could commute to the Chippewa Falls site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing. In addition, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL for all resource areas. There is no evidence that impacts from decommissioning would be disproportionately high and adverse to minority or low-income populations. Subsistence and Special Conditions As discussed in Section 4.12, the special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the environmental justice analysis, because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area, such as migrant workers or Native Americans. Based on the air and water quality discussions and the discussion of human health effects in this EIS for this alternative, it is unlikely that there would be any disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, or wildlife. The operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on these populations. Summary The Chippewa Falls site is located in the pre-existing Wissota Lake Business Park in a designated minority and low-income population block group and Census tract. Similar to the Janesville site, minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicular traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Chippewa Falls site would not adversely affect minority and Alternatives 5-38 low-income populations living near the existing business park. The level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and State of Wisconsin regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income populations residing near the existing business park and the Chippewa Falls site could experience short-term disproportionate, but not high and adverse, environmental effects during construction and decommissioning. In addition, based on the discussions of air and water quality and human health effects for this alternative, SHINE facility operations at the Chippewa Falls site would not likely cause high and adverse human health or environmental effects for minority and low-income populations. 5.2.2.13 Cumulative Impacts The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects and other actions that could result in cumulative impacts at the Chippewa Falls site were identified by reviewing published and unpublished data, including economic development plans, permit lists, news releases, and similar sources of information. Current and reasonably foreseeable activities included relevant activities conducted, regulated, approved, or proposed by a Federal agency or non-Federal entity within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site. Available information about the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and other activities is provided in Table 5-8. Table 5-8. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions Within a 5-mi (8-km) Radius of the Chippewa Falls Site Project/ Company Name Summary of Project Location Status EOG Resources Inc. Silica sand processing plant Chippewa Falls, 1.0 mi (1.6 km) southwest Operational (Chippewa Herald 2012; EOG Resources 2012) Wissota Green Housing Development Building of 120 housing unit neighborhood with an estimated capacity of 300 residents Chippewa Falls, 1.0 mi (1.6 km) southwest Initial project proposal denied by Chippewa Falls Planning Commission in 2013; developer plans to adjust design and conduct public outreach and reapply for approval (Chippewa Herald 2013) CN Railway Intermodal Facility Rail-to-truck transfer facility Chippewa Falls, 2.0 mi (3.2 km) southwest Operational (CN 2014) Chippewa Falls Irvine Park and Zoo Updates to current exhibits, such as visitor and artifact center Chippewa Falls, 2.0 mi (3.2 km) Currently operational; proposed construction to begin in 2015 after fundraising is completed (Vetter 2013) Indianhead Plating, Inc. Industrial hard-chrome plating and cylindrical grinding facility Chippewa Falls, 2.0 mi (3.2 km) Operational (WDNR 2015a) Spectrum Industries Construction of burnoff oven for paint hangers Chippewa Falls, 2.0 mi (3.2 km) Air construction permit issued in February 2011 (WDNR 2015b) Great Northern Corporation Construction of printers Chippewa Falls, 2.0 mi (3.2 km) Air construction permit issued in March 2011 (WDNR 2015c) Alternatives 5-39 Project/ Company Name Summary of Project Location Status Dairyland Power Creek Landfill Gas to Renewable Energy Station Modifications to an existing internal combustion engine and existing landfill gas to energy generating facility Eau Claire, 2.0 mi (3.2 km) Air construction permit issued in March 2011 (WDNR 2015d) Lake Wissota Business Park 200-ac (80-ha)-plus mixed-use business park available for industrial, office, and commercial uses SHINE site would occupy northern third of park Majority of site currently undeveloped; site is a Wisconsin-Certified Shovel-Ready Site, meaning Chippewa County and the State have proactively addressed major permitting and development issues (WEDC 2014a, 2014b) Land Use and Visual Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on land use and visual resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.1 serves as baseline conditions for the cumulative impact assessment of land use and visual resources. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.2.1. Land Use The projects and activities described in Table 5-8 would result in minimal changes to existing land uses, because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use. Future urbanization and global climate change could contribute to additional decreases in agricultural lands, forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Urbanization in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site would alter important attributes of land use. Urbanization would reduce natural vegetation and agricultural fields, resulting in an overall decline in the extent and connectivity of wetlands, forests, grasslands, and wildlife habitat. Global climate change could reduce crop yields and livestock productivity (USGCRP 2014), which may change portions of agricultural land uses. However, existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas. In addition, zoning laws and comprehensive land use plans would help ensure a proper balance of development (City of Chippewa Falls 1999). Pursuant to the Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations, the presence of important farmland soils (7 CFR 657.5), including prime farmland, was included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Development projects listed in Table 5-8 would incrementally and cumulatively add to the loss of important farmland soils, including prime farmland soils, in the region surrounding the proposed site and across the City of Chippewa Falls. Otherwise qualifying farm lands in or already committed to urban development; lands acquired for a project on or before August 4, 1984; and lands acquired or used by a Federal agency for national defense purposes are exempt from the Act's provisions (7 CFR 658.2 and 658.3). Because many of the proposed projects have been committed to development, the sites do not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Act. Some of the proposed projects would convert prime farmland into other uses. Regardless, the conversion of otherwise qualifying soils Alternatives 5-40 by projects within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site would have a relatively minor impact on the inventory of important farmland soils within Chippewa County. This is because approximately 60 percent of the soils in the county would be classified as important farmland soil (Chippewa County 2010). Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use, cumulative impacts on land use resources would be SMALL. Visual Resources The projects and activities described in Table 5-8 would result in minimal changes to the existing viewshed, because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use. Furthermore, the viewshed within the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site is agricultural, light industrial, or residential. Within undeveloped areas, where a new structure would change qualities of the existing landscape, the viewshed is generally of low scenic quality because of a lack of notable features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, mute colors, and a commonality within the physiographic province. Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use and of low scenic quality, the NRC staff determined that cumulative impacts on visual resources would be SMALL. Air Quality and Noise This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on air quality and noise, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.2. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on noise would be SMALL to MODERATE. Air Quality The ROI considered for the air quality analysis for a facility located in Chippewa Falls is Chippewa County, since air quality designations for criteria air pollutants are generally made at the county level. As shown in Table 5-8, the ongoing and future projects located within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site involve air permits. While these projects increase air emission concentrations within the county, the activities would need to comply with the requirements stipulated in the permit, which would minimize cumulative impacts. Therefore, these activities and projects are not expected to have significant impacts on air quality. Climate change can affect air quality as a result of changes in meteorological conditions. The combination of higher temperatures, stagnant air masses, sunlight, and emissions of precursors may make it difficult to meet NAAQSs (USGCRP 2014). States, however, must continue to comply with the Clean Air Act and ensure air quality standards are met. The NRC staff determined that the potential cumulative air quality impact associated with SHINE operations, in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would be SMALL, primarily because projects that have overlapping impacts with the proposed SHINE facility would need to comply with requirements stipulated in air permits and would have relatively low emissions. Alternatives 5-41 Noise The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site. Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When distance is doubled from a point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (MPCA 2014). For example, at half a mile distance from construction equipment with noise levels in the range of 85-90 dBA, noise levels can drop to 51-61 dBA and at a 1-mi (1.6-km) distance, noise levels drop further to 45-55 dBA. Generally, a 3-dBA change over existing noise levels is considered to be a "just noticeable" difference, and a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (NWCC 2002). Some of the projects in Table 5-8 could produce increases in ambient noise that might affect some of the same areas at the Chippewa Falls site, since they involve construction activities. However, these projects are located 1 to 2 mi (1.6 to 3.2 km) from the Chippewa Falls site and noise impacts are not expected to be significant. For instance, construction equipment can result in noise levels in the range of 85-90 dBA; however, noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance, such that at half a mile distance from construction equipment, noise levels can drop to 51-61 dBA (NRC 2002). Therefore, these projects would not be expected to have significant noise impacts. The NRC staff determined that cumulative impacts on noise levels would be SMALL to MODERATE. Geologic Environment This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on the geologic environment, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts on the geologic environment primarily relate to land disturbance and the potential for soil erosion and loss, as well as the projected consumption of geologic resources. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.3 serves as the baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of the geologic environment. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on soil resources includes the 5-mi (8-km) vicinity surrounding the proposed site. For geologic resources, the extent of the geologic area of analysis has been expanded to all of Chippewa County to encompass potential commercial sources of rock and mineral resources to support construction activities at the propose site and vicinity. As the aspects of land disturbance and conversion are addressed separately in the Land Use section above, the cumulative impacts analysis here will focus on soil loss, including the loss of prime farmland soils and other important farmland soils, and consumption of geologic resources. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on the geologic environment, including geologic and soil resources, would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.2.3. New development and expansion projects listed in Table 5-8 would consume or extract geologic resources, including rock and mineral resources, or would require materials derived from such geologic resources (e.g., concrete). However, common construction materials such as sand and gravel and crushed stone are available and widely abundant in Chippewa County (Section 5.2.2.3) or are available regionally. Neither the geologic resource requirements to construct the proposed SHINE facility nor the resource requirements of the other projects identified in Table 5-8 are on a scale that would be likely to affect the regional sources and supplies of the identified resources. Given the relatively minor impact on important farmland soils and the abundance of geologic resources regionally, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts on geologic and soil resources would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-42 Water Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on water resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts on surface-water resources relate to issues concerning water use, water quality, and potential climate change. This further encompasses water withdrawal, effluent discharges, accidental spills and releases, and stormwater drainage and runoff. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.4 serves as a baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of water resources. For surface-water resources, the extent of the geographic area of analysis has been expanded to include Lake Wissota and portions of the Chippewa River downstream of the proposed site. For groundwater resources, the area considered encompasses the local groundwater basin in which groundwater is recharged and flows to discharge points and those aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn through wells. Specifically, the cumulative impacts analysis focuses on those projects and activities that, when combined with the proposed action, would: (1) withdraw water from or discharge wastewater to the segment of the Chippewa River downstream of the proposed site or (2) would use groundwater or could otherwise affect the same aquifers that would supply water to the proposed site. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.4, impacts on water resources at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. In addition to the proposed SHINE facility, new development and expansion projects listed in Table 5-8 and disturbing greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha) of land would have to obtain and comply with the provisions of a General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific construction site erosion control plan, including specific BMPs, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management). Permits issued to all new stormwater and industrial wastewater dischargers would include provisions as part of Wisconsin-issued NPDES permits to comply with applicable water-quality-based effluent limitations and wasteload allocations established for downstream receiving waters. The proposed SHINE facility would have no direct sanitary or other wastewater discharges to surface water or groundwater. The SHINE facility and other entities within the Wissota Lake Business Park would be served by the City of Chippewa Falls WTP, which has excess treatment capacity (Section 5.2.2.4). While protection of groundwater quality in surficial aquifers and conservation of local groundwater supplies is a concern across Wisconsin, the county's groundwater supply is considered adequate to meet the domestic, agricultural, municipal, and industrial needs in the county for the foreseeable future (Chippewa County 2010). As a result of climate change, the Midwest may continue to experience an increase in annual precipitation, along with an increase in annual and seasonal temperatures. Increased precipitation, particularly during the spring and winter months, could increase groundwater recharge (USGCRP 2014). Regardless, the proposed SHINE facility and other projects within the Wissota Lake Business Park would be served by the Chippewa Falls municipal water system (Section 5.2.2.4). Furthermore, neither the proposed SHINE facility nor any of the projects identified in Table 5-8 would be expected to require substantial volumes of groundwater or surface water that would affect water availability for other potential uses or users. Given the requirements to comply with stormwater permits, the capacity of the City of Chippewa Falls WTP, and the relatively small volumes of water required for the projects listed in Table 5-8, the NRC staff finds that the cumulative impacts on water resources would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-43 Ecological Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on ecological resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.5 serves as a baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of ecological resources. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on ecological resources includes the area surrounding the Chippewa Falls site that is ecological, connected to the onsite ecological resources (e.g., the watershed surrounding the Chippewa Falls site). The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.2.5. Since European settlement, prairies, forests, and wetlands have been greatly reduced by at least 50 to 80 percent and converted into agricultural fields, industrial uses, and residential and commercial areas. Remaining tracts of grasslands, forests, and wetlands tend to be relatively small and isolated, which results in lower quality habitat than large tracts of habitat, because of the different biological and physical characteristics along the edge of a habitat patch (WDNR 2013c). Current threats to terrestrial and aquatic habitats include increased soil, nutrients, and other pollutants washing into streams and lakes from urban and agricultural stormwater runoff; continued conversion and fragmentation of wildlife habitat from development; introduction of invasive species; and climate change (WDNR 2013c; USGCRP 2014). These activities will likely decrease the overall availability and quality of forested, grassland, and wetland habitats. Species with threatened, endangered, or declining populations are likely to be more sensitive to declines in habitat availability and quality and the introduction of invasive species. New development projects identified in Table 5-8 are likely to have minimal impacts on ecological resources, because all the projects are sited within areas that are currently agricultural land, open space, or developed. These types of land covers provide low-quality habitat for wildlife, birds, and aquatic resources. However, as environmental stressors, such as runoff from agricultural fields and urban areas and climate change, continue over the next few decades, certain attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (such as habitat quality) are likely to noticeably change. The staff does not expect these impacts to destabilize any important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment, because such impacts will cause gradual change, which should allow the terrestrial and aquatic environment to appropriately adapt. The NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the SHINE facility, plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions would result in MODERATE impacts on terrestrial and aquatic resources. Historic and Cultural Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on historic and cultural resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area considered in this analysis is the APE associated with the proposed SHINE facility, the Chippewa Falls site, and its immediate vicinity. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.6, the impacts on historic and cultural resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. The archaeological record for the region indicates prehistoric and historic occupation. Historic land development and prolonged agricultural use of the APE resulted in impacts on, and the Alternatives 5-44 loss of, cultural resources in the APE and its immediate vicinity. As described in Section 5.2.2.6, no known historic or cultural resources or historic properties are present within the APE. However, there remains the possibility for inadvertent discovery of historic or cultural resources within the APE. Direct impacts would occur if historic and cultural resources in the APE were to be physically removed or disturbed. Indirect visual impacts could occur from new construction or maintenance. The only foreseeable project within the APE is the SHINE facility and the potential discovery of cultural resources on the proposed site. Should they be discovered, any cultural resources would be managed using SHINE BMPs developed for the proposed Janesville site (e.g., cultural resource management procedures and training) (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Therefore, the cumulative impact on historic and cultural resources of the proposed SHINE facility, when combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities, would be SMALL. Socioeconomics This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on current socioeconomic conditions within the ROI from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.7 serves as a baseline for the cumulative socioeconomic impact assessment. The geographic area of analysis is the ROI, Chippewa County. Section 5.2.2.7 found that socioeconomic impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Table 5-8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Relevant "other actions" that are considered in this cumulative impacts analysis are future construction projects that would bring new business and people to the ROI, such as the Wissota Green Housing Development and expansion of the Chippewa Falls Zoo. Depending on the number of workers needed to support the construction of the Wissota Green Housing Development and expansion of the Chippewa Falls Zoo, as well as the total number of units built within the Wissota Green Housing Development, there is the potential for increased population, employment, tax revenue, and demand for public services in the ROI. The Wissota Green Housing Development would house 300 residents (Chippewa Herald 2013). However, as discussed in Section 5.2.2.7, Chippewa County has adequate public services, including the water utility, to accommodate any population changes. Any increase in employment from construction or decommissioning would be temporary, while permanent job creation as a result of the Chippewa Falls Zoo expansion would have little if any socioeconomic impact. Therefore, the contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, would be SMALL. Human Health This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects on human health of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls site. In Section 5.2.2.8, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-45 St. Joseph's Hospital, which conducts radiological procedures, is within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2013a). The use of radioactive materials for medical diagnosis and treatment is regulated by the State of Wisconsin. The NRC and the Governor of Wisconsin signed an agreement transferring regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to the State of Wisconsin, which became the 33rd Agreement State, effective August 11, 2003. As an Agreement State, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services is responsible for licensing and inspecting the above-named materials, except at nuclear power plants and Federal facilities (WDHS 2014). No nuclear fuel cycle facilities occur within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls site that would contribute to the cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative radiological impacts from the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site and the potential impacts from the use of radioactive materials at St. Joseph's Hospital. Both facilities are or would be licensed and regulated, SHINE by the NRC and St. Joseph's Hospital by the State of Wisconsin; the facilities are or would be required to maintain radiation doses to their workers and members of the public within Federal and State dose limits. Also, being approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) apart, radioactive emissions within regulatory limits would be further reduced through the processes of dispersion and dilution as they travel in the atmosphere. Based on the regulatory controls that are or would be in place to control radiation exposure, the distance between the facilities, and the dilution of the radioactive materials, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts on human health would be SMALL. Table 5-8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates the use of nonradioactive materials (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at St. Joseph's Hospital and would regulate their use at the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site. As discussed in Section 4.9, the State of Wisconsin has regulations for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500 (SHINE 2015a). Both SHINE and St. Joseph's Hospital are or would be regulated by the State and are or would be required to maintain chemical exposure to their workers and members of the public within State limits. Also, being approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) apart, nonradioactive emissions that are within regulatory limits are or would be reduced as they travel in the atmosphere through the processes of dispersion and dilution. Based on the regulatory controls that will be in place to control chemical exposure, the distance between the facilities listed in Table 5-8, and the dilution of the nonradioactive materials, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative nonradiological impacts on human health would be SMALL. Waste Management This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site from radioactive and nonradioactive wastes, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls site. In Section 5.2.2.9, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from types and volumes of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-46 As described above in the Human Health section, St. Joseph's Hospital, which conducts radiological procedures, is within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the Chippewa Falls site and is regulated by the State of Wisconsin (SHINE 2013a). No nuclear fuel cycle facilities occur within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls site that would contribute to the cumulative impacts from radioactive wastes. Therefore, the NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative impacts from radioactive waste from the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site and the potential impacts from the disposal of radioactive waste at St. Joseph's Hospital. Radioactive waste at both facilities is or would be regulated, at SHINE by the NRC and at St. Joseph's Hospital by the State of Wisconsin. The facilities are or would be required to store, process, and dispose of radioactive wastes in accordance with Federal and State requirements. As discussed in Section 4.9, radioactive wastes generated by the proposed SHINE facility would be packaged and transported off site to a licensed low-level radioactive waste facility for disposal (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.9, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from radioactive wastes generated by and disposed of from the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Radioactive waste generated at St. Joseph's Hospital would also be packaged and transported off site to a licensed low-level waste facility for disposal. Based on the regulatory controls on packaging and transporting radioactive waste, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts from radioactive waste would be SMALL. Table 5-8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates the use and disposal of nonradioactive waste (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at St. Joseph's Hospital and would regulate their use and disposal at the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site. As discussed in Section 4.9, the State of Wisconsin has regulations for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500. Both facilities, SHINE and St. Joseph's Hospital, are or would be regulated by the State and are or would be required to safely store, package, transport, and dispose of nonradioactive wastes in accordance with State requirements. Based on the state's regulatory controls that are or would be in place to control nonradioactive wastes for the facilities listed in Table 5-8, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts from nonradioactive wastes would be SMALL. Transportation This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on radiological and nonradiological transportation, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on transportation is primarily the same as that used in Section 5.2.2.10 and includes the site boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls site. However, the roads for routes that could be used for delivery of medical isotopes (if air transport is not possible) or disposal of wastes were also considered. Transportation infrastructure includes roadways, rail lines, airports, and traffic-control devices. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.10, transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Construction projects in Table 5-8 could produce an increase in vehicular traffic on roads within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site. For example, the Wissota Green Housing Development would involve the construction of a new housing development for approximately 300 people, and the construction and operation of the Wissota Business Park would add employees commuting on roads near the Chippewa Falls site. Depending on the number of workers required and whether construction projects within the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site Alternatives 5-47 were occurring at the same time as the SHINE facility's construction, operations, or decommissioning, traffic on access roads would increase. Most existing roads would be sufficient to handle the construction project's transportation activities, and alternative routes could be used to minimize transportation impacts. In some cases, however, a noticeable increase in traffic could occur, especially if construction timeframes overlapped and construction workers and vehicles used the same roads. Therefore, depending on whether other construction projects overlapped with construction, operations, or decommissioning of the SHINE facility, or whether increased vehicular activity from workers or residents on roads near the Chippewa Falls site had a noticeable impact on traffic, the NRC staff concludes that cumulative transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Environmental Justice The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential contributory human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on minority and low-income populations, and whether these effects might be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing near the Chippewa Falls site, and everyone would be exposed to the same environmental effects generated by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. As discussed in Section 5.2.2, the Chippewa Falls site is located in the preexisting Wissota Lake Business Park in a block group and Census tract that exceed both geographic area averages for minority and low-income populations. The geographic area of analysis is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Chippewa Falls site would not have high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Table 5-8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic area of analysis that could contribute cumulative human health and environmental effects. Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental effects from construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, increased noise and dust during construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicular traffic during construction. However, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations that rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the availability of workers and the likelihood of workers commuting to the construction site, the need for rental housing could be reduced. Operational emissions from manufacturing or industrial facilities within the 5-mile (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility. However, everyone would be exposed to the same potential contributory effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions. Permitted air emissions from all manufacturing and Alternatives 5-48 industrial facilities, including the contributory effects from the proposed SHINE facility, would be expected to remain within regulatory standards. Based on this information and the analysis of human health and other environmental impacts presented in this section of the EIS, the contributory effects of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SHINE facility are not likely to create high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. 5.2.3 Stevens Point Site The NRC staff evaluated the Stevens Point site as a reasonable alternative. The city of Stevens Point is located in central Wisconsin, approximately 110 mi (176 km) north of Madison, Wisconsin; 215 mi (344 km) east of Minneapolis, Minnesota; and 250 mi (400 km) northwest of Chicago, Illinois (Figures 5-5 and 5-6). Specifically, the site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the corporate boundaries of the City of Stevens Point in Portage County, Wisconsin. No public roads currently border the site. The site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the south. The site is composed of deciduous forest and cropland. No residences or other buildings occur on site. The City of Stevens Point created and recommended the Stevens Point site to SHINE. The city indicated to SHINE that, if the Stevens Point site were selected as the proposed site, the City would annex the site property and install public roads along the northern and western site boundaries. In addition, an overhead electrical line, municipal water supply pipeline, sanitary sewer pipeline, and natural gas pipeline, currently located approximately 0.3 mi (0.48 km) from the site, would need to be extended to the site. The analysis below considers the environmental impacts of building roads, electrical lines, and pipelines, because construction and operation of the SHINE facility would be dependent upon this infrastructure. Alternatives 5-49 Figure 5-5. Population Centers and Transportation Features in Portage County, Wisconsin Source: SHINE 2015a Alternatives 5-50 Figure 5-6. Stevens Point Site Source: SHINE 2013a 5.2.3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources Land Use The Stevens Point site includes 80.4 ac (32 5 ha) of land adjacent to the eastern edge of the corporate boundaries of the City of Stevens Point in Portage County, Wisconsin (Figure 5-6). Based on a review of the National Land Cover Database, the Stevens Point site is composed of 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) of deciduous forest, 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) of cultivated agricultural land, and 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) of mixed forest (Table 5-9) (USGS 2006; SHINE 2013a). Warehouses and open spaces are located west of the site. Agricultural land and forested areas surround the remaining portions of the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2015a). No residences, other structures, special land uses, or mineral resources are located within the Stevens Point site boundaries. Portage County has currently zoned the site partly for agricultural use and partly for industrial use (Portage County 2012). The City of Stevens Point has indicated to SHINE that if the Stevens Point site were selected, the City would annex the site property and zone it entirely for industrial use (SHINE 2015a). The entire site is composed of prime farmland or farmland with soils of statewide importance where otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013b; 7 CFR 657.5). As described above, otherwise qualifying "farmland" soils do not include those on land already in or committed to urban development or water storage, as defined in 7 CFR 658.2. Alternatives 5-51 Table 5-9. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the Stevens Point Site Land Use Category Permanently Disturbed Temporarily Disturbed Total Within Site Boundaries Total Within 5-mi (8-km) Radius Percentage Within 5-mi (8-km) Radius Developed land 13,555 ac (5,486 ha) 27 Cultivated Crops 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) 18,062 ac (7,310 ha) 36 Pasture/Hay 3,617 ac (1,464 ha) 7 Grassland/ Herbaceous 263 ac (106 ha) 1 Shrub/Scrub 51 ac (21 ha) <1 Deciduous Forest 13.9 ac(a) (6.5 ha) 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) 7,538 ac (3,050 ha) 15 Evergreen Forest 1,567 ac (634 ha) 3 Mixed Forest 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) 935 ac (378 ha) 2 Woody Wetlands 2,627 ac (1,063 ha) 5 Emergent, Herbaceous Wetlands 815 ac (330 ha) 2 Open Water 1,127 ac (456 ha) 2 Barren Land (Rock/Sand/ Clay) 109 ac (44 ha) <1 Totals(b) 17.5 ac (7.9 ha) 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) 80.4 ac (32.5 ha) 50,265 ac (20,342 ha) 100 Notes: (a) The footprint of the facility would permanently convert 13.9 ac (6.5 ha). In addition, up to 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) could be cleared to comply with security requirements or other measures. (b) Totals may not add due to rounding. Source: USGS 2006, SHINE 2013a Construction Construction of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would permanently disturb and convert 13.9 ac (6.5 ha) of deciduous forest and 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) of agricultural land to industrial use (Table 5-8). If SHINE needed to clear additional portions of the site to comply with security requirements or other measures, the amount of affected forested areas could be up to 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) (SHINE 2015a). In addition, 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) of agricultural land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking area and construction material staging or laydown areas. Once construction activities are complete, SHINE would likely restore temporarily affected areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie. The Alternatives 5-52 remaining portion of the site would likely remain as open area, forested areas, or agricultural fields, or would be converted to cool season grasses or native prairie. The potential conversion of up to 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) used for agricultural and cultivated crops to other uses would be minor when compared to the 18,062 ac (7,310 ha) of agricultural land remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point site. Similarly, the potential conversion of up to 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) of deciduous forest to other uses would be minor when compared to the 7,538 ac (3,050 ha) of deciduous forest remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point site. Additional forested or agricultural land adjacent to the site would be converted to a new land use to extend existing infrastructure to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. The Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations require agencies to make Farmland Protection Policy Act evaluations part of the NEPA process to reduce the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by Federal projects and programs. Construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would permanently convert 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) and temporarily convert 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) of prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance to industrial use. However, this is a small percentage of the prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance within the region surrounding the Stevens Point site. Furthermore, a portion of the site is currently zoned for light industrial use, and, therefore, this portion of the site would not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Act. Impacts on land use from construction would be SMALL, based on the relatively small amount of farmland and forested areas that would be permanently converted to industrial use, the lack of qualifying important farmland soils within a portion of the affected areas, and the lack of any effect on special land use or mineral resources. Operations Operation of the SHINE facility would not require any new land or require land use changes beyond those required for construction. Therefore, impacts on land use during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Land requirements to perform these activities would be similar to those required during construction. After decommissioning activities are complete, the Stevens Point site could remain industrial or be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. Given that land requirements would be similar to those described during construction and that, after decommissioning is complete, the land would be industrial, agricultural, or an open space, the NRC staff determined that the impacts on land use during decommissioning would be SMALL. Visual Resources The visual setting of the area that would be affected by the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site includes agricultural, forested, and light industrial viewsheds. The viewshed to the north, south, and east of the Stevens Point site is mainly flat or has slightly rolling cultivated fields and deciduous forest. The viewshed to the west is a light industrial landscape, with a few warehouses and other buildings adjacent to the Stevens Point site. Construction The activities associated with constructing the proposed SHINE facility (e.g., excavation, earthmoving, pile driving, and erecting the facility) and extending currently existing infrastructure to the site (e.g., roads, electrical lines, and pipelines) would require large pieces of construction equipment, significantly altering the appearance and partially obstructing views of the existing Alternatives 5-53 landscape. Portions of the Stevens Point site with agricultural fields have low scenic quality caused by a lack of notable features, low vegetation diversity, and mute colors. The forested portion of the site has a higher scenic quality because of its natural setting and higher diversity of vegetation. The viewshed surrounding the site also varies from low to moderate to the mixed presence of cultural modified landscapes (agricultural fields, buildings, and warehouses) along with natural wooded areas. The Stevens Point site has a low-to-moderate sensitivity rating, as it is located in an area with low scenic values resulting from a low amount of use by viewers and a lack of special natural and wilderness areas. The sensitivity rating could be moderate because several sensitive viewing areas exist within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Stevens Point site, including the following: more than 100 residences, a preschool, two child daycare facilities, a medical clinic, a city park, and an exercise track. Nonetheless, trees and existing buildings would block the view from most of these locations, resulting in a partial view of the Stevens Point site during construction. In addition, the viewshed surrounding the Stevens Point site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, such as warehouses and other buildings, and agricultural fields. If SHINE clears the majority of the onsite wooded areas, visibility of the new facility and the contrast between the surrounding landscape and the new facility would be greater. Based on the low-to-moderate scenic quality and the forested and light industrial viewshed in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site, construction-related aesthetic impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE during construction. Operations The appearance of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would not change during operation, other than a small steam plume that may be visible coming from the exhaust stack. The steam plume from the exhaust stack is expected to be minimal, because opacity associated with the natural-gas-fired boiler and heaters tends to be low, as described in Section 4.2.2.1. The steam plume would be more visible during periods of cold weather, although the size of the steam plume would still be relatively small. Therefore, visual impacts during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. After SHINE completed decommissioning activities, the Stevens Point site could remain industrial, or be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. As the facility would be located in a district partially zoned for light industrial use, and the viewshed surrounding the Stevens Point site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, the NRC staff would not expect any changes to the landscape during decommissioning to significantly affect any viewsheds. Therefore, visual impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. 5.2.3.2 Air Quality and Noise Air Quality The climate at Stevens Point is similar to that in Janesville but is colder and has more snowfall, since the site is farther north. According to NCDC records for the years 1981 to 2010 (NCDC 2010b), the average annual temperature is 44 °F (6.5 °C), average annual snowfall is 44.7 in. (114 cm), and average annual precipitation (rain) is 32.63 in. (82.8 cm). July is the warmest month of the year and January the coldest. The NCDC records identify the following extreme weather events in Portage County from 1996 to 2013: thunderstorms (56 events), lightning (11 events), hail (60 events), tornadoes (5 events), heavy rain (7 events), and floods (5 events) (NCDC 2014b). The Stevens Point site is located in Portage County and is part of Alternatives 5-54 the North Central Wisconsin Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.157). Portage County is designated as an attainment area for sulfur dioxide and an attainment/unclassifiable area for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter (40 CFR 81.350). Therefore, criteria pollutant concentrations in the county are lower than the NAAQS or there is insufficient data to determine if the NAAQS are met. The ROI for the air quality analysis discussed below is Portage County, because air quality designations are made at the county level. The nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, about 197 mi (316 km) from the site (EPA 2014).6 Construction Sources of air pollutant emissions during construction of the facility at Stevens Point site would include fugitive dust from earth-moving equipment and other vehicles, criteria pollutants from diesel engines, and exhaust gases from worker vehicles as they commute to and from the Stevens Point construction site. Air emissions from construction of the facility at Stevens Point would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since construction activities and sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel combustion). Additional air emissions would also result from the additional infrastructure needed at the Stevens Point site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4-3. Construction air emissions would be temporary and localized. Portage County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from construction activities at the Stevens Point site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Portage County's attainment/unclassifiable designation. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.2.1, SHINE may be required to obtain a Type A Registration Construction Permit from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR); SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated within the Type A Registration Construction Permit obtained from WDNR. Given the low emissions, the temporary nature of construction activities (18 months), and the pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from WDNR, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL. Operations Sources of air emissions from operating the facility would be from radioisotope production, fuel combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and vehicular traffic from workers commuting and from monthly truck shipments in and out of the facility. Air pollutants from these sources will include nitrogen oxides (from radioisotope production, fuel combustion, vehicular traffic), sulfur dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), particulate matter (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), carbon dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), and carbon monoxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic). Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since operation activities and sources would be similar (worker vehicles, fuel combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and the production process). Portage County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and therefore air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not 6 Rainbow Lake in Wisconsin is the nearest Class 1 area (about 119 mi (192 km) from the Stevens Point site); however, in 1980, Rainbow Lake was excluded for purposes of visibility protection as a Class I area. Alternatives 5-55 expect emissions from a facility at the Stevens Point site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Portage County's attainment/unclassifiable designation. Furthermore, SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated within the Type A Registration Operation Permit from WDNR. Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded, that the Portage County air quality status is good, and that pollution control measures would be required in air permits from WDNR, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during operation would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities in type and duration. Sources of air emissions would be from diesel equipment, vehicle worker emissions, and fugitive dust from earth-moving activities. Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since decommissioning activities and sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel combustion). Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4-9. Air emissions from decommissioning would be temporary and localized. Portage County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from decommissioning at the Stevens Point site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Portage County's attainment/unclassifiable designation. Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded, the decommissioning activities would be temporary, and the Portage County air quality is good, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. Noise The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of Stevens Point. There are a number of noise-sensitive receptors within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the Stevens Point site and the closest noise-sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 2,060 ft (628 m) from the center point of the Stevens Point site and 1,050 ft (320 m) from the Stevens Point site boundary. The NRC staff did not identify or obtain noise surveys of the Stevens Point site and surrounding area. As discussed in Section 5.3.2.1, the Stevens Point site and surrounding area are agricultural land. Background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA in agricultural cropland areas (EPA 1978). Construction Noise sources during construction of the Stevens Point site would include construction equipment on site and increased traffic volumes. The maximum number of worker vehicles expected on site during construction is 451. The Stevens Point Site is bordered by Eisenhower Road to the west, McDill Avenue to the south, Burbank Road to the east, and Old Highway 18 to the north. The entrance road to the Stevens Point site would connect to a new road that the City of Stevens Point would construct along the northern boundary of the site (Section 5.2.3.10 below). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Eisenhower Highway and McDill Avenue will experience an increase in traffic volumes, regardless of the specific route taken to get to the site, and subsequently will see an increase in noise. Furthermore, because of the location of the entrance road, the nearest resident (approximately 1,050 ft (320 m) away) may experience increased noise levels as workers access the site. The NRC staff expects that, similar to the Janesville site, noise levels from construction traffic would increase no more than 3 dBA. Alternatives 5-56 The types of equipment that would be used on site during construction are listed in Table 4-2. The closest noise-sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 1,060 ft (320 m) from the facility site boundary and 2,060 ft (628 m) from the center point of the Stevens Point facility. The NRC staff estimates noise levels of 58 dBA at the nearest residence to the Stevens Point site. Compared to estimated background noise levels (45 dBA), noise levels from construction may be noticeable to people in the vicinity of the site. Given the distance of the nearest resident to the Stevens Point site and the noise levels from construction activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Operations Noise sources during operation would be from worker vehicular traffic. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and is not expected to be audible outside the proposed building facility. The number of worker vehicles expected during operation is 150 (SHINE 2013a). As discussed above, Eisenhower Road, McDill Road, and the entrance road will experience noise from operations worker's traffic. Additional traffic volume will increase noise levels by about 1 dBA. Given that noise emissions from operating equipment are not expected to be audible beyond the building facility and additional noise emissions from worker vehicles are minor, the NRC staff concludes that impacts from facility operation would be SMALL. Decommissioning Noise sources during decommissioning of the Stevens Point site would include construction equipment on site and increased traffic volumes, similar to construction activities. The maximum number of worker vehicles expected on site during decommissioning is 261. As discussed above, Eisenhower Road, McDill Road, and the entrance road will experience noise from operation worker traffic. Noise levels from decommissioning traffic would be similar to those during construction and would increase about 2 dBA. The types of equipment that would be used on site during decommissioning are listed in Table 4-9. The closest noise-sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 1,060 ft (320 m) from the facility site boundary and 2,060 ft (628 m) from the center point of the Stevens Point facility. The NRC staff estimates noise levels of about 52 to 58 dBA at the residence nearest to the Stevens Point site. Compared to estimated background noise levels (45 dBA), noise levels from construction may be noticeable to people in the vicinity of the site. Given the distance of the nearest resident to the Stevens Point site and the noise levels from decommissioning activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. 5.2.3.3 Geologic Environment The Stevens Point site is situated on the boundary between the Wisconsin Northern Highland and Central Plain physiographic provinces. This is between the Superior Upland and Central Lowland physiographic provinces of the United States (USGS 2003; SHINE 2013a). The site location is near a dividing line between areas affected by the younger Wisconsin glaciations that ended about 11,700 years ago and older glaciations of Illinoian age (WGNHS 2011). These events are further discussed in Section 3.3.1. The topography of the site is flat to slightly hummocky. At the time of the NRC environmental site audit, portions of the site were being actively cultivated, with the remainder in forest coverage. A center point elevation of 1,113 ft (339 m), with a general slope gradient of Alternatives 5-57 southwest was established during the Phase I site assessment of the property (GAI 2012a, 2012b). This is consistent with spot elevations taken from USGS topographic map coverage. The surficial geologic unit at the Stevens Point site is mapped as meltwater sand and gravel (glacial outwash) of the Horicon formation. This unit is extensive across the central portion of Portage County and encompasses much of Stevens Point, including the proposed site. These sediments primarily consist of gravelly sands with dolomitic pebbles and cobbles in the upper part. It was deposited directly on the land surface by shallow, braided streams emanating from the Green Bay ice lobe to the east of the site (Clayton 1986). SHINE contracted a preliminary geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation of the site, which included the installation of four monitoring wells (GAI 2012a, 2012b). Logs from the well borings revealed approximately 1 ft (0.3 m) of topsoil underlain by brown, medium-to-coarse grained-silty sand with trace gravel to a depth of 9- to 14-ft (2.7- to 4.3-m) bgs. Below this depth, the sediment consisted of medium-to-coarse grained and poorly graded sands, with silt up to 31-ft (9.4-m) deep, where the boreholes had to be terminated because of caving. All the sands were characterized as loose and wet, with no cobbles or larger fragments noted during drilling. Although not logged, an additional borehole was advanced to a depth of 140 ft (43 m) through sediments, without reaching bedrock (GAI 2012a, 2012b). As for bedrock beneath the glacial sediments, county-level geological mapping shows the site to be located near the contact between Cambrian age sandstones of the Elk Mound Group and Precambrian intrusive igneous rocks (i.e., quartz monzonite and granite) (Greenberg and Brown 1986). Construction sand and gravel is a commodity in the county (USGS 2013a). Geologic maps indicate several recent or historic quarrying operations in the vicinity of the site. Specifically, construction aggregate has been mined from large pits east and southeast of Stevens Point from glacial outwash materials (Clayton 1986). Soil unit mapping by NRCS identifies the vast majority of soils across the site as consisting of Richford loamy sand, 0- to 2-percent slopes. This soil mapping unit is composed of somewhat excessively drained loamy sands to sandy loams, with sand in the lower portion of the soil profile at 41 to 60 in. (104 to 152 cm). The soil occurs on outwash plains and developed from sandy outwash materials. The depth to the water table in these soils is generally greater than 80 in. (200 cm) and they are not prone to ponding. The only building site limitation these soils have is that excavations tend to be very unstable because of the coarse and loose sandy texture of subsoils. The southeast corner of the site is mapped as Billet sandy loam, 0- to 2-percent slopes. This soil has characteristics similar to those of the Richford loamy sand. The Richford soil is classified as farmland of statewide importance while the Billet soil is prime farmland where otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013b; 7 CFR 657.5). As further described in Section 3.3.3, the State of Wisconsin lies within the central portion of the stable North American craton. Regional seismicity is characterized by relatively infrequent, small-to-moderate earthquakes that are typical of much of the central and eastern United States (USGS 2013b). Similar to the Janesville site, seismic hazard estimates prepared by the USGS indicate that the site is located within one of the lowest earthquake hazard areas in the conterminous United States (Petersen et al. 2011). Within a radius of 200 mi (322 km) of the Stevens Point site, there have been 5 earthquakes with a magnitude equal to or greater than 2.5 recorded since 1973. The closest was a magnitude 2.6 earthquake with an epicenter approximately 180 mi (290 km) southeast of the site near Campton Hills, Illinois (USGS 2013c). The largest earthquake was a magnitude 3.8 event in the same general area of Illinois in February 2010 (USGS 2013d). Alternatives 5-58 Construction Ground-disturbing activities associated with facility construction would have impacts on geologic and soil resources similar to those discussed for the Janesville site (Section 4.3.1). Earthwork requirements and the ease of excavation would be very similar, as soils and surficial strata are comparable for the two sites. The depth to bedrock is not a concern for excavation work for the below-grade portions of the facility. As at the Janesville site, shallow excavations could be prone to slumping. In addition, the presence of loose, water-bearing soils at depths below about 10-ft (3-m) bgs could require the use of bracing in trenches and other measures (e.g., cofferdams) during construction of the below-grade portion of the facility. The potential for soil erosion and loss would be similar to that at the Janesville and Chippewa Falls sites. However, as described in Section 4.3.1, adherence to standard BMPs for soil erosion and sediment control, and compliance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss. Site work and the creation of an impervious surface would result in the irretrievable loss of important farmland soils equal to the acreage disturbed and converted to an impervious surface. However, as a result of adherence to the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4) and implementation of the associated BMPs, the NRC staff finds that the overall impacts on the geologic environment from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. Operations There would be no additional impact on geology and soils from facility operations at the Stevens Point site. Land temporarily disturbed during construction within the site boundary and lying outside the facility footprint would be revegetated and would not be subject to continued soil erosion. Regardless of the site location, the proposed SHINE facility would be sited, designed, and constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes, which provide for the evaluation of site geologic and soil conditions, including potential seismic hazards. As a result of these considerations, the NRC staff finds that the operational impacts associated with the geologic environment at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. Decommissioning Facility demolition and other ground-disturbing activities associated with decommissioning would have impacts on soils and sediments similar to those described for construction. As site activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable local, State, and other Federal regulations and permits, the NRC staff finds that the impacts on the geologic environment from decommissioning the facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. 5.2.3.4 Water Resources Surface Water No streams or other surface-water bodies exist within the boundaries of the Stevens Point site. The only major surface-water feature in the immediate vicinity of the site is McDill Pond, an impoundment on the Plover River, located approximately 2.1 mi (3.4 km) west of the site. McDill pond covers 261 ac (106 ha) and attains a maximum depth of 20 ft (6.1 m) (University of Wisconsin 2005). Outflow from the south end of the impounded Plover River at the McDill Dam enters the Wisconsin River at a point approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) southwest of the site and south of Stevens Point. Drainage from the site would be expected to travel south and Alternatives 5-59 southwest toward the Plover River drainage. The Plover and Little Plover River watershed drains an area of 202 mi2 (523 km2) (WDNR 2013a). There are no USGS gaging stations immediately downstream of the Stevens Point site. There is a USGS gaging station upstream of McDill Pond on the Plover River (Station 05400513) with a short period of record, as well as a station downstream of Stevens Point on the Wisconsin River at Wisconsin Rapids (Station 05400760). For the Plover River upstream of McDill Pond at Highway 66, the mean annual discharge measured at the USGS gage for water years 2010 to 2012 is 185 cfs (5.23 m3/s). The 90 percent exceedance flow, a measure of drought conditions, is 90 cfs (2.5 m3/s). For water year 2012, the mean discharge was 151 cfs (4.27 m3/s). The drainage area of the river upstream of the station encompasses 116 mi2 (430 km2) (USGS 2012b). No floodplains have been delineated on or near the site (City of Stephens Point 2006), and no tributaries to the Plover or Wisconsin Rivers originate on or near the site that could present backwater flooding concerns. The State of Wisconsin has established water-quality standards and numeric criteria and associated designated-use categories for all waters of the State, as previously described in Section 3.4.1, and in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 102 and NR 104). Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify "impaired" water for which effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water-quality standards in such waters. The segment of the Plover River including McDill Pond has a designated use for fish and aquatic life, has good water quality, and is listed as attaining designated uses (WDNR 2013a). Upstream of McDill Pond, the Plover River has experienced high fecal coliform bacteria levels that have resulted in the closure of the public beach at Iverson Park at some point during most swimming seasons. The contamination has been attributed to upstream livestock farms. The City of Stevens Point has focused on urban runoff as a water-quality concern for McDill Pond (City of Stevens Point 2006). In Portage County, surface water is extensively used for self-supplied industrial and commercial uses but with very minor use for irrigation and livestock watering. However, groundwater is the primary and almost exclusive source for the domestic and municipal water supply (Buchwald 2011; City of Stevens Point 2006). No industrial wastewater discharges have been identified in the site vicinity. Sanitary sewer service would be provided by the City of Stevens Point from nearby service areas (SHINE 2013a). The city's treatment plant has a capacity of 5.23 mgd (19,800 m3/d), with a recorded peak demand of 3.68 mgd (13,900 m3/d) (City of Stevens Point 2006). Groundwater Except for the northwest portion, the surficial aquifer system is extensive across Portage County and is the principal water-bearing unit (Olcott 1992; Portage County 2004). As noted in Section 5.2.3.3, the aquifer is locally composed of meltwater sand and gravel (glacial outwash) of the Horicon formation. Locally, wells completed in the sand and gravel aquifer of the sand plain province of the county, in which the proposed site is located, have a potential yield exceeding 1,000 gpm (3,780 Lpm) of water (Portage County 2004). Well completion information for the four monitoring wells installed on the site in December 2011 indicates water-table conditions at depths ranging from about 8- to 11-ft (2.4- to 3.4-m) bgs (GAI 2012b). Other wells drilled in the vicinity of the site reflect groundwater depths ranging from 7 to 20 ft (2.1 to 6.1 m) bgs (SHINE 2013a). Groundwater in the vicinity of the site is mapped as flowing to the southwest, which is consistent with the topographic gradient in the vicinity of the site (Portage County 2004). Alternatives 5-60 No groundwater quality data were obtained from the four monitoring wells installed on the site, and the wells were properly abandoned (closed) in March 2012 (GAI 2012b). However, the quality of groundwater across the county is reported as generally good, except for some natural occurrences of iron, manganese, radionuclides, and corrosive (i.e., soft-acidic) groundwater. Agricultural and petrochemical contamination of the local surficial (sand and gravel) aquifer is a concern, including nitrate and the pesticide atrazine (Portage County 2004). The State of Wisconsin regulates groundwater quality and administers groundwater protection programs in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 140). As referenced above, groundwater is the source of potable and municipal water in Portage County and Stevens Point. The City of Stevens Point Water Utility maintains seven large-capacity wells with a total reliable system supply capacity of 14.8 mgd (56,000 m3/d) (City of Stevens Point 2006, 2014). These wells are all completed in the local surficial (sand and gravel) aquifer at depths ranging from 53 to 90 ft (16 to 27 m) (WDNR 2013b). The Stevens Point water supply is protected both within and beyond the city limits by wellhead protection ordinances adopted by the various communities and by Portage County (City of Stevens Point 2006). Construction Facility construction activities at the Stevens Point site would not have any direct impact on surface-water resources, as no streams or other surface-water bodies originate within the boundaries of the site. The only major surface-water feature nearby is McDill Pond, an impoundment of the Plover River, located approximately 2.1 mi (3.4 km) west of the site. Because of the apparent shallow depth to the water table beneath the site, the need for groundwater dewatering would be likely during construction. Water removed from facility excavations would need to be discharged in accordance with appropriate State and local permits. The relatively shallow depth to groundwater would also likely require the installation of subdrain or permanent dewatering systems for the below-grade portions of the facility. As discussed above (Geologic Environment) and detailed in Section 4.4.1.1 for the Janesville site, ground-disturbing activities at the site would be subject to a Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This General Permit requires the development of appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures and spill prevention and waste management practices to minimize suspended sediment, the transport of other deleterious materials, and potential water-quality impacts. No surface water or onsite groundwater would be withdrawn to support construction at the site. The relatively small volume of water required to support construction activities (averaging about 0.012 mgd (45 m3/day)) would be supplied by the City of Stevens Point, which uses groundwater. Water could either be supplied by a temporary water tap or trucked to the point of use. Wastewater generation would be limited to sanitary waste from the construction workforce and would likely be accommodated through the use of portable restroom facilities. As no natural surface-water features occur on the site, SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility construction, there would be no onsite withdrawal of groundwater, and SHINE would be subject to the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), the NRC concludes that the impacts on surface and groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water use from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. Operations Normal facility operations would not have any direct impact on surface-water or groundwater hydrology or quality. Compliance with the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit Alternatives 5-61 No. WI-S067831-4), as described for construction, specifically requires the development of a stormwater management plan with appropriate BMPs to address runoff from buildings and other impervious surfaces. As detailed in Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.2.2 for the Janesville site, the design, construction, and operation of the proposed facility would include necessary structural controls, and operations would be subject to appropriate plans and procedures to prevent any spills or other releases from reaching soils or surfaces where they could be conveyed to surface waters or groundwater. Total water use is projected to be 6,073 gpd (22,990 Lpd), or 0.006 mgd (23 m3/day) and would be supplied by the City of Stevens Point by a service connection. Projected water use would be a small percentage of the City of Stevens Point's supply capacity. Operation of the proposed SHINE facility would entail no direct discharge of wastewater effluents to either surface water or groundwater. Wastewater generated by facility operations, composed primarily of sanitary waste, would be discharged to the City of Stevens Point WTP. Section 5.2.3.9 discusses the management of other waste forms. Given that no natural surface-water features occur on the site, SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility operation, and no direct discharge of wastewater effluents to surface or groundwater would occur, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface water and groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water use from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. Decommissioning Facility decontamination, demolition, and site restoration activities would be similar regardless of the site, with the potential magnitude of the impacts on surface water and groundwater similar to those discussed for construction. All decommissioning activities would be conducted in accordance with appropriate BMPs and would observe waste handling and pollution prevention practices and spill prevention and response procedures during decommissioning, so that no materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater, where they could contaminate water resources. Small quantities of water that may be required for dust control and soil compaction in association with site restoration activities would be supplied from municipal sources, as discussed for construction. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on water resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL. 5.2.3.5 Ecological Resources The Stevens Point site consists of 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) of agricultural land, 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) of deciduous forest, and 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest (Table 5-9). Plant species on the site vary depending on previous land uses (Table 5-10). For example, approximately two-thirds of the site is a second-growth deciduous and evergreen forest. Common tree types include oaks (Quercus spp.), maples (Acer spp.), and pines (Pinus spp.). Various flower plants and grasses such as goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and aster (Symphyotrichum spp.) occur along the edge of cultivated fields. Such species are representative of an early successional plant community, or type of species found in the few years after a large disturbance, such as plowing. Actively cultivated crops on the site primarily include corn (Zea mays) (SHINE 2013a). Alternatives 5-62 Table 5-10. Vegetation on the Stevens Point Site Scientific Name Common Name Forest Species Abies balsamea balsam fir Acer saccharum sugar maple Carex spp. sedge Ostrya virginiana hop hornbeam Pinus strobus white pine Pinus sylvestris scotch pine Prunus serotina black cherry Quercus alba white oak Quercus macrocarpa bur oak Quercus rubra red oak Quercus spp. oak species Ribes spp. gooseberry Rubus spp. blackberry Smilax spp. green briar Tilia americana American basswood Viburnum spp. virburnum species Vegetative Communities Along Field Edges Ambrosia artemisiifolia common ragweed Amorpha canescens lead plant Bromus inermis smooth brome Conyza canadensis horseweed Euthamia graminifolia flattop goldenrod Panicum spp. panic grass Potentilla quinquefolia creeping cinquefoil Rubus flagellarus dewberry Setaria glauca foxtail grass Solidago spp. goldenrod species Symphyotrichum spp. aster species Source: SHINE 2013a The Stevens Point site provides habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other wildlife tolerant of open fields, cultivated grasses, and frequent disturbances from human activity. During a reconnaissance survey, SHINE observed several birds at the Stevens Point site, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), and various sparrows (SHINE 2015a). Common mammals that inhabit the site likely include deer, raccoons, squirrels, and rabbits. Common reptiles and amphibians that inhabit the site likely include frogs, turtles, and snakes. No wetlands, water bodies, or other aquatic habitats exist within the boundaries of the Stevens Point site. The closest wetland is approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) north of the site boundary. In addition, the Plover River is approximately 2.0 mi (3.2 km) northwest of the site and the Wisconsin River is approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) southwest of the site. However, runoff is not expected to flow into these aquatic habitats because of drainage patterns, the distance from the site to the habitats, and the number of human-made features (such as roads, buildings, and Alternatives 5-63 railroads) separating the site from the aquatic habitats. Several ditches occur within the vicinity of the site, which provide minimal, low-quality aquatic habitats. In correspondence with the NRC, FWS (2013) stated that the Stevens Point site is within the high potential range for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), a Federally endangered species (FWS 2013). Habitat for the Karner blue butterfly includes dry sandy prairie, oak savanna, jack pine forests, and sandy open scrub-shrub areas (FWS 2013). In Wisconsin, Karner blue butterflies are found along utility and road right-of-ways, abandoned agricultural fields, forest openings, and managed forests (FWS 2013; WDNR 2014d). The only food plant for the Karner caterpillar is wild blue lupine (Lupinus perennis) and, therefore, occurrence of this species is greatly limited to areas with wild blue lupine (FWS 2008). Caterpillars generally hatch from eggs in April and then pupate and emerge from their cocoon-like chrysalis by the end of May or in early June. A second generation generally hatches from eggs in late June and pupates and emerges as adults in July (FWS 2008). Two species of special concern and two State-threatened species could occur within 6 mi (10 km) of the Stevens Point site (Table 5-11) (SHINE 2013a; WDNR 2014a). While these species may occur within the vicinity of the site, the Stevens Point site provides unsuitable habitat for any of the four State-protected species (SHINE 2015a; WDNR 2014a). SHINE did not observe any Federally or State-protected species on the Stevens Point site during reconnaissance surveys (SHINE 2015a). Table 5-11. Federally and State-Protected Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Stevens Point Site Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) State Rank(b) Insects Lycaeides melissa samuelis Karner blue butterfly E SSC S3 Microtus ochrogaster prairie vole SSC S2 Plants Asclepias lanuginose wooly milkweed T S1 Arabis missouriensis Missouri rockcress SSC S2 Reptiles Glyptemys insculpta wood turtle T S2 (a) E = endangered; SSC = Species of Special Concern; T= Threatened (b) S1 = Critically imperiled in Wisconsin because of extreme rarity; S2 = Imperiled in Wisconsin because of rarity; S3 = Rare or uncommon in Wisconsin Sources: FWS 2013; WDNR 2014b, 2014d The FWS also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which prohibits anyone from taking native migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The majority of the bird species that occur in Wisconsin, except for resident games birds and feral species, are protected under the Act (WDNR 2014c). In the vicinity of the site, migratory birds rely on riparian, forested, grassland, and wetland habitats as important areas for foraging, resting, avoiding predators, and, for some species, breeding. On the Stevens Point site, migratory birds could use trees for resting, breeding, nesting, and foraging. Alternatives 5-64 Construction Construction of the facility at the Stevens Point site would result in permanently converting 13.9 ac (5.6 ha) of deciduous forest and 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) of agricultural fields into an industrial facility or developed open space, such as parking lots. Furthermore, 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) of cropland would be temporarily disturbed during construction. Additional forested or agricultural land adjacent to the site would be disturbed to extend existing infrastructure to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. In addition to a loss of habitat from construction activities, noise from construction activities could disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such disturbances, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity. During construction, bird collisions with construction equipment and the new facility could result in mortality from the presence of tall structures and artificial night lighting during nighttime construction. The size of structures and the likelihood of mortality from bird collisions would be similar to that described in Section 4.5 for the proposed SHINE site in Janesville. In that analysis, the NRC staff determined that impacts from bird collisions would be negligible and unlikely to affect local or migratory populations, based on previous reviews of bird collisions at nuclear power plants that are similar or larger in height and size than the proposed SHINE facility. Construction at the Stevens Point site is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic resources, such as habitat loss, because no aquatic resources occur on the Stevens Point site. Runoff from the site could affect the offsite aquatic resources, such as drainage ditches, by increasing turbidity or introducing various chemicals or other pollutants. SHINE (2013a) stated, in its ER, that if the Stevens Point site is selected, SHINE would implement appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs to minimize the transport of suspended sediment and other pollutants. In addition, SHINE would be required, in its stormwater permit, to develop a site-specific plan to minimize pollution and runoff (Section 5.2.3.4). In response to the NRC staff's request for endangered and threatened species that could be affected by the proposed construction and operation, FWS (2013) stated that the Stevens Point site is within the high potential range for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Furthermore, if the Stevens Point is selected as the proposed site for construction, FWS (2013) recommended surveys for the presence of wild blue lupines, and if present, then additional surveys to determine the presence of Karner blue butterflies. Therefore, if the Stevens Point site is selected for construction, additional consultation with FWS would be required to determine the potential occurrence of the Karner blue butterfly at the Stevens Point site. FWS (2013) also stated that migratory birds could occur either on or within the vicinity of the site. If the Stevens Point site is selected, FWS (2013) recommended that any tree removal occur before May 1 or after August 30 to minimize impacts on breeding migratory birds that might use the trees for breeding, nesting, foraging, or resting. Given that construction would not permanently or temporarily affect any high-quality habitats such as grasslands, undisturbed forests, or wetlands; permanently and temporarily affected habitats are available within the region; mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible; and no aquatic resources occur on the Stevens Point site, impacts on ecological resources during construction would be SMALL. If the Stevens Point site is selected, additional consultation with FWS would be required, under the Endangered Species Act, to determine the potential presence of, and any effects on, the Karner blue butterfly. Alternatives 5-65 Operations During operations, impacts on ecological resources could result from bird collisions, herbicide applications for landscape maintenance activities, elevated noise levels, and increased turbidity or introduction of pollutants from runoff. As described in Section 4.5, mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, given that the tallest structure would be a stack at approximately 66 ft (20 m) tall. Disturbance from daily activities, herbicide applications, or elevated noise levels is likely to have minimal impacts on wildlife and plant species, given that the species identified at the Stevens Point site are generally tolerant of disturbance, because portions of the site have been actively farmed or modified for human use over the past several decades. In response to any disturbances during operation, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity. Operation of the facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic resources, because wastewater would be discharged to the City of Stevens Point sanitary sewer system after being treated (SHINE 2013a). Indirect impacts during operations could include runoff that may contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or herbicides. However, as described above, impacts on aquatic resources are expected to be minimal, because nearby aquatic resources are drainage ditches that provide low-quality habitat, and SHINE would be required, in its stormwater permit, to use appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs. Given that mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, habitat disturbances during operations would be minimal, any disturbed wildlife could find similar habitat in the vicinity, and BMPs would be required in the SHINE stormwater permit, impacts on ecological resources during operations would be SMALL. As described above, if the Stevens Point site is selected, additional consultation with FWS would be required, under the Endangered Species Act, to determine the potential presence of, and any effects on, the Karner blue butterfly. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would have similar impacts to those that occur during construction of the proposed facility. For example, SHINE would use construction equipment to dismantle large buildings, which could result in disturbances to wildlife and birds and potential runoff to nearby water bodies. In addition, some land on the site could be used as staging areas for the equipment and to conduct certain dismantling activities. As described above, if noise or other activities disturb birds or wildlife, similar habitat is available in nearby offsite areas. No surface water would be used during decommissioning, and SHINE would develop and implement spill prevention and response procedures as part of State permit requirements for ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, impacts during decommissioning are expected to be SMALL. As described above, if the Stevens Point site is selected, additional consultation with FWS would be required under the Endangered Species Act to determine the potential presence of, and any effects on, the Karner blue butterfly. 5.2.3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources A review of databases maintained by the National Park Service indicates that there are 18 properties listed in the NRHP within Portage County (NPS 2015b). These historic properties reflect the historic cultural contexts for the proposed Stevens Point site and include historic buildings, structures, and districts dating from the mid-19th to mid-20th centuries. However, no historic properties are located within the APE, the Stevens Point site, or its immediate vicinity. The closest NRHP-listed property is Nelson Hall, approximately 3.8 mi (6.1 km) northwest of the Stevens Point site, surrounded by commercial and residential land. Nelson Hall was the first dormitory established at the Stevens Point Normal School, the precursor to University of 2013b). No archeological survey was commissioned by Alternatives 5-66 SHINE for the Stevens Point site. The NRC staff queried the Archaeological Sites Inventory and Architectural History Inventory, Burial Sites Inventory, and the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the Wisconsin Historical Society. No known historic or cultural resources or historic properties were found at the Stevens Point site (NRC 2013). In July 2015, the NRC received a determination from the WHS that no historic properties would be affected (WHS 2015) (see Appendix D). As there are no known historic properties, under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), or historic and cultural resources located within the APE, impacts on these resources are not likely during the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. The facility would also incur little or no visual or aesthetic impact, as potential visual impacts during construction and decommissioning would be temporary. The proposed SHINE facility is a low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is approximately 3 mi (5 km) away and is surrounded by residential and commercial properties. However, previously unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-disturbing activities associated with construction, maintenance during operations, and decommissioning. It is expected that SHINE would employ a CRMP, similar to the one discussed in Section 4.6, to manage and protect as-yet-unidentified cultural resources. Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) CRMP procedures, and (3) cultural resource assessment and consultations, construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the possibility of the inadvertent discovery of unidentified cultural resources caused by land disturbance during construction, operations, and decommissioning, the overall impact would be SMALL. 5.2.3.7 Socioeconomics Affected Environment For the purposes of this analysis, the ROI is Portage County, Wisconsin, with special consideration being given to the site of the facility in Stevens Point. The City of Stevens Point is the county seat located in Portage County. According to the 2010 Census, the total population of Portage County was 70,019, while the City of Stevens Point had a population of 26,717 (USCB 2014e). Approximately one third of the population of Portage County resides in Stevens Point. The population in Portage County steadily increased from 1970 to 2010. According to the 2010 Census, there were 11,220 total housing units in the City of Stevens Point and 30,054 housing units in Portage County. The total number of vacant housing units in the City of Stevens Point was 622 (5.5 percent) and 2,240 (7.5 percent) in Portage County (USCB 2014f). Portage County had the highest employment by industry in trade, transportation, and utilities at 7,368 employed (27.11 percent of employment), followed by manufacturing, with 4,254 employed (15.65 percent), and financial activities, with 4,240 employed (15.60 percent) (BLS 2013). Several industries are represented in Stevens Point, which include insurance, education, medical, government, and manufacturing. The top three employers in Portage County are in Stevens Point: Sentry Insurance A Mutual Co., University of WisconsinStevens Point, and Stevens Point Public School (WDWD 2013). There was a slight decline in the labor force and employment totals between 2011 and 2012 in the City of Stevens Point. In 2011, the labor force total was 15,784, and it declined to 15,621 in 2012. The employed total was 14,536 in 2011, and it dropped to 14,357 in 2012. There were also small declines in the labor force and employment totals for Portage County. The State of Wisconsin had a slight decline in the labor force figure, but the employment figure rose slightly Alternatives 5-67 from 2011 to 2012. The unemployment rate in Stevens Point was 8.1 percent, which was 1.5 percent higher than the Portage County total of 6.6 percent and 1.2 percent higher than the 6.9 percent for the State of Wisconsin in 2012 (BLS 2013). According to the Migrant Population Report issued by the WDWD, 268 migrant workers were employed in Portage County in agricultural and food processing jobs in 2011 (WDWD 2014). According to 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the median family income for the City of Stevens Point was $56,992, while Portage County was $64,227. The per capita income for Stevens Point during the same time period was $21,893, while Portage County was slightly higher at $25,207. Tax rates vary by jurisdiction. Portage County has a 0.5 percent county tax rate. The City of Stevens Point's proposed government budget for 2014 is $2,894,227, and the general property taxes in 2012 were $2,213,414 (City of Stevens Point 2013a). The Stevens Point Area Public School District had a total of 7,402 students enrolled in pre-K to 12th grade in 2012-2013. Nine elementary schools, two junior high schools, one senior high school, two specialized schools, and a 4K (kindergarten for 4 year olds) program make up the school district (Stevens Point Area Public School District 2013). Mid-State Technical College and the University of WisconsinStevens Point are located in Stevens Point. The City of Stevens Point has a number of recreational facilities, including several trails for walking, biking, and cross-country skiing. In addition there are 43 campgrounds in Stevens Point, numerous local parks, and the Main Street Historic District (WDNR undated). Cultural institutions include a Central Wisconsin Children's Museum and a Museum of Natural History, Observatory, and Planetarium at the University of WisconsinStevens Point. Impact Analysis The estimated number of workers needed to construct, operate, and decommission the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be the same as the number of workers required for the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site. Construction The 451 workers needed to construct the proposed SHINE facility would represent 2 percent of the total population (26,717) of Stevens Point and less than 1 percent of the population of Portage County (70,019) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Most construction workers would likely reside within the ROI and would not permanently relocate because of the relatively short duration (18 months) of construction. In addition, the support infrastructure within the ROI would be able to accommodate a temporary increase in population. Since most of the 451 construction workers would likely already reside in the ROI, there would be no increase in demand for public services. Assuming that SHINE would enter into a TIF agreement with the City of Stevens Point, similar to the agreement in Janesville, in the first 10 years of the proposed project, the TIF agreement would allow SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes to the City of Stevens Point. Tax payments totaling $600,000 per year would be used to offset infrastructure expenses. SHINE would also pay property taxes estimated to be $35,000 per year, based on the assessed property before improvements during this 10-year period (SHINE 2015a). The Stevens Point Area Public School District would receive a portion of the property tax benefits, since the Stevens Point site is located in that district. Sales tax revenue would also increase if materials and services were purchased within the ROI during construction. However, the total amount of tax revenue generated within the ROI during construction would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Stevens Point and Portage County; Stevens Point's 2012 collected taxes were approximately $16.4 million, while Portage County collected Alternatives 5-68 $32.1 million in taxes in 2012 (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Operations The 150 operations workers would represent 1 percent of the total 2010 population of Stevens Point (26,717) and less than 1 percent of Portage County (70,019) (USCB 2014a). It is likely that some workers would relocate to the ROI. However, the total number of operations workers would not create a significant socioeconomic impact. There is sufficient housing available in the ROI to accommodate any increase in the population from the proposed SHINE facility. There is also sufficient capacity in the public schools to accommodate the small increase in the school-age population when the proposed SHINE facility operations workers and their families relocate to the ROI. Public services, including water utilities, would be able to support the increased needs of operations workers and their families. SHINE would continue to make payments in lieu of taxes (estimated $600,000) and property taxes (estimated $35,000) during facility operations. However, after expiration of the 10-year TIF agreement with the City of Stevens Point, SHINE would pay property taxes of approximately $660,000 per year (SHINE 2015a). The amount of property taxes could change, depending on the assessed value of the proposed SHINE facility. Stevens Point Area Public School District would also continue to receive property tax revenue from SHINE during facility operations. In addition, overall sales and property tax revenues would increase within the ROI, caused by the increase in the population from operations workers relocating to the ROI. However, the total amount of tax revenue generated during this period within the ROI would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Stevens Point and Portage County. In 2012, Stevens Point received approximately $16.4 million in tax revenue, while Portage County received approximately $32.1 million (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during SHINE facility operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning The 261 decommissioning SHINE workers would represent less than 1 percent of the total population of Stevens Point (26,717) and Portage County (70,019) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Because of the short duration of decommissioning (6 months), workers would not likely relocate permanently to Stevens Point, and some of the SHINE operations workers could transition to decommissioning. Since it is likely that most decommissioning workers would already reside in the ROI, there would be little or no increased demand for public services. In addition, support infrastructure within the ROI would be able to accommodate any temporary increase in population. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during the decommissioning of the SHINE facility would be SMALL. 5.2.3.8 Human Health Construction The construction of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that for the Janesville site. For example, there would be no significant physical differences in the design of the facility, workers would be exposed to similar construction hazards, and SHINE would implement similar construction methods and safety practices (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. In addition, existing infrastructure would need to be extended to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. Construction workers would encounter potential hazards typical of any industrial or road construction site. The NRC staff assumed that normal construction safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, such as safety training, safety equipment, and supervision Alternatives 5-69 of the work force, would promote worker safety and reduce the likelihood of worker injury during construction (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and injuries during the construction of related infrastructure would be minimized through normal construction safety practices, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Points Falls site would also be SMALL. Operations The radiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that for the Janesville site. Radiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the Stevens Points site, including radiation sources and radioactive effluents, as well as implementation of a radiation protection program to minimize and ensure compliance with worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, would be essentially the same as those for a SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). The nonradiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be similar to that for the Janesville site. Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive material, would be essentially the same as those for a SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from operation of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the radiological and nonradiological impacts on human health from operations at the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be SMALL. Decommissioning The decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the two sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2015a). After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. Facility workers would continue to receive radiation exposure during work activities relating to the cleanup, movement, storage, and disposal of radioactive material. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIS would be used during decommissioning to ensure that worker and public radiation doses and exposure to nonradioactive chemicals remain within NRC and State limits. In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there would be no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and operation, and radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to ensure hazards to workers and the public would be within NRC and State limits, the NRC staff concludes the impacts on human health from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be SMALL. Alternatives 5-70 5.2.3.9 Waste Management Construction The construction of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Points site would generate similar types and volume of waste to those for the Janesville site. For example, there are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from construction (SHINE 2015a). In addition, existing infrastructure would need to be extended to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. Nonradiological waste would be generated during the construction of such infrastructure. The NRC staff assumed waste would be minimized because waste management systems would be implemented in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and because waste generated during the construction of related infrastructure would be minimized in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be SMALL. Operations The radiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would generate similar types and volumes of radioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). In addition, the management of the radioactive waste would be similar, regardless of the location of the proposed facility. Implementation of a radiation protection program to minimize radiation exposure from the radioactive waste and ensure compliance with worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 would be essentially the same as those discussed in Section 4.8 of this EIS for a proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). The nonradiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would generate similar types and volumes of nonradioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive material, would be essentially the same as those discussed in Section 4.8 of this EIS for a proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from radiological and nonradiological waste generated during facility operations at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the radiological and nonradiological impacts on human health from waste generated from operating the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be SMALL. Decommissioning The decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the two sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2015a). Alternatives 5-71 After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. The types and amounts of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes generated during decommissioning would be similar to those generated at the Janesville site. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIS would be used during decommissioning to protect workers and the public from the waste (SHINE 2013a). In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there would be no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and operation, and radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to protect workers and the public from the waste, the NRC staff concludes the impacts on human health from waste during decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. 5.2.3.10 Transportation Major roads and transportation features in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site are shown in Figure 5-5. The site lies east of the town of Stevens Point, near Interstate 39, and there are currently no roads that access or border the undeveloped site. Existing local roads nearest to the Stevens Point site are County Highway R (Eisenhower Road), approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) to the west; County Highway HH (McDill Avenue), approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) to the south; and Burbank Road, approximately 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the east. County Highway R is an undivided four-lane road with a curbed shoulder, whereas County Highway HH and Burbank Road are two-lane roads with minimal paved shoulders. Interstate 39 would provide major highway access to the site using U.S. Highway 10 to the north or County Highway HH to the south (SHINE 2013a). Annual average daily traffic volumes for various roads and locations in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site are listed in Table 5-12. Morning, midday, and evening peak hourly traffic counts for associated locations are listed in Table 5-13. Available traffic data for road segments near the Stevens Point site suggests that peak volume along County Road R averages approximately 450 to 800 vehicles per hour, while peak volume along County Road HH averages approximately 300 to 500 vehicles per hour (WDOT 2011a). Table 5-12. Annual Average Daily Traffic CountsVicinity of Stevens Point Site Traffic Count Location Vehicles Per Day County Highway R (Eisenhower Road), north of Old Highway 18 Road 8,000 Interstate-39 between U.S. Highway 10 and County Highway HH (McDill Avenue) 22,100 County Highway HH (McDill Avenue), west of County Highway R (Eisenhower Road) 6,100 U.S. Highway 10 between Interstate 39 and County Highway R 28,000 Source: WDOT 2008b Alternatives 5-72 Table 5-13. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic CountsVicinity of the Stevens Point SiteNumber of Vehicles WDOT Count Site No. Location Year of Count A.M. Peak(a) Midday Peak(b) P.M. Peak(c) Daily Total 490964 County Highway R (Brilowski Road), south of U.S. Highway 10 2011 450 684 783 8,662 490218 U.S. Highway 10, between Interstate 39 and Maple Bluff Road 2011 1,731 2,491 2,505 30,958 491061 Off Ramp from Interstate 39 northbound to County Highway HH 2011 224 229 233 3,139 491062 Off Ramp from Interstate 39 southbound to County Highway HH 2011 282 340 466 4,757 490980 County Highway HH between Interstate 39 and County Highway R 2011 312 404 466 5,351 (a) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 00:00 and 09:59. (b) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 10:00 and 14:59. (c) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 15:00 and 23:59. Source: WDOT 2011b Construction Construction of the Stevens Point site would require new access roads to the site. As shown in Figure 5-2, the SHINE facility entrance road would connect with a new east-west street that would be constructed by the City of Stevens Point along the northern boundary of the site, between County Highway R to the west and Burbank Road to the east. A second street, running north-south along the western boundary of the site, would also be constructed to connect the new east-west street with County Highway HH to the south (SHINE2015a). Given that construction at the Stevens Point site would be very similar to that described for the proposed Janesville site, SHINE estimated that construction of the proposed facility at the Stevens Point site would require an average of 420 deliveries per month (14 deliveries per day) and 9 offsite waste shipments per month using heavy vehicles (dump trucks/delivery trucks) (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during construction would add an estimated 451 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff similarly assumed that, with a total of 465 vehicles per day, each having an arrival and departure trip, and some vehicles making return trips during the day (e.g., off site trips for lunch), vehicle counts immediately adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility may temporarily increase by approximately 1,000 trips per day. As with the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, no sources or routes for construction materials, including concrete, have been specified, and SHINE plans to ensure that delivery routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas associated with the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2013b). SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC's regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin's Administrative Code, Chapter 326, "Transportation"; and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). Table 5-12 indicates that County Highway R and County Highway HH experience approximately 8,000 and 6,100 vehicles per day, respectively, near the Stevens Point site. Accordingly, the addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips Alternatives 5-73 per day) from SHINE construction activities would result in increased traffic volumes on County Highway R and County Highway HH of approximately 13 and 16 percent, respectively. Additionally, the percentage of heavy trucks on this route would temporarily increase. However, available traffic counts do not distinguish between types of vehicles currently traveling this route, and the increase in traffic volume would be temporary and limited to the period of construction. SHINE's traffic analysis indicated that projected levels of peak construction-related traffic could noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, but these delays would not be sufficient to destabilize the transportation infrastructure (SHINE 2015a). SHINE plans to use a staggered construction work shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto County Highway R and County Highway HH and schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help mitigate the potential increases in traffic that could occur during peak periods (SHINE 2013b). Increased traffic volumes may also merit mitigation in the form of infrastructure upgrades, such as widening or adding turning lanes. Increased traffic volumes on other roads in the vicinity are expected to be less but could still be significant (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during construction would be MODERATE. Operations Given that operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be very similar to that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that a maximum of 150 worker vehicles distributed over three work shifts per day would access the site using the planned new access roads that would be constructed (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff estimated that each vehicle would require separate trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility, plus a number of trips to and from the proposed facility during the midshift, resulting in approximately 325 additional worker vehicle trips daily. The additional 325 vehicle trips associated with the Stevens Point site represents an increase of 5 percent or less to the average annual daily traffic on roads in the area. In addition to operations employees commuting to the proposed facility, SHINE estimates traffic to and from the facility would also include: an average of 36 truck deliveries per month to the proposed SHINE facility, which would include both radioactive and nonradioactive materials (SHINE 2015a, 2015b); an average of 39 outbound product shipments per month through the Stevens Point Municipal Airport (SHINE 2015b); an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year (SHINE 2015b); and an average of one shipment per month of nonradioactive domestic and industrial waste (SHINE 2015a, 2015b). SHINE's preferred method for shipping radioisotope products from the Stevens Point site would be to transport them by truck to Stevens Point Municipal Airport, approximately 4 miles (6 km) away, for subsequent air transport to customers. Other airports that would be suitable for shipping these products, including Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, Dane County Regional Airport, and O'Hare International Airport, would be more than 2 hours away by truck (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility to increase slightly above current levels during operation but not to an appreciable extent when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site, as presented in Tables 5-12 and 5-13. Similar to the activities that would occur at the Janesville site, SHINE would transport radioactive waste from the Stevens Point site to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal facility. Alternatives 5-74 A common-carrier truck would likely transport the waste. SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC's regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin's Administrative Code, Chapter 326, "Transportation"; and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure public health and safety on roadways. Based on the relatively small increase in traffic compared to the average daily and annual traffic flows near the Stevens Point site, and because SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and the State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material, the NRC staff concludes that the impact on transportation infrastructure during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Given that decommissioning the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be very similar to that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that an average of 72 truck deliveries and 191 offsite waste shipments per month, (a total of approximately nine heavy-vehicle shipments per day) would be required (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during decommissioning would add an estimated 261 vehicles per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff estimates that there could be an increase of approximately 580 trips a day on local roads during the decommissioning phase, increasing average daily traffic on roads in the immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site from what was being experienced during the operations phase. Peak decommissioning-related traffic could noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, but these delays would not be sufficient to destabilize the transportation infrastructure. SHINE could use a staggered work shift schedule, similar to that employed during construction, to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto new site access roads and schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013b). However, the change in average daily traffic flows in the immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site and an increase in commuter, truck delivery, and waste traffic directly related to decommissioning activities, could affect local commuting patterns. Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the decommissioning phase would be MODERATE. 5.2.3.11 Accidents SHINE stated, in its ER, that no conditions have been identified for the Stevens Point site that would significantly affect the radiological or nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents differently than at the proposed facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff considers this assumption reasonable, because the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be essentially the same as at the Janesville site since the design, construction, operations, and decommissioning are similar. In addition, the same radiological and nonradiological safety regulations applicable to the Janesville site would apply to the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.11 of this EIS, the NRC concluded that the impacts from radiological and nonradiological accidents at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Given that no significant differences exist between the two sites or their facility design and operations, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-75 5.2.3.12 Environmental Justice This section describes the potential human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site. The NRC staff addresses environmental justice issues and concerns by first identifying potentially affected minority and low-income populations, and then determining whether there would be any potential human health or environmental effects and whether these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority-population data were available for Census block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius around the Stevens Point site. Low-income population data were only available at the Census tract level because of the limited availability of poverty data at the block group level. To protect confidentiality, USCB does not publish information about small geographic areas if the population size is too small. Race and ethnicity and poverty Census data were used to identify the location of minority and low-income populations near the Stevens Point site. If the Census tract and block group boundaries crossed the 5-mi (8-km) radius boundary, the entire Census tract or Census block group data were used. Geographic information system software was used to create the maps. Minority Populations According to 2010 Census information, approximately 11 percent of the population in the City of Stevens Point identified themselves as a minority. The largest minority population was Asian, comprising approximately 5 percent of the total population, followed by Hispanic or Latino (of any race) comprising approximately 2 percent of the total population. In Portage County, 7.3 percent of the total population identified themselves as minority (USCB 2014e). Table 5-14 lists minority populations within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. Within this radius, 7.2 percent of the total population identified as a minority (UCSB 2014c). The largest minority group was Asian (3.3 percent), followed by Hispanic or Latino (of any race) (2.2 percent) (USCB 2014e). Figure 5-7 shows minority populations within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. Census block groups were considered minority population block groups if the percentage of the minority population within any block group exceeded 7.2 percent. Twelve of the 23 Census block groups were found to have meaningfully greater minority populations. The Stevens Point site is located in Census Tract 9607.02, Block Group 1, a minority population block group with a minority population of 8.3 percent. Alternatives 5-76 Table 5-14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site Census Tract Block Group Total Population Percent of Minority Total Minority Population Hispanic or Latino Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Two or More Races 9601 3 1,557 2.9 46 31 0 6 0 0 9 9604 2 828 9.0 75 33 6 0 31 0 5 9604 3 1,609 7.5 121 31 17 3 62 0 8 9604 4 1,264 6.0 77 20 0 9 38 0 10 9605 1 967 4.9 48 14 0 1 23 0 10 9605 2 1,597 3.0 49 12 5 4 21 0 7 9605 4 2,914 5.9 173 44 14 15 83 0 17 9606 1 1,647 2.7 45 21 2 4 11 0 7 9607.01 1 1,291 12.4 161 77 6 4 54 0 20 9607.01 2 2,629 5.4 144 38 7 6 73 0 20 9607.01 3 1,465 6.6 97 34 4 3 40 0 16 9607.02 1 2,261 8.3 189 41 18 5 100 1 24 9607.02 2 1,099 5.9 65 18 4 0 37 0 6 9608 1 2,217 6.2 139 44 13 0 63 0 19 9608 2 1,608 11.7 189 39 21 6 95 0 28 9608 3 629 8.7 55 6 9 2 30 0 8 9608 4 858 12.3 106 26 8 2 44 0 26 9609 1 823 9.1 75 24 11 4 28 0 8 9609 3 838 10.0 84 29 2 0 35 0 18 9609 4 911 11.4 104 38 13 5 30 0 18 9611 1 2,429 8.0 196 64 5 3 94 1 29 9611 3 2,211 10.5 233 55 10 10 140 1 17 9611 4 870 4.3 38 18 2 2 5 0 11 Source: USCB 2014e, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race. Alternatives 5-77 Figure 5-7. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site Source: USCB 2014e, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race Low-Income Population According to 2006-2010 American Community Survey estimates, 6 percent of families residing within Portage County were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold. Within the City of Stevens Point, 7.6 percent of families and 22.8 percent of all people were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold. The 2010 Federal poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four (USCB 2014f). Table 5-15 lists low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site; 10.9 percent of the total population within that radius was identified as living below the Federal poverty level (UCSB 2014f). Census tracts groups were considered low-income population tracts if the percentage of individuals living below the Federal poverty level exceeded 10.9 percent. Figure 5-8 shows low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. Three of the nine Census tracts were found to have meaningfully greater low-income populations. The Stevens Point site is located within Census Tract 9607.02, with 7 percent of people living below the Federal poverty level, which is not considered a low-income Census tract. Alternatives 5-78 Table 5-15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site Census Tract Percentage of Below Poverty Level for All People (Estimates) 9601 6.5 9604 36.1 9605 5.3 9606 6.6 9607.01 7.8 9607.02 7.0 9608 12.3 9609 12.8 9611 5.9 Source: USCB 2014f, 2006-2010, American FactFinder, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Figure 5-8. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site Source: USCB 2014f, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics Alternatives 5-79 Analysis of Impacts As previously discussed, the environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. Some of these potential effects have been described in the other resource areas discussed in this EIS. Chapter 5 presents the assessment of environmental and human health impacts for each environmental resource area. In the impact analysis, the NRC first identified all potential human health and environmental effects and then determined the significance of the impact and whether or not minority or low-income populations would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. The NRC then considered whether the radiological or other health effects were significant or above generally accepted norms, whether the risk or rate of the hazard was significant and appreciably in excess of that of the general population, and whether the radiological or other health effects would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards. The NRC determined whether the following human health and environmental effects have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility site: radiological and nonradiological human health impacts (Section 5.2.3.8), noise impacts (Section 5.2.3.2), and traffic impacts (Section 5.2.3.10). The NRC also considered whether there would be an impact on the natural or physical environment that would significantly and adversely affect a particular group, whether there would be any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or are likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population, and whether environmental effects would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from an environmental hazard. Construction Similar to constructing the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville location, potential impacts on minority and low-income populations residing near the Stevens Point site would mostly consist of environmental effects during construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority populations residing along site access roads, particularly in Census Tract 9607.02, Block Group 1, could be disproportionately affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust from construction. However, because of the temporary nature of construction, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations within the ROI (Portage County), who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of construction workers and the likelihood that most workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could commute to the construction site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing. Operations Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations during SHINE facility operations at the Stevens Point site would mostly consist of radiological and nonradiological human health and environmental (e.g., noise and traffic) effects. Everyone living near the Stevens Point site would Alternatives 5-80 be exposed to the same potential operational effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions. As discussed in the Human Health section of this EIS (Section 5.2.3.8), the level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and the State of Wisconsin's regulatory limits. As a result, minority or low-income populations, as well as the general population living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility site, would not be adversely affected by radiation exposure during facility operations. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. As discussed in the Noise section of this EIS (Section 5.2.3.2), noise emissions from commuter traffic during SHINE facility operations would increase. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE facility buildings at the site. However, additional noise emissions from worker vehicles would be minor (1 dBA), and noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels beyond current levels. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic during facility operations. However, as discussed in the Transportation section of this EIS (Section 5.2.3.10), the only appreciable impact would be a "slight degradation of service" (i.e., traffic delays) at intersections during the morning peak hour. The overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility would increase slightly during facility operations but would not be of an appreciable nature when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site. Therefore, offsite noise and traffic impacts caused by the proposed SHINE facility operations would be SMALL for both of these resource areas. Nevertheless, given the fact that the Stevens Point site is located in a designated minority block group, minority populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility during operations could be disproportionately affected. However, based on the analyses of impacts conducted for other resource areas discussed in this EIS, impacts on minority or low-income populations, as well as on the general population living in close proximity to the Stevens Point site, would not be considered high and adverse. Decommissioning Similar to construction impacts, potential impacts to minority and low-income populations residing near the Stevens Point site would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects during decommissioning (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during the decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads, particularly in Census Tract 9607.2, Block Group 1, could be disproportionately affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust during decommissioning. However, because of the temporary nature of decommissioning, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for rental housing during decommissioning could cause rental costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of decommissioning workers and the likelihood that most of the workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could commute to the Stevens Point site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing. Alternatives 5-81 In addition, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL for all resource areas. There is no evidence that impacts from decommissioning would be disproportionately high and adverse to minority or low-income populations. Subsistence and Special Conditions As discussed in Section 4.12, the special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the environmental justice analysis, because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area, such as migrant workers or Native Americans. Based on the air and water quality discussions and the discussion of human health effects in this EIS, it is unlikely that there would be any disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, or wildlife. The operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on these populations. Summary The Steven's Point site is located in a minority population block group. Similar to the Janesville site, any minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the site could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicular traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Stevens Point site would not adversely affect minority and low-income populations living near the existing industrial park. The level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and the State of Wisconsin's regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income populations residing near the Stevens Point site could experience short-term disproportionate, but not high and adverse, environmental effects during construction and decommissioning. In addition, based on the discussions of air and water quality and human health effects for this alternative, SHINE facility operations at the Stevens Point site would not likely cause high and adverse human health or environmental effects for minority and low-income populations. 5.2.3.13 Cumulative Impacts The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects and other actions that could result in cumulative impacts at the Stevens Point site were identified by reviewing published and unpublished data, including economic development plans, permit lists, news releases, and similar sources of information. An effort was made to identify all relevant activities conducted, regulated, or approved by a Federal agency or non-Federal entity within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point site. Available information about the projects and other activities identified is provided in Table 5-16. Alternatives 5-82 Table 5-16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Within a 5-mi (8-km) ROI of the Stevens Point Site Project/ Company Name Project Description Location Distance from Location Status Reference Central Wisconsin Alcohol, Inc. Ethanol plant based on whey fermentation Plover 1 mi (1.6 km) Operational WDNR 2015e NAPA Distribution Center Replacing current parking lot with a new lot with 105 stalls; also planning a 25,000-sq.-ft (2,300-sq.-m) addition to distribution center Stevens Point 1 mi (1.6 km) Plans approved in April 2012 City of Stevens Point 2012a Donaldson Company Inc. Filter manufacturing facility Stevens Point 1 mi (1.6 km) Operating air permit renewed July 2014 WDNR 2015f Municipal Transit Center Development of a 35,070-sq.-ft (3,260-sq.-m) vacant lot for a parking lot with 57 parking spaces Stevens Point 1 mi (1.6 km) Plans approved in January 2012 City of Stevens Point 2012b Focus on Energy Methane/ Natural-Gas-Fueled Electric Generator New generator to be installed at existing Wastewater Treatment Facility; will burn digester gas (methane) produced there Stevens Point 3 mi (4.8 km) Plans approved in April 2013 City of Stevens Point 2012c, 2013a Columbia Energy Center (455 MW baseload, coal fired) Operating power plant with potential air pollution control projects for compliance with future regulatory requirements Portage 3 mi (4.8 km) Operating; additional air pollution control equipment installed July 2014 and more planned by 2018 Jerde 2011, 2014 Copps Food Center Construction of a 70,000-sq.-ft (6,500-sq.-m) store with 385 stall parking lot Stevens Point 3 mi (4.8 km) Plans approved in December 2011; Operating City of Stevens Point 2011a, Copps 2014 Schmeeckle Trails Housing Development Existing residential development east of Stevens Point Stevens Point 3.5 mi (5.6 km) Features designs to reduce environmental impacts Revelations Architects/ Builders 2013; SPJ 2008 WIMME Sand & Gravel Sand and gravel plant Plover (Portage County) 5 mi (8.0 km) Operating WDNR 2015g Alternatives 5-83 Project/ Company Name Project Description Location Distance from Location Status Reference Marshfield/Rapids Connection Corridor 60-mi (97-km) corridor upgrade from Abbotsford to Stevens Point Stevens Point 5 mi (8.0 km) at nearest point Construction started in 2007; scheduled for completion in 2030 WDOT 2012 Water and Sewer Reconstruction Project Michigan Avenue and Fourth Avenue mains to be reconstructed Stevens Point 4 mi (6.4 km) 5 mi (8.0 km) Substantially completed in 2012 City of Stevens Point 2011b, 2012d, 2012e Lake Dredging (several locations) Several areas dredged and fill material hauled off site McDill Lake District (Portage County) 5 mi (8.0 km) Completed January 2013 City of Stevens Point 2011a, Olson 2013 Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital Hospital that performs radiological procedures Stevens Point 3.6 mi (5.7 km) Operating MSMH 2014 Portage County Business Park 420-ac (170-ha) mixed-use business park Stevens Point Adjacent to western border of SHINE Stevens Point site Partially Developed PCBC 2014 Land Use and Visual Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on land use and visual resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.1 serves as baseline conditions for the cumulative impact assessment of land use and visual resources. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.3.1. Land Use The projects and activities described in Table 5-16 would result in minimal changes to existing land uses, because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use. Future urbanization and global climate change could contribute to additional decreases in agricultural lands, forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Urbanization in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site would alter important attributes of land use. Urbanization would reduce natural vegetation and agricultural fields, resulting in an overall decline in the extent and connectivity of wetlands, forests, grasslands, and wildlife habitat. Global climate change could reduce crop yields and livestock productivity (USGCRP 2014), which might change portions of agricultural land uses. However, existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas. In addition, zoning laws and comprehensive land use plans would help ensure a proper balance of development (City of Stevens Point 2006). Alternatives 5-84 Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations, the presence of important farmland soils (7 CFR 657.5), including prime farmland, was included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Development projects listed in Table 5-16 would incrementally and cumulatively add to the loss of important farmland soils, including prime farmland soils, in the region surrounding the proposed site. Otherwise qualifying farm lands in or already committed to urban development; lands acquired for a project on or before August 4, 1984; and lands acquired or used by a Federal agency for national defense purposes are exempt from the Act's provisions (7 CFR 658.2 and 658.3). Because many of the proposed projects have been committed to development, those sites do not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Act. The conversion of otherwise qualifying soils by projects within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point site would have a relatively minor impact on the inventory of important farmland soils within Portage County, as much of the northern and eastern sections of the county have lands mapped as prime farmland and prime farmland, if drained, in addition to farmland of statewide importance (Portage County 2006). Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use, cumulative impacts on land use resources would be SMALL. Visual Resources The projects and activities described in Table 5-16 could result in changes to the existing viewshed, because the viewshed is varied and includes both aesthetically altered landscapes (agricultural fields, building, and warehouses) and natural wooded areas. New construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use and, therefore, would have minimal impacts on visual resources. However, some could occur within wooded areas. Construction and operation of facilities within these areas would alter onsite conditions, and the contrast between the surrounding landscape and the new facility would be greater. Currently existing trees and buildings could partially obstruct views of the modified landscape. Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities could occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use and of low scenic quality, or could occur within naturally wooded areas where there would be a noticeable contrast between the new facility and the forested viewshed, the NRC staff determined that cumulative impacts on visual resources would be SMALL to MODERATE. Air Quality and Noise This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on air quality and noise, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The incremental impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.3.2. The incremental impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on noise would be SMALL to MODERATE, as described in Section 5.2.3.3. Air Quality The ROI considered for the air quality analysis for a facility located in Stevens Point is Portage County, since air quality designations for criteria air pollutants are generally made at the county level. Alternatives 5-85 As shown in Table 5-16, the ongoing and future projects located within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point site involve air permits. While these projects increase air-emission concentrations within the county, the activities would need to comply with the requirements stipulated in the permit. Therefore, these activities and projects are not expected to have significant impacts on air quality. Climate changes can affect air quality, as a result of changes in meteorological conditions. The combination of higher temperatures, stagnant air masses, sunlight, and emissions of precursors may make it difficult to meet NAAQS (USGCRP 2014). States, however, must continue to comply with the Clean Air Act and ensure air quality standards are met. The NRC staff determined that the potential cumulative air quality impact associated with SHINE operations, in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would be SMALL, primarily because projects that have overlapping impacts with the proposed SHINE facility would need to comply with requirements stipulated in air permits and would have relatively low emissions. Noise The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site. Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When distance is doubled from a point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (MPCA 2014). For example, at half-a-mile distance from construction equipment with noise levels in the range of 85-90 dBA, noise levels can drop to 51-61 dBA and at a 1-mi (1.6-km) distance, levels drop further to 45-55 dBA. Generally, a 3-dBA change over existing noise levels is considered to be a "just noticeable" difference, and a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (NWCC 2002). To account for noise near the site boundary during construction and decommissioning, the ROI considered is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the boundary of the proposed facility. Some of the projects in Table 5-16 could produce increases in ambient noise that might affect some of the same areas at the Stevens Point site, since they involve construction activities. However, most of these projects are located 1 to 5 mi (1.6 to 8 km) from the Stevens Points site and noise impacts are not expected to be significant. For those projects that are within the 1-mi (1.6-km) radius ROI, construction equipment can result in noise levels in the range of 85-90 dBA; however, noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance, such that at half-a-mile distance from construction equipment, noise levels can drop to 51-61 dBA (NRC 2002). Therefore, these projects would not be expected to have significant overlapping noise impacts if construction occurred at the Stevens Point site. Given the distance of the nearest resident to the Stevens Point site and noise levels from construction and decommissioning activities, the NRC staff concludes that cumulative impacts on noise levels would be SMALL to MODERATE. Geologic Environment This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on the geologic environment, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts on the geologic environment primarily relate to land disturbance and the potential for soil erosion and loss, as well as the projected consumption of geologic resources. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.3 serves as the baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of the geologic environment. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on soil resources includes the 5-mi (8-km) vicinity surrounding the proposed site. For geologic resources, the extent of the geologic area of analysis has been expanded to all of Portage County to encompass potential commercial sources of rock and mineral resources to support construction activities at the Alternatives 5-86 proposed site and vicinity. As the aspects of land disturbance and conversion are addressed separately in the Land Use section above, the cumulative impacts analysis here will focus on soil loss and consumption of geologic resources. The NRC staff concludes that the incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on the geologic environment, including geologic and soil resources, would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.3.3. New development and expansion projects listed in Table 5-16 would consume or extract geologic resources, including rock and mineral resources, or would require materials derived from such geologic resources (e.g., concrete). However, common construction materials such as sand and gravel and crushed stone are available and widely abundant in the county (Section 5.2.3.3) or are available regionally. Neither the geologic resource requirements to construct the proposed SHINE facility nor the resource requirements of any of the other identified facility expansion, development, or transportation projects are on a scale that would be likely to affect the regional sources and supplies of the identified resources. In conclusion, the NRC staff finds that cumulative impacts on geologic and soil resources would be SMALL. Water Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on water resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts on surface-water resources relate to issues concerning water use, water quality, and potential climate change. This further encompasses water withdrawal, effluent discharges, accidental spills and releases, and stormwater drainage and runoff. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.4 serves as a baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of water resources. For surface-water resources, the extent of the geolographic area of analysis has been expanded to include McDill Pond, an impoundment on the Plover River. For groundwater resources, the area considered encompasses the local groundwater basin in which groundwater is recharged and flows to discharge points and those aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn through wells. Specifically, the cumulative impacts analysis focuses on those projects and activities that, when combined with the proposed action, would: (1) withdraw water from or discharge wastewater to McDill Pond and the Plover River downstream of the proposed site or (2) would use groundwater or could otherwise affect the same aquifers that would supply water to the proposed site. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.4, impacts on water resources at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. In addition to the proposed SHINE facility, new development and expansion projects listed in Table 5-16 and disturbing greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha) of land would have to obtain and comply with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific construction site erosion control plan, including specific BMPs, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management). Permits issued to all new stormwater and industrial wastewater dischargers would include provisions as part of Wisconsin-issued NPDES permits to comply with applicable water-quality-based effluent limitations and wasteload allocations established for downstream receiving waters. The proposed SHINE facility would have no direct sanitary or other wastewater discharges to surface water or groundwater. The SHINE facility would be served by the City of Stevens Point WTP, which has excess treatment capacity (Section 5.2.3.4). The protection of groundwater quality in surficial aquifers and conservation of local groundwater supplies is a concern across Wisconsin. The City of Stevens Point's groundwater supply Alternatives 5-87 system is considered adequate to meet water supply needs over the short term. However, it has long-term plans to assure future supply while addressing issues with poor performing supply wells and wells with poor quality water (City of Stevens Point 2006). As a result of climate change, the Midwest may continue to experience an increase in annual precipitation, along with an increase in annual and seasonal temperatures. Increased precipitation, particularly during the spring and winter months, could increase groundwater recharge (USGCRP 2014). Regardless, the proposed SHINE facility would be served by the City of Stevens Point municipal water system (Section 5.2.3.4). Furthermore, neither the proposed SHINE facility nor each of the projects identified in Table 5-16 would be expected to require exorbitant volumes of groundwater or surface water that would affect water availability for other potential uses or users. Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts on water resources would be SMALL. Ecological Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on ecological resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.5 serves as a baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of ecological resources. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on ecological resources includes the area surrounding the Stevens Point site that is ecologically connected to the onsite ecological resources (e.g., the watershed surrounding the Stevens Point site). The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.3.5. Since European settlement, prairies, forests, and wetlands have been greatly reduced by at least 50 to 80 percent and converted into agricultural fields, industrial uses, and residential and commercial areas. Remaining tracts of grasslands, forests, and wetlands tend to be relatively small and isolated, which results in lower quality habitat than large tracts of habitat because of the different biological and physical characteristics along the edge of a habitat patch (WDNR 2013c). Current threats to terrestrial and aquatic habitats include increased soil, nutrients, and other pollutants washing into streams and lakes from urban and agricultural stormwater runoff; continued conversion and fragmentation of wildlife habitat from development (Table 5-16); introduction of invasive species; and climate change (WDNR 2013c; USGCRP 2014). These activities will likely decrease the overall availability and quality of forested, grassland, and wetland habitats. Species with threatened, endangered, or declining populations are likely to be more sensitive to declines in habitat availability and quality and the introduction of invasive species. As environmental stressors, such as future development and climate change, continue over the next few decades, certain attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (such as habitat quality) are likely to change noticeably. The NRC staff does not expect these impacts to destabilize any important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment, because such impacts will cause gradual change, which should allow most terrestrial and aquatic resources to adapt appropriately. The staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the SHINE facility, plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions, would result in MODERATE impacts to terrestrial and aquatic resources. Alternatives 5-88 Historic and Cultural Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on historic and cultural resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area considered in this analysis is the APE associated with the proposed SHINE facility, the proposed SHINE site, and its immediate vicinity. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.6, the impacts on historic and cultural resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility would be SMALL. The archaeological record for the region indicates prehistoric and historic occupation. Historic land development and prolonged agricultural use of the APE resulted in impacts on, and the loss of, cultural resources in the APE and its immediate vicinity. As described in Section 5.2.3.6, no known historic or cultural resources or historic properties are present within the APE. However, there remains the possibility for inadvertent discovery of historic or cultural resources within the APE. Direct impacts would occur if historic and cultural resources in the APE were to be physically removed or disturbed. Indirect visual or noise impacts could occur from new construction or maintenance. The only foreseeable project within the APE is the SHINE facility and the potential discovery of cultural resources on the proposed site. Should they be discovered, any cultural resources would be managed using SHINE BMPs developed for the proposed Janesville site (e.g., cultural resource management procedures and training) (SHINE 2013b). Therefore, the cumulative impact on historic and cultural resources of the proposed SHINE facility, when combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities, would be SMALL. Socioeconomics This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on current socioeconomic conditions within the ROI from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.7 serves as a baseline for the cumulative socioeconomic impact assessment. The geographic area of analysis is the ROI, Portage County. Section 5.2.3.7 found that socioeconomic impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Table 5-16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Relevant "other actions" that are considered in this cumulative impacts analysis are future construction projects that would bring new business and people to the ROI. Depending on the number of workers needed to support the operation of the Central Wisconsin Alcohol Inc. and the Copps Food Center, there is the potential for increased population, employment, tax revenue, and demand for public services in the ROI. However, a majority of the workers would likely already reside within the ROI and are currently using public services. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.7, Portage County has adequate public services and water utilities capable of accommodating any population changes. Therefore, the contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-89 Human Health This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects on human health of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site. The Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital, which conducts radiological procedures, is 3.5 mi (5.7 km) from the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2013a). The use of radioactive materials for medical diagnosis and treatment is regulated by the State of Wisconsin. The NRC and the Governor of Wisconsin signed an agreement transferring regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to the State of Wisconsin, which became the 33rd Agreement State, effective August 11, 2003. As an Agreement State, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services is responsible for licensing and inspecting the above-named materials, except at nuclear power plants and Federal facilities (WDHS 2014). No nuclear fuel cycle facilities occur within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site that would contribute to the cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative radiological impacts from the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site and the potential impacts from the use of radioactive materials at the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital. Both facilities are or would be licensed and regulated, SHINE by the NRC and the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital by the State, and both are or would be required to maintain radiation doses to their workers and members of the public within Federal and State dose limits. Also, given that SHINE would be 3.54 mi (5.69 km) from the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital, radioactive emissions that are within regulatory limits would be reduced through the processes of dispersion and dilution as they travel in the atmosphere. Based on the regulatory controls that are and would be in place to control radiation exposure, the distance between the facilities, and the dilution of the radioactive materials, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts to human health would be SMALL. Table 5-16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates the use of nonradioactive materials (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital and would regulate their use at the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS, the State of Wisconsin has regulations for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500 (SHINE 2015a). Both SHINE and the Ministry Saint Michaels's Hospital are or would be regulated by the State and are or would be required to maintain chemical exposure to their workers and members of the public within State limits. Also, based on the distance between each facility, nonradioactive emissions that are within regulatory limits are or would be reduced through the processes of dispersion and dilution as they travel in the atmosphere. Based on the regulatory controls that are or would be in place to control chemical exposure, the distance between the facilities listed in Table 5-16, and the dilution of the nonradioactive materials, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative nonradiological impacts to human health would be SMALL. Waste Management This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site from radioactive and nonradioactive wastes, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, Alternatives 5-90 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site. In Section 5.2.2.9, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from types and volumes of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. There are no nuclear fuel cycle facilities located within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site that would contribute to the cumulative impacts from radioactive wastes. Therefore, the NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative impacts from radioactive waste from the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site and the potential impacts from the disposal of radioactive waste at the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital. Radioactive waste at both facilities will be regulated, SHINE by the NRC and the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital by the State. The facilities will be required to store, process, and dispose of radioactive wastes in accordance with Federal and State requirements. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS, radioactive wastes generated by the proposed SHINE facility will be packaged and transported off site to a licensed low-level radioactive waste facility for disposal (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from radioactive wastes generated and disposed of from the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Radioactive waste generated at the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital would also be packaged and transported off site to a licensed low-level radioactive waste facility for disposal. Based on the regulatory controls on packaging and transporting radioactive wastes, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts from radioactive waste would be SMALL. Table 5-16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates the use and disposal of nonradioactive waste (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital and will regulate their use and disposal at the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS, the State of Wisconsin has regulations for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500 (SHINE 2015a). SHINE and the facilities listed in Table 5-16 will be regulated by the State and will be required to safely store, package, transport, and dispose of nonradioactive wastes in accordance with State requirements. Based on the State's regulatory controls that will be in place to control nonradioactive wastes, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts from nonradioactive wastes would be SMALL. Also, the projects and activities identified in Table 5-16 that are near the Stevens Point site generally are relatively small and would not be expected to have significant impacts from nonradioactive waste in the same areas affected by the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential cumulative impacts from radioactive and nonradioactive wastes from the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable future projects would be SMALL. Transportation This section addresses the direct and indirect effects on transportation from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on transportation includes the site Alternatives 5-91 boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site. However, the roads for routes that could be used for delivery of medical isotopes (if air transport is not possible) or disposal of wastes were also considered. Transportation infrastructure includes roadways, rail lines, airports, and traffic-control devices. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.10, transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Construction projects in Table 5-16 could produce an increase in vehicular traffic on roads within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. For example, construction of new or expanded businesses could add construction-related vehicles or employees commuting on roads near the Stevens Point site. Depending on the number of workers required and whether construction projects within the vicinity of the Stevens Point site were occurring at the same time as the SHINE facility's construction, operations, or decommissioning, traffic on access roads would increase. Most existing roads would be sufficient to handle the construction project transportation activities, and alternative routes could be used to minimize transportation impacts. In some cases, however, a noticeable increase in traffic could occur, especially if construction timeframes overlapped and construction workers and vehicles used the same roads. Therefore, depending on whether other construction projects overlapped with construction, operations, or decommissioning of the SHINE facility, or whether increased vehicular activity from workers or residents on roads near the Stevens Point site had a noticeable impact on traffic, the NRC staff concludes that cumulative transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Environmental Justice The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential contributory human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on minority and low-income populations, and whether these effects might be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing near the Stevens Point site, and everyone would be exposed to the same environmental effects generated by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.12, the Stevens Point site is located in a block group that exceeds the geographic area average for minority populations. The geographic area of analysis is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Stevens Point site would not have high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Table 5-16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic area of analysis that could contribute cumulative human health and environmental effects. Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental effects from construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, noise and dust impacts during construction and decommissioning would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction. However, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause Alternatives 5-92 rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the availability of workers and the likelihood of workers commuting to the construction site, the need for rental housing could be reduced. Operational emissions from manufacturing or industrial facilities within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility. However, everyone would be exposed to the same potential contributory effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions. Permitted air emissions from all manufacturing and industrial facilities, including the contributory effects from the proposed SHINE facility, would be expected to remain within regulatory standards. Based on this information and the analysis of human health and other environmental impacts presented in this section of the EIS, the contributory effects of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SHINE facility are not likely to create high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site. 5.3 Alternative Technologies 5.3.1 Identification of Reasonable Alternatives The purpose of the SHINE facility is to use low-enriched uranium fission technology to domestically produce three medical isotopes: molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133 (Section 2.0). Other alternative medical radioisotope production technologies exist that could be used to create these isotopes (e.g., Making Medical Isotopes: Report of the Task Force on Alternatives for Medical-Isotope Production (TRIUMF 2008) and Homogeneous Aqueous Solution Nuclear Reactors for the Production of Mo-99 [molybdenum-99] and other Short Lived Radioisotopes (IAEA 2008)). While various publications have described a broad range of other technologies, the NRC staff considered three technologies for the purposes of this alternatives analysis. These three alternative technologies are the following: (1) neutron capture technology, (2) aqueous homogenous reactor technology, and (3) linear-accelerator-based technology. These three technologies were chosen for the alternatives analysis, because they appear to be technologically reasonable. For example, the Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), through the Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation's Global Threat Reduction Initiative, awarded cooperative agreements to commercial entities proposing a new technology to accelerate the dual objectives of eliminating the use of proliferation-sensitive highly enriched uranium in the production of medical radioisotopes and establishing reliable domestic supplies of molybdenum-99 to meet U.S. medical needs. In awarding these cooperative agreements, NNSA based its decision, in part, on an evaluation of the technical feasibility. The NRC staff notes that this alternatives analysis is not an endorsement of any type of technology but rather is an analysis of three alternatives that appear to be technologically reasonable. Further, the NRC staff notes that several commercial entities have proposed other methods to produce molybdenum-99, such as heterogeneous reactors. For the purposes of this EIS, the NRC staff has limited the alternatives analysis to the three technologies that NNSA is supporting through its cooperative agreements (as of February 2015) because when there are Alternatives 5-93 potentially a large number of alternatives, NEPA only requires that an agency analyze a reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives, in the EIS (46 FR 18026). In this analysis of the alternative technologies, the NRC staff evaluated the potential environmental impacts if a commercial entity were to construct and operate a facility on the proposed SHINE site in Janesville, Wisconsin, using alternative technology. The NRC staff notes that no commercial entity (other than SHINE) has proposed building or operating a facility at the proposed SHINE site. For the purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff reviewed environmental documents and technological descriptions related to the three alternative technologies, as described in further detail below. 5.3.2 Neutron Capture Alternative For the neutron capture alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by neutron irradiation of raw molybdenum in a boiling water reactor (GE Hitachi 2011). However, the proposed Janesville site does not contain a boiling water reactor. The NRC staff does not consider construction of a new boiling water reactor to support the neutron capture technology to be considered reasonable, as the currently proposed site has insufficient space and other resources to support a power reactor. Alternatively, a research reactor could be used to produce molybdenum-99 using neutron capture technology. Sufficient space likely occurs on the proposed Janesville site to construct a new research reactor as part of the neutron capture alternative. No commercial entity, however, has submitted an application to construct or operate a reactor using neutron capture, as of February 2015. Given the conceptual stage of the neutron capture technology and the lack of environmental data regarding the potential impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning, the NRC staff determined that insufficient environmental information exists to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts of this technology in detail. For these reasons, the NRC staff does not consider the neutron capture technology a reasonable alternative and has excluded it from further consideration. 5.3.3 Aqueous Homogenous Reactor Alternative For the low-enriched uranium aqueous homogenous reactor alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced using an aqueous homogenous reactor fueled by a uranium salt solution, followed by a series of chemical processes to extract the molybdenum-99 (IAEA 2008; B&W 2012). The size of each reactor would be approximately 200 to 240 kilowatts, and it would be capable of producing about 1,100 6-day curies (Ci) on a weekly basis (IAEA 2008). The reactor fuel solution would contain low-enriched uranium salt dissolved in water and acid. This solution would also be the target material for molybdenum-99 production, as fissioning the uranium-235 would produce molybdenum-99 and other isotopes. The reactor would be operated until a sufficient amount of molybdenum-99 occurred in the fuel solution. The fuel solution would be removed and processed using chemical purification to extract the molybdenum-99 (IAEA 2013). Afterwards, the molybdenum-99 would be transported to an end-user medical facility. During operations, the aqueous homogenous reactors would produce radiolytic and other off-gases such as nitrogen oxides (IAEA 2008). The production process would also generate liquid waste from both the reactors and the processing of molybdenum-99 within the hot cells (IAEA 2008, 2013). Several technical documents have been published that describe conceptual aqueous homogenous reactors to produce molybdenum-99 (e.g., IAEA 2008, 2013; B&W 2012). No Alternatives 5-94 commercial entity, however, has submitted an application to construct or operate an aqueous homogenous reactor, as of February 2015. Given the conceptual stage of the aqueous homogenous reactor technology and the lack of environmental data regarding the potential impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning, the NRC staff determined that insufficient environmental information exists to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts of this technology in detail. For these reasons, the NRC staff does not consider the aqueous homogenous reactor technology a reasonable alternative and has excluded it from further consideration. 5.3.4 Linear-Accelerator-Based Alternative For the linear-accelerator-based alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by utilizing an accelerator to irradiate natural molybdenum that has been enriched in the radioisotope molybdenum-100. For the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff assumed the facility would be similar to the facility described in NNSA's Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99 (DOE 2012). The NRC acknowledges that other commercial entities have proposed methods of producing molybdenum-99 using linear-accelerator-based technology, such as Niowave, Inc. (Niowave 2015). However, for the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff used the environmental parameters included in NNSA's environmental assessment for the NorthStar Medical Radioisotope facility because this commercial entity was awarded a cooperative agreement by NNSA and because sufficient environmental data exist regarding this proposed technology. The facility for the linear-accelerator-based alternative would have the capacity to produce approximately 3,000 6-day Ci per week. To produce molybdenum-99, the operator would use a target made of molybdenum enriched in the radioisotope molybdenum-100 and would irradiate (or bombard) the targets using a pair of accelerators. Up to 16 accelerators would be constructed and used during operations (DOE 2012). After bombardment, the targets would be removed and chemically processed in hot cells to produce the molybdenum-99 radiochemical. The operator would then ship the molybdenum-99 radiochemical from the facility to an end-user medical facility. After further processing at the end-user medical facility, the spent or unusable portion of the radiochemical from the end-user facility would be returned. During operations, the facility would produce radiolytic and other off-gases such as nitrogen oxides (DOE 2012). The production process would also generate radioactive and nonradioactive liquid waste (DOE 2012). The NRC staff assumed that the operator would construct a containment building for the accelerators and radioactive waste facility (DOE 2012). In addition, a separate building or parts of the building would contain the processing facility (e.g., hot cells and chemical laboratories), areas for shipping and receiving, and a waste management center. Support facilities, such as administration buildings, parking lots, and holding tanks, would be similar to those for the SHINE facility. The sections below evaluate the environmental impacts of the linear-accelerator-based alternative. For the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff used the same environmental and engineering parameters described in NNSA's Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99 (DOE 2012). However, the NRC staff assumed the linear-accelerator-based facility would be constructed at the Janesville site. The NRC staff notes that, if a linear-accelerator-based facility were constructed at the Janesville site, similar to NorthStar's facility, the State of Wisconsin could maintain authority over byproduct material, as described in 10 CFR Part 30. Therefore, Alternatives 5-95 the facility operator would not need to apply to the NRC for a construction permit or operating license. The purpose of the assessment below is to evaluate the environmental consequences of an alternative technology to the proposed technology at the Janesville site. 5.3.4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources Impacts Constructing, operating, and decommissioning the linear-accelerator-based alternative at the Janesville site would disturb approximately 13 ac (5.3 ha) of agricultural land to build and operate areas for irradiation, processing facilities, waste management facilities, administration buildings, parking lots, and other support structures (DOE 2012). The highest structure would be the emissions stack for chemical processing, which would extend approximately 18 m (60 ft) in height, with a diameter of 0.6 m (2 ft) (DOE 2012). Therefore, the size, height, and footprint of the buildings for the accelerator-based alternative would be bounded by the parameters analyzed for the SHINE facility in Section 4.1. As described in Section 4.1, land use impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be SMALL, because the entire site is currently zoned for industrial use, and the permanently converted agricultural land would be a small portion of available agricultural land within the vicinity. As described in Section 4.1, aesthetic impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be SMALL at the Janesville site, given that a light industrial development landscape surrounds part of the site and the visual setting is generally flat and has a uniform landform with low vegetation diversity and a low visual-quality rating. Based on a similar or smaller footprint, building size, and building height for the linear-accelerator-based alternative, land use and visual impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.2 Air Quality and Noise Impacts Air quality and noise impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning of the linear-accelerator-based alternative at the Janesville site would be very similar to those described in Section 4.2, based on the similar period of construction (18 months), construction methods, and operational activities (DOE 2012). The primary impacts would be from dust, vehicular emissions, and noise. For example, construction activities would generate air pollutant emissions from site-disturbing activities, such as grading, filling, compacting, trenching, and operating construction equipment. However, the NRC staff assumed that the operator would meet State and local regulations and ordinances. Additionally, given that less land would be disturbed and the footprint of the facility would be less for the linear-accelerator-based alternative, air quality and noise impacts are bounded by what is described in Section 4.2. Given the similar construction duration (18 months), construction methods, and operational and decommissioning activities, the NRC staff concludes that air quality and noise impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.3 Geologic Environment Direct impacts on the geologic environment, including the consumption of geologic resources, from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the linear-accelerator-based alternative at the Janesville site would likely be similar to or less than those described in Section 4.3. This is because the area of disturbance would be the same or less than that described for the SHINE facility (DOE 2012). In particular, the potential for soil erosion and loss would likely be much less, as the area of land disturbance, associated earthwork, and overall need for geologic resources would be somewhat less, compared to the proposed action. During construction, grading activities would likely affect the upper 1.5 m (5 ft) of surface soil and would not result in net removal of soil or additions of fill material (DOE 2012). Excavation of the subgrade portions of buildings would remove up to approximately 21,000 m3 (28,000 cubic yards (yd3)) of soil and rock material (DOE 2012). Given that the area of disturbance and the potential for soil erosion and loss would be the same or less than those described for the SHINE Alternatives 5-96 facility, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on the geologic environment would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.4 Water Resources Construction, operations, and decommissioning of the linear-accelerator-based alternative at the Janesville site would not entail direct impacts on natural surface-water drainages or on groundwater hydrology. The impacts of construction would be similar to or somewhat less than those from the proposed action, as presented in Section 4.4, because of similar construction methods and the size of the facilities (DOE 2012). Facility construction would have to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific construction erosion control plan, including specific BMPs to minimize water-quality impacts, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management). Makeup water requirements for potable and process use to support facility operations would likely be the same or less than those for the proposed alternative, and water would be supplied from municipal sources (DOE 2012). Likewise, there would be no direct impact on water resources during operations and no direct discharge of liquid effluent (including sanitary or industrial wastewater) to surface water or groundwater. All wastewater would be conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP and would be subject to the city's influent acceptance requirements for industrial users and in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act. Given that there would be no direct impact on natural surface-water drainages or on groundwater hydrology and that water would be supplied from municipal sources, the NRC staff concludes that the impact on water resources would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.5 Ecological Resources As described in Section 5.3.4.1, the linear-accelerator-based alternative would disturb less land at the Janesville site than the proposed SHINE facility. Directly affected vegetation would be limited to cultivated crops and weedy species, both of which are abundant within the region and provide relatively low-quality habitat for birds and wildlife in comparison to forests, grasslands, and wetland habitats. In addition to a loss of habitat, noise from construction activities could disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such disturbances and loss of habitat, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat (agricultural fields) within the vicinity. All other impacts on ecological resources, such as bird collisions, disturbance during maintenance activities, and potential runoff to offsite aquatic resources, are expected to be similar to those described for the proposed SHINE facility in Section 4.5 because of similar construction methods, similar or smaller building size and footprint, and similar operating and decommissioning activities. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on ecological resources would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources As described in Section 4.6, no historic or cultural resources were identified within the proposed Janesville site, and therefore, historic and cultural resources would not be affected by the linear-accelerator-based technology. Additionally, as described in Section 5.3.4.1, the linear-accelerator-based alternative would disturb less land at the Janesville site than the proposed SHINE facility, which reduces the likelihood of disturbing undocumented remains. During construction, operations, and decommissioning, the operator would use the same cultural resource management plan to manage and protect unidentified cultural resources as discussed in Section 4.6, regardless of which technology was chosen. Therefore, impacts on Alternatives 5-97 historic and cultural resources would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.7 Socioeconomics Socioeconomic impacts from the linear-accelerator-based alternative would be similar to those described for the proposed SHINE facility in Section 4.7. For example, the linear accelerator workforce during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be similar to or less than the number of workers needed for the proposed SHINE facility discussed in Section 4.7 (DOE 2012). Some workers would need to relocate (temporarily or permanently) to the ROI. This would lead to an increase in tax revenue and an increased demand for temporary and permanent housing. As described in Section 4.7, the ROI has sufficient housing available to support any increase in population and has sufficient capacity to accommodate any increased demand for public services. Given the similar size of the estimated workforce for the proposed SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based alternative, socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.8 Human Health Impacts on human health from the linear-accelerator-based alternative are expected to be similar to those described in Section 4.8 for the proposed SHINE facility, based on the similar construction methods; radiological controls; and other policies, procedures, and regulations that protect public health and safety. For example, the NRC staff assumed that access controls during construction would allow only authorized personnel access to the site and prevent members of the public from coming on site. During construction, operations, and decommissioning, the NRC staff further assumed that the facility operator would implement normal safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations and that limits for toxic chemicals stored or used at the site would be below the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code (DOE 2012). Further, the design of the facility would likely incorporate measures to minimize radiation exposure to workers and members of the public (DOE 2012). Given the radiological controls and other policies, procedures, and regulations that the operator would follow to protect public health and safety, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on human health would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.9 Waste Management Construction activities would generate approximately 160 metric tons (175 tons) of solid waste in the form of wood, metal, concrete, or other miscellaneous construction debris (DOE 2012). This amount of waste would likely be similar to that produced for the SHINE facility, given the similar construction activities and size of buildings that would be constructed. Operation of the linear-accelerator-based alternative would generate about 10.4 m3 (14 yd3) of low-level radioactive waste, 2.4 m3 (3.1 yd3) of hazardous waste, and 45 m3 (59 yd3) of solid waste annually (DOE 2012). The NRC staff determined that existing commercial or municipal treatment and disposal facilities would be able to accommodate all projected quantities of waste generated by the linear-accelerator-based facility. During construction, operations, and decommissioning, the operator would likely implement waste management systems to protect the workers and the public from radiological exposures and processes to minimize chemical contamination. The operator would also be required to comply with NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin radiation protection requirements, as applicable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. Alternatives 5-98 5.3.4.10 Transportation Transportation impacts during construction and decommissioning would come, for example, from the removal of excavated materials, shipment of construction materials or dismantled buildings to or from the site, transport of worker personnel, and movement of heavy equipment for onsite construction or decommissioning activities. Transportation impacts would be similar to those described for the SHINE facility in Section 4.10, because construction and decommissioning activities would be very similar and operate over a similar time span at the same location. Therefore, the increased level of traffic during construction and decommissioning could have a noticeable impact on traffic. Transportation impacts during operation would come from shipments of hazardous and radioactive waste to treatment and disposal facilities; receipt of processing materials (e.g., acids and other chemicals); receipt of target materials; shipment of the molybdenum-99 and other medical radioisotopes; and, potentially, the return of technetium-99m generators. The operator of the facility and transportation vehicles would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material. Based on the similar transportation impacts that are expected for the SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to transportation would be MODERATE during construction and decommissioning and SMALL during operations. 5.3.4.11 Accidents DOE (2012) assessed a range of accidents involving radioactive molybdenum-99 or chemicals that would be used during the production process for a linear-accelerator-based facility. Accident scenarios included a severe accident from the release of the entire helium inventory from the accelerator cooling system, a severe accident to a member of the public from direct exposure to a freshly irradiated molybdenum target, and an accident resulting from an intentional destructive act involving the release of a significant portion of a freshly irradiated target (DOE 2012). Given the radiological controls and other policies, procedures, and Federal and State regulations that the operator would follow to protect public health and safety, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to a member of the public from a potential accident would be SMALL. 5.3.4.12 Environmental Justice The environmental justice impacts from a linear-accelerator-based alternative would be the same as those discussed for the SHINE facility in Section 4.12. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the site could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during the construction, operations, and decommissioning of either technology. However, during construction and decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Operation of either technology would not adversely affect minority and low-income populations living near the Janesville site. The level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and the State of Wisconsin's regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income populations residing near the existing industrial park and the proposed SHINE facility could experience short-term disproportionate, but not high and adverse, human health and environmental effects from the linear-accelerator-based alternative. Alternatives 5-99 5.3.4.13 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts for the linear-accelerator-based alternative would be similar to those described in Chapter 4 for the SHINE facility at the Janesville site, because the direct contributory effects from construction, operations, and decommissioning for the two technologies would be similar. 5.4 Cost-Benefit Comparison NEPA and CEQ require that all agencies of the Federal government prepare detailed environmental statements on proposed major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. One of NEPA's principal objectives is to require each Federal agency to consider, in its decisionmaking process, the environmental impacts of each proposed major action. In particular, as stated below, Section 102 of NEPA requires all Federal agencies to the fullest extent possible to: (B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality established by Title II of this Act, which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations. (42 U.S.C. 4321) However, neither NEPA nor CEQ requires the benefits and costs of a proposed action to be quantified in dollars or any other common metric. The intent of this section is not to identify and quantify all potential societal benefits of the proposed action and compare them to potential costs. Instead, it focuses only on those benefits and costs of such magnitude or importance that including them in this analysis can inform the decisionmaking process. This section compiles the expected impacts from operations of the proposed SHINE facility and aggregates them into two final categories: (1) the expected costs and (2) the expected benefits derived from approving the proposed action. Table 5-17 describes the following information on major environmental costs and benefits, including: average annual production of commercial products, expected increase in tax payments to State and local tax jurisdictions during construction and operations, other benefits, environmental degradation, which includes impacts on: land use and visual resources, air quality, geologic environment, water resources, ecological resources, historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, noise, traffic congestion, environmental justice, and increased demand for public services, effects on human health, and other costs, which include lost tax revenues, decreased recreational value, and transportation (as appropriate). Alternatives 5-100 Table 5-17. Costs and Benefits of Constructing, Operating, and Decommissioning the Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville, Wisconsin, Site Cost Benefit Category Description Impact Assessment Benefits Domestic Production of Molybdenum-99 SHINE would produce a domestic supply of molybdenum-99; no domestic producers of this widely used medical radioisotope currently exist in the U.S. and the U.S. currently imports all of its supply. _ Use of Low-enriched Uranium Target Solution SHINE would use low-enriched uranium target solution for production of medical radioisotopes, contributing to the Federal nonproliferation objective to phase out U.S. exports of highly enriched uranium, as identified in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. _ Tax Revenues The estimated total construction dollars spent in the local community associated with the SHINE facility are expected to be approximately $20 to $30 million for labor, electrical equipment, cabling, and concrete, spread over the construction period. SHINE intends to enter into a TIF agreement during the first 10 years of the proposed project, covering the entirety of the construction period, allowing them to make payments in lieu of taxes at an estimated payments total of $600,000 per year. SHINE would pay property taxes estimated to be $35,000 per year based on the assessed property before improvements during this 10-year period. _ Local Economy Increased jobs would benefit the area economically and increase the economic diversity of the region. (Section 4.7) _ Costs Land Use The site would include 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas, which is a small portion of the agricultural land within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the site (Section 4.1.1). The location of the proposed facility is within an area zoned for light industrial use. No additional land would be disturbed during operations or decommissioning. SMALL Visual Resources The proposed SHINE facility would not noticeably alter visual resources, based on the low scenic quality, low scenic value, and light industrial viewshed within the vicinity of the proposed site. (Section 4.1.2) SMALL Air Quality Air quality impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning, would be negligible, given the relatively low emissions and the pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from WDNR. (Section 4.2) SMALL Alternatives 5-101 Cost Benefit Category Description Impact Assessment Noise During construction, operations, and decommissioning, noise would be minimal, given the minor (1 to 2 dBA) expected increases in noise levels. (Section 4.2) SMALL Geologic Environment Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would consume geologic resources and have the potential to increase soil erosion, but the overall impact would be minor, given that the geologic resources are widely available within the region and erosion would be managed with the implementation of BMPs. (Section 4.3) SMALL Water Resources Water-resource impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be negligible, because of the lack of surface-water features on site and the use of municipal water. (Section 4.4) SMALL Ecological Resources Terrestrial and aquatic ecology impacts are expected to be SMALL, based on the limited amount of land that would be disturbed and because the entire site includes previously disturbed habitat. (Section 4.5) SMALL Historic and Cultural Resources SHINE could inadvertently discover previously unidentified cultural resources caused by land disturbance during construction, operations, or decommissioning. However, impacts would be SMALL based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE's CRMP procedures, and (4) cultural resource assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff. (Section 4.6) SMALL Socioeconomic Socioeconomic impacts are expected to be SMALL, based on the size of the workforce required to construct, operate and decommission the SHINE facility. (Section 4.7) SMALL Human Health Human health impacts would be minimized because access to the site would be restricted, SHINE would implement normal safety practices contained in OSHA regulations, and SHINE would operate the proposed SHINE facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. (Section 4.8) SMALL Alternatives 5-102 Cost Benefit Category Description Impact Assessment Waste Management Based on the availability of waste disposal pathways for radiological and nonradiological waste; SHINE's proposed waste management systems; engineered design features to minimize radioactive and nonradioactive contamination; and NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin radiation protection requirements, the NRC staff concludes that radioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. (Section 4.9) SMALL Transportation Traffic would noticeably increase on local roads during construction and decommissioning because of the overall increase in average daily traffic flow and because of construction- and decommissioning-related truck traffic. (Section 4.10) During operations, the increase in traffic would be minor because of the lower number of employees commuting to and from the site. SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material. However, because the additional traffic attributable to SHINE worker vehicles would result in morning peak-hour traffic delays sufficient to reduce the existing level of service (traffic flow) at a key intersection near the SHINE facility, impacts could temporarily be MODERATE. (Section 4.10) SMALL to MODERATE Accidents The NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from chemical and radiological accidents in the NRC staff's safety evaluation report (SER). Assuming that the NRC staff determines in its SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 70.61 and 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential chemical and radiological accidents would be SMALL. SMALL Alternatives 5-103 Cost Benefit Category Description Impact Assessment Environmental Justice Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the proposed site could be affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction and decommissioning. However, these would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Operation of the proposed SHINE facility is not expected to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations, as everyone living near the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park would be exposed to the same potential effects from operations, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in ambient conditions. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. (Section 4.12) Minority and low-income populations would not be expected to experience any high and adverse effects The financial costs related to the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility are described below. Regulations at 10 CFR 50.33(f)(1) state that an applicant for a construction permit shall demonstrate that it possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the necessary funding needed to cover estimated construction and related fuel cycle costs. Further, the applicant shall indicate the source(s) of funds to cover these costs. In Chapter 15 of the PSAR, SHINE stated that it has obtained financing for its development and construction project using various sources of financing, including equity, debt, and government grants. SHINE listed the following financial commitments: cost sharing agreement with the DOE/NNSA: $25 million, equity financing raised to-date: $11.4 million, Alliant Energy shared savings program loan: $4.8 million, State of Wisconsin Enterprise Zone Tax Credits: $11.2 million, City of Janesville loan packages/guarantees: $4.6 million, 90 ac (36 ha) of land for the building site provided by the City of Janesville: $1.0 million, an additional equity capital investment from outside investor: to be determined, and other financing sources (SHINE 2015a). SHINE's operational cost estimates provided in Chapter 15 of the PSAR include the total annual operating costs for the first 5 years (SHINE 2015a). SHINE expects that revenue from the sale of molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) and other radioisotopes will exceed operating costs. For decommissioning the facility, SHINE provided a preliminary cost estimate of $60 million (SHINE 2015a). 5.4.1 Benefit and Costs of Alternatives This section compares the environmental impacts for the alternative sites and alternative technology with the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville. Table 5-18 provides a tabular Alternatives 5-104 comparison of the potential environmental impacts of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, Wisconsin, with each of the alternative sites (Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point) and the no-action alternative. Both Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point alternative sites would have some resource areas with MODERATE impacts. For example, these alternative sites would have MODERATE noise and transportation impacts during construction and decommissioning. In addition, the Stevens Point alternative site would have a MODERATE visual impact during construction. The financial costs of construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the alternative sites would likely be similar to the financial costs at the proposed SHINE site due to the facility's design and operational plan. The no-action alternative would have SMALL impacts for every resource area, because there would be no change in current environmental conditions at the proposed site. Table 5-19 provides a tabular comparison of the potential environmental impacts of constructing, operating, and decommissioning a linear-accelerator-based alternative with the proposed SHINE facility, both in Janesville, Wisconsin. Both the proposed SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based alternative would have SMALL to MODERATE transportation impacts as a result of traffic. The impacts would be SMALL for all other resource areas. Construction and operation of the proposed facility at an alternative site or using an alternative technology would not reduce or avoid adverse effects, compared with constructing and operating the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, Wisconsin. The adverse environmental impacts from the no-action alternative would be SMALL. However, the no-action alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed action. Table 5-18. Comparison of Impacts for the Proposed SHINE Facility, Proposed Alternative Sites, and No-Action Impacts on Resource or Other Area Evaluation Janesville Chippewa Falls Stevens Point No-Action Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Visual Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Noise SMALL SMALL to SMALL to SMALL MODERATE MODERATE Geology SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Water Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Ecological Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Historical and Cultural Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Socioeconomic SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Waste Management SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Transportation SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Environmental Justice No high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations Alternatives 5-105 Table 5-19. Comparison of Technologies at the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville Impacts on Resource or Other Area Evaluation SHINE Technology Linear-Accelerator-based Technology Land Use SMALL SMALL Visual Resources SMALL SMALL Air Quality SMALL SMALL Noise SMALL SMALL Geology SMALL SMALL Water Resources SMALL SMALL Ecological Resources SMALL SMALL Historical and Cultural Resources SMALL SMALL Socioeconomic SMALL SMALL Human Health SMALL SMALL Waste Management SMALL SMALL Transportation SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Environmental Justice No high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations 5.4.2 Cost Benefit Conclusions In Chapter 4 and the preceding sections of Chapter 5, the NRC staff described the costs and benefits of the proposed action as well as alternatives to the proposed action. In weighing the costs and benefits, the NRC staff concludes that the overall benefits of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site outweigh the disadvantages and costs based upon the following considerations: U.S. policy is to ensure a reliable supply of medical radioisotopes while minimizing the use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes (NNSA 2011; White House 2012), the small environmental impact, including radiological impacts and risk to human health, which would be caused by constructing, operating, and decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site, the economic benefit of constructing and operating the proposed SHINE facility to communities located near the Janesville site, and the increased availability of medical isotopes for U.S. public health needs. Constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SHINE facility at the Janesville site would have slightly less environmental costs than at either alternative site because impacts from noise would be SMALL to MODERATE at both the Chippewa Falls and the Stevens Point sites, in part because the nearest resident would be closer, and the noise more audible to the closest resident, than at the Janesville site. In addition, the impacts to visual resources would also be greater at the Stevens Point site (SMALL to MODERATE), if SHINE clears the majority of the onsite wooded areas, which would increase the visibility of the new facility. However, the overall benefits of constructing and operating the proposed SHINE facility at any of the sites would outweigh the environmental disadvantages and costs for the reasons outlined above. Installation of an alternative technology (e.g., linear-accelerator-based) would not result in any greater economic advantages or disadvantages over the proposed SHINE technology and the environmental costs and benefits would be similar to those described for the proposed SHINE Alternatives 5-106 facility at the Janesville site. Therefore, the overall benefits and costs of utilizing an alternative technology at the Janesville site would be the same and would outweigh the environmental disadvantages and costs for the reasons outlined above. 5.5 Alternatives Summary In this chapter, the NRC staff considered the following alternatives to construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin: the no-action alternative; construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site (Alternative Site No. 1); construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site (Alternative Site No. 2); and construction, operations, and decommissioning of a linear-accelerator-based facility at the SHINE site (alternative technology). The impacts for the proposed action, the no-action alternative, the two alternative sites, and the alternative technology are summarized in Tables 5-18 and 5-19. In conclusion, the NRC staff notes that the no-action alternative would result in SMALL impacts to all resource areas. The no-action alternative, however, does not fulfill the purpose and need of the project. The environmentally preferred alternatives are the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility at the Janesville, Wisconsin, site. The impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternative technology would be SMALL for all resource areas, except for traffic, which would incur MODERATE impacts during construction and decommissioning. The other alternatives capable of meeting the purpose and need of the project would entail potentially greater impacts than the proposed action of constructing the SHINE facility. For example, the impacts at both alternative sites would be SMALL for most resource areas; however, the NRC staff determined that impacts from noise would be SMALL to MODERATE at both the Chippewa Falls and the Stevens Point sites and the impacts to visual resources would be SMALL to MODERATE at the Stevens Point site. Similar to the proposed Janesville site, the impacts at both the Chippewa Falls and the Stevens Points site would be SMALL to MODERATE for traffic. 5.6 References 7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, "Important farmlands inventory." 7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, "Farmland and protection policy act." 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions." Alternatives 5-107 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1508, "Terminology and index." 46 FR 18026. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning the CEQ's [Council on Environmental Quality's] National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. Federal Register 46(55):18026-18028. March 23, 1981. [AET] American Engineering Testing, Inc. 2011. Report of Subsurface Exploration. AET Job No: 31-00144. January 21, 2011. ADAMS No. ML13309B619. [B&W]. Babcock and Wilcox Technical Services Group. 2012. "B&W Medical Isotope Production System (MIPS)." May 11, 2012. Available at <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/slides/2012/20120511/spickard-20120511.pdf> (accessed 29 October 2014). [BLS] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Preliminary data for 2012. "Location Quotient Calculator, Preliminary Data for 2012." Available at <http://data.bls.gov/location_quotient/ControllerServlet>. Buchwald, C.A. 2011. Water Use in Wisconsin, 2005. Open-File Report 2009-1076. Version 1.1. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. November 2011. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1076/pdf/ofr20091076.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014). Chippewa Area Unified School District. 2013. "Chippewa Area Unified School District Home Page." Available at <http://cfsd.chipfalls.k12.wi.us>. Chippewa County. 2010. "Chippewa County, Wisconsin, Comprehensive Plan." July 20, 2010. Available at <http://www.co.chippewa.wi.us/government/planning-zoning/comprehensive-planning> (accessed 3 January 2014). Chippewa Herald. 2012. "EOG Sand Operation Underway." January 8, 2012. Available at <http://chippewa.com/news/local/eog-sand-operation-underway/article_8f360c64-398f-11e1-91cf-001871e3ce6c.html> (accessed 25 September 2013). Chippewa Herald. 2013. "Developer Will Revisit Wissota Shores Plan after Plan Commission Defeat." March 13, 2013. Available at <http://chippewa.com/news/local/developers-will-revisit-wissota-shores-plan-after-plan-commission-defeat/article_6e30c360-8c04-11e2-a917-0019bb2963f4.html> (accessed 25 March 2013). City of Chippewa Falls. 1999. "Comprehensive Land Use Plan." Available at <http://www.chippewafalls-wi.gov/your-government/planning-economic-development/planning/comprehensive-land-use-plan> (accessed 9 October 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2006. City of Stevens Point Comprehensive Plan. Adopted January 16, 2006, amended June 19, 2006. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/index.aspx?NID=602> (accessed 3 January 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2011a. Report of City Plan Commission: Request from McDill Lake District. December 5, 2011. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/732> (accessed 29 August 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2011b. Board of Water and Sewage Commissioners Meeting Minutes. December 12, 2011. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/736> (accessed 26 September 2013). City of Stevens Point. 2012a. Report of City Plan Commission. April 2, 2012. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/Archive/ViewFile/Item/877> (accessed 17 October 2014). Alternatives 5-108 City of Stevens Point. 2012b. Regular Council Meeting. January 16, 2012. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/792> (accessed 17 October 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2012c. "Stevens Point receives $225,640 from Focus on Energy." Available at <http://www.ci.stevens-point.wi.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=799&ARC=1671> (accessed 26 September 2012). City of Stevens Point. 2012d. "More of Michigan Avenue to Close." July 18, 2012. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=829&ARC=1683> (accessed 21 August 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2012e. Board of Public Works Meeting Agenda. October 8, 2012. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1065> (accessed 17 October 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2013a. Special Joint Common Council/Water and Sewerage Commissioners Meeting. April 29, 2013. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1307> (accessed 17 October 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2013b. "Waste Water History." Available at <http://www.stevenspoint.com/index.aspx?nid=520> (accessed 6 November 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2014. "Facilities and Wells." Available at <http://wi-stevenspoint.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=275> (accessed 3 January 2014). Clayton, L. 1986. Pleistocene Geology of Portage County, Wisconsin. Information Circular 56. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015). Copps. 2014. "Store Locator." Available at <http://www.copps.com/#!/storelocator> (accessed 8 December 2014). [CN]. 2014. "CN's newest intermodal terminal opens in Chippewa Falls, Wis." February 3, 2012. Available at <http://www.cn.ca/en/news/2012/02/media_news_chippewa_falls_open_20120203> (accessed 26 March 2014). [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2012. Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99 (DOE/EA-1929). July 2012. Available at <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/EA-1929-DEA-2012.pdf> (accessed 30 September 2014). [EOG Resources]. 2012. "EOG Resources Reports First Quarter 2012 Results and Raises 2012 Liquids Production Growth Target." May 8, 2012. Available at <http://investor.shareholder.com/eogresources/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=671644> (accessed 25 September 2013). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Protective Noise Levels: Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document. Available at <http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20012HG5.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1976+Thru+1980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C76thru80%5CTxt%5C00000008%5C20012HG5.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL> (accessed 19 March 2014). Alternatives 5-109 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. "List of 156 Mandatory Class I Federal Areas." Available at <http://www.epa.gov/visibility/class1.html> (accessed 19 March 2014). Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq. [FWS] Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. "Fact Sheet: Karner Blue Butterfly." Available at <http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/kbb/pdf/kbbFactSheet.pdf> (accessed 10 February 2014). [FWS] Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Letter from Fasbender PJ, FWS Field Supervisor to Wong M, NRC, Branch Chief.

Subject:

SHINE Medical Inc. (SHINE) Radioisotope Production Facility Portage, Chippewa, and Rock Counties Wisconsin. August 15, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13234A020. [GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. SHINE Medical, Stevens Point, WI. Duluth, MN: Golder Associates Inc., submitted to SHINE Medical Technologies. Project No. 113-81093, Rev. 1. May 11, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012b. Well Installation, Stevens Point, Wisconsin. Duluth, MN: Golder Associates Inc., submitted to SHINE Medical Technologies. Project No. 113-81093, Rev. 2. September 26, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [GE Hitachi]. 2011. GE Hitachi Production of Molybdenum-99 Using Neutron Capture. NNSA Mo-99 Topical Meeting Presentation. Presented by John Berger. December 6, 2011. Available at <http://mo99.ne.anl.gov/2011/pdfs/Mo99%202011%20Web%20Presentations/S7-P2_Berger.pdf> (accessed 30 September 2014). Greenberg, JK, Brown, BA. 1986. Bedrock Geology of Portage County, Wisconsin. Information Circular 53. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015). [IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 2008. Homogeneous Aqueous Solution Nuclear Reactors for the Production of Mo-99 and other Short Lived Radioisotopes. TECDOC-1061. September 2008. Available at <http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1601_web.pdf> (accessed 30 September 2014). [IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 2013. Non-HEU Production Technologies for Molybdenum-99 and Technetium-99m. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-5.4. February 2013. Available at <http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/10386/Non-HEU-Production-Technologies-for-Molybdenum-99-and-Technetium-99m> (accessed 8 January 2015). Jerde, L. 2011. "Columbia Energy Center state's No. 1 mercury emitter." Portage Daily Register. November 17, 2011. Available at <http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/article_bdcdca56-11a5-11e1-886d-001cc4c03286.html> (accessed 26 September 2013). Jerde, L. 2014. "Columbia Energy Center launches $600M air-quality system." Portage Daily Register. Available at <http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/local/article_e02caab7-3824-5815-838d-1c626e3c7273.html> (accessed 1 September 2014). Lippelt, ID. 1988. Potential Yields of Wells in the Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer of Chippewa County, Wisconsin. Miscellaneous Map Series. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015). Alternatives 5-110 Melillo JM, Richmond TC, and Yohe GW, editors. 2014. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 841 p. Available at <http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/system/files_force/downloads/high/NCA3_Climate_Change_Impacts_in_the_United%20States_HighRes.pdf?download=1> (accessed 25 November 2014). [MSMH] Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital. 2014. "Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital Home Page." Available at <http://ministryhealth.org/SMH/home.nws> (accessed 5 December 2014). [MPCA] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2014. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota. Available at <http://www.nonoise.org/library/sndbasic/sndbasic.htm> (accessed 24 February 2014). Mudrey, MG Jr., Brown, BA, and Greenberg, JK. 1982. Bedrock Geologic Map of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University Of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at <http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/geologic.htm> (accessed 3 January 2014). [Niowave] Niowave, Inc. 2015. Letter from Grimm TL, Niowave, President and Senior Scientist to Region III, NRC.

Subject:

Combined Application for a License to Produce and Possess Accelerator Produced Radionuclides for Research and Development (NRC Control No. 584728). February 11, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A755. [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2010a. "1981-2010 Normals Data Access, Annual/Seasonal Normals, Chippewa Falls, WI US." Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data> (accessed 6 February 2014). [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2010b. "1981-2010 Normals Data Access, Annual/Seasonal Normals, Stevens Point, WI US." Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data> (accessed 6 February 2014). [NCDC] National Climate Data Center. 2014a. "NCDC Storm Events Database: Chippewa County." Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/> (accessed 24 March 2014). [NCDC] National Climate Data Center. 2014b. "NCDC Storm Events Database: Portage County." Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/> (accessed 24 March 2014). [NWCC] National Wind Coordinating Committee. 2002. Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: A Handbook. Washington, DC: NWCC Siting Subcommittee. August 2002. Available at <https://nationalwind.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/publications/permitting2002.pdf>. Olcott, PG. 1992. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin. HA-730-J. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Ground Water. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_j/index.html> (accessed 20 December 2013). Olson, K. 2013. "(Not) The Same Old McDill-Improvements for Our Lakes and Rivers." Stevens Point City-Times. March 15, 2013. Available at <http://spcitytimes.com/?p=5509> (accessed 8 December 2014). Petersen, MD, Frankel, AD, Harmsen, SC, Mueller, CS, Haller, KM, Wheeler, RL, Wesson, RL, Zeng, Yuehua, Boyd, OS, Perkins, DM, Luco, Nicolas, Field, EH, Wills, CJ, and Rukstales, KS. 2011. Seismic-Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States, 2008: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3195, 6 sheets. Denver, CO: USGS. Page update January 9, 2013. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3195/> (accessed 20 December 2013). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. Alternatives 5-111 [NNSA] National Nuclear Security Administration. 2011. NNSA Works to Minimize the Use of HEU in Medical Isotope Production. NNSA Fact Sheet 20100125. November 1, 2011. Available at <http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/factsheets/factsheet20100125> (accessed 14 June 2013). [NPS] National Park Service. 2015a. "National Register of Historic Places Program: Research- Chippewa County, Wisconsin." Available at <http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/> (accessed 21 January 2015). [NPS] National Park Service. 2015b. "National Register of Historic Places Program: Research- Portage County, Wisconsin." Available at <http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/> (accessed 21 January 2015). [NRHP]. National Register of Historic Places. 2013a. "Notre Dame Church and Goldsmith Memorial Chapel," Chippewa Falls, Chippewa County, Wisconsin. Reference No. 83003369. [NRHP]. National Register of Historic Places. 2013b. "Nelson Hall," Stevens Point, Portage County, Wisconsin. Reference No. 05000643. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013a. "Web Soil Survey, Soil Map-Chippewa County, Wisconsin." (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit description; suitabilities and limitations for use, building site development). Updated December 6, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. Available at <http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm> (accessed 20 December 2013). [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013b. "Web Soil Survey, Soil Map-Portage County, Wisconsin." (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit description; suitabilities and limitations for use, building site development). Updated December 6, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. Available at <http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm> (accessed 20 December 2013). [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, DC: NRC. November 30, 2002. 516 p. ADAMS Nos. ML023470327, ML023500228, and ML023500295. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. October 17, 2012. ADAMS Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013. Meeting Summary: NRC visit to Wisconsin Historical Society. July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13226A537. Portage County. 2004. Groundwater Management Plan. Adopted March 16, 2004. Available at <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/groundwater/index.htm> (accessed 3 January 2014). Portage County. 2006. Map 5.1 Highly Productive Agricultural Soils. Portage County Planning and Zoning. Available at <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/Comprehensive%20Plan/Rural%20Planning%20Committee/Map51_041.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014). Alternatives 5-112 Portage County. 2012. "Town of Hull Zoning Map." Portage County. Map Updated November 2, 2012. Available at <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/planningzoning/ZoningMaps/hull.pdf> (accessed 9 October 2014). [PCBC] Portage County Business Council. 2013. "Portage County Business Council Home Page." Available at <www.portagecountybiz.com> (accessed 8 January 2015). [PCBC] Portage County Business Council. 2014. "Portage County Business Park." Available at <http://portagecountybiz.com/economic-development/business-parks/> (accessed 5 December 2014). [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 13, "Accident Analysis," Chapter 15, "Financial Qualifications," and Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404. [SPJ] Stevens Point Journal. 2008. "Area Home Designer Touts New Efficient Home." August 7, 2008. Available at <http://archive.stevenspointjournal.com/article/99999999/SPJ0101/808020654/Area-home-designer-touts-new-efficient-home> (accessed on 16 January 2015). Stevens Point Area Public School District. 2013. "2012-13 Budget Report." Available at <http://www.wisp.k12.wi.us/education/components/docmgr/default.php?sectiondetailid=27052&fileitem=24771&catfilter=ALL> (accessed 8 January 2015). Syverson, KM. 2007. Pleistocene Geology of Chippewa County, Wisconsin. Bulletin 103. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015). TRIUMF. 2008. Making Medical Isotopes: Report of the Task Force on Alternatives for Medical-Isotope Production. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Available at <http://www.triumf.ca/report-medical-isotope-production> (accessed 18 December 2014). University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. 2005. McDill Pond Final Results, Portage County Lake Study. April 5, 2005. Available at <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/planningzoning/PCL/McDill_Pond/mcdill_pond_main.htm> (accessed 3 January 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. "American Fact Finder: 2007-2011 American Community Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Chippewa County, City of Chippewa Falls, Portage County, and City of Stevens Point, Wisconsin Selected Economic Characteristics." Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed February 2014). Alternatives 5-113 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. "American FactFinder: 2010 American Community Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Portage County, City of Stevens Point, Chippewa County, and Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin Housing Characteristics." Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed February 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014c. "American FactFinder: 2010 American Community Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Chippewa County, City of Chippewa Falls, and Block Groups within Chippewa County, Wisconsin." Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014d. "American FactFinder: 2006-2010 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey Data Profile and Highlights, Information on Chippewa County, City of Chippewa Falls, and Census Tracts within Chippewa County, Wisconsin." Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014e. "American FactFinder: 2010 American Community Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Portage County, City of Stevens Point, and Block Groups within Portage County, Wisconsin." Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014f. "American FactFinder: 2006-2010 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey Data Profile and Highlights, Information on Portage County, City of Stevens Point, and Census Tracts within Portage County, Wisconsin." Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. "Physiographic Regions of the Lower 48 United States." Updated April 17, 2003. Available at <http://tapestry.usgs.gov/physiogr/physio.html> (accessed 27 August 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. "National Land Cover Database." Available at <http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer> (accessed 4 October 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012a. Water-Data Report 2012, 05365500 Chippewa River at Chippewa Falls, WI, Chippewa Basin, Lower Chippewa Subbasin. Available at <http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/05365500.2012.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012b. Water-Data Report 2012, 05400513 Plover River at Hwy 66 Stevens Point, WI, Wisconsin Basin, Castle Rock Subbasin. Available at <http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/05400513.2012.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013a. 2009 Mineral Yearbook, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: USGS. April 2013. Available at <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2009/myb2-2009-wi.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013b. "Earthquakes in the Stable Continental Region." Earthquake Hazards Program. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/product/tectonic-summary/usc000te4p/us/1420825648040/tectonic-summary.inc.html> (accessed 16 January 2015). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013c. "Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive Search and URL Builder, Search Results." (Radius search parameters: center latitude 44.9616N, center longitude -91.36498 W, outside radius 322 km). Page updated November 7, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/> (accessed 20 December 2013). Alternatives 5-114 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013d. "Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive Search and URL Builder, Search Results." (Radius search parameters: center latitude 44.50703 N, center longitude -89.49590W, outside radius 322 km). Page updated November 7, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/> (accessed 20 December 2013). Vetter, C. 2013. "Irvine Park Zoo plans $2.3M exhibit building." Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. October 7, 2013. Available at <http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/front_page/article_28e0c8ca-2fd1-11e3-b3d2-001a4bcf887a.html> (accessed 8 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation, Chapter NR 102, "Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters." Revised February 2004. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/102> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 104. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation, Chapter NR 104, "Uses and Designated Standards." Revised February 2004. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/104> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 140. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation, Chapter NR 140, "Groundwater Quality." Revised January 2012. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/140> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 460. Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories-General Provisions. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/ admin_code/nr/400/460/Title> (accessed 17 January 2014). [WDHS] Wisconsin Department of Health Services. "Radiation Protection." 2014. Available at <http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/radiation> (accessed 12 August 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015a. "Air Management Program, Facility Information for Indianhead Plating, Inc." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3001907> (accessed 20 January 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015b. "Air Management Program, Facility Information for Spectrum Industries." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=10641> (accessed 20 January 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015c. "Air Management Program, Facility Information Great Northern Corporation." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=19054951> (accessed 20 January 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015d. "Air Management Program, Facility Information for Dairyland Power Cooperative-Seven Mile Creek Landfill Gas to Renewable Energy Station." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=17105222> (accessed 20 January 2015). Alternatives 5-115 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015e. "Air Management Program, Facility Information for Central Wisconsin Alcohol, Inc." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3002320> (accessed 20 January 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012f. "Air Management Program Facility Information for Donaldson Company." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3002330> (accessed 20 January 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015g. "Air Management Program, Facility Information for WIMME Sand and Gravel Plants 1 & 2." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=4003218> and <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=13797133> (accessed 20 January 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. "Upper Rock River Basin." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/uprock/> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013b. "DNR Drinking Water System: High Capacity Wells." Page updated January 6, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Groundwater/data.html> and <http://prodoasext.dnr.wi.gov/inter1/hicap$.startup> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013c. "Southeast Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape." Revised January 23, 2012. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=9> (accessed 23 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. "Wisconsin Natural Heritage Working List." Revised January 9, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/nhi/wlist.html> (accessed 23 January 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014b. "Wisconsin's Natural Communities." Revised October 7, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Communities.asp> (accessed 7 November 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014c. "Wisconsin's endangered and threatened species laws." Revised January 9, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/laws.html> (accessed 28 January 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014d. "Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis)." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Animals.asp?mode=detail&SpecCode=IILEPG5021> (accessed 10 February 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Undated. "Find Campgrounds-ReserveAmerica." Available at <http://wisconsinstateparks.reserveamerica.com/campground SearchResult.do?startIdx=0> (accessed 26 February 2014). [WDOR] Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2014. "County and Municipal Revenues and Expenditures 2012, Bulletin No. 112." January 2014. Available at <http://www.revenue.wi.gov/slf/cotvc/cmreb12.pdf> (accessed 27 February 2014). Alternatives 5-116 [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2008a. "Average Annual Daily Traffic for City of Chippewa Falls, Chippewa County." Available at <http://www.dot.state.wi.us/travel/counts/docs/chippewa/chippewafalls2008.pdf> (accessed 9 October 2014). [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2008b. "Average Annual Daily Traffic for City of Stevens Point, Portage County." Available at <http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/portage.htm> (accessed 9 October 2014). [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2011a. "Hourly Traffic Volume Reports-Chippewa County, 2011." The WisTransPortal System, Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Available at <http://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourly-traffic-data/bysiteid/chippewa.html> (accessed 9 October 2014). [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2011b. "Hourly Traffic Volume Reports - Portage County, 2011." The WisTransPortal System, Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Available at <http://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourly-traffic-data/bysiteid/portage.html> (accessed 9 October 2014). [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2012. "Connections 2030: Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Data, Marshfield/Rapids Connection Corridor-Abbotsford to Stevens Point." Updated November 27, 2012. Available at <http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/connections2030.htm> (accessed 1 September 2014). [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2013. "Labor market Information for 2011, 2012, and first quarter in January 2013." Available at <http://www.dwd.wisconsin.gov> (accessed 25 July 2013). [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2014. "Bureau of Migrant Labor Services 2011 Migrant Population Report." Available at <http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/migrants/pdf/migrantpoprep2011.pdf> (accessed 20 February 2014). [WEDC] Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. 2014a. "Lake Wissota Business Park." Available at <http://inwisconsin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ChipFalls.pdf> (accessed 9 October 2014). [WEDC] Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. 2014b. "Lake Wissota Business Park." Available at <http://eagl-i.com/chippewa/config/chippewa/LWBP.pdf> (accessed 5 December 2014). [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2005. Bedrock Geology of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and Natural History Survey. April 1981 (Revised 2005). Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/ES051/> (accessed 16 January 2015). [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2011. Glaciation of Wisconsin. Educational Series 36. Fourth edition. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/es0362011/> (accessed 16 January 2015). [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2014. Frac Sand in Wisconsin. Factsheet 05. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/fs05/> (accessed 16 January 2015). Alternatives 5-117 White House. 2012. Fact Sheet: Encouraging Reliable Supplies of Molybdenum-99 Produced without Highly Enriched Uranium. Office of the Press Secretary. June 7, 2012. Available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/07/fact-sheet-encouraging-reliable-supplies-molybdenum-99-produced-without-> (accessed 14 June 2013). [WHS] Wisconsin Historical Society. 2015. Letter from Eisenberg L, Compliance Archeologist, to Bladey C, Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Subject:

Draft EIS for the Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Janesville, Wisconsin. June 26, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15191A323.

6-1

6.0 CONCLUSION

S This environmental impact statement (EIS) contains the environmental review of the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), application for a construction permit under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) in Janesville, Wisconsin. This EIS follows the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51, which are the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This chapter presents conclusions and recommendations from the environmental review of the SHINE facility. Section 6.1 summarizes the environmental impacts of construction, operations, and decommissioning. Section 6.2 compares the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the construction of the SHINE facility at two alternative sites, and the construction of an alternative technology at the proposed site at Janesville, Wisconsin. Section 6.3 discusses unavoidable impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action and identifies resource commitments. Section 6.4 presents conclusions and staff recommendations. Finally, Section 6.5 provides a list of references. 6.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff concludes that issuing a construction permit for the SHINE facility would have SMALL impacts for all resource areas with the exception of transportation. The impacts to transportation would be SMALL to MODERATE because of the noticeable increase in average daily traffic flow. The addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips per day) from construction activities and 261 vehicles per day (or approximately 580 trips a day) from decommissioning activities at the proposed SHINE facility would result in an increased traffic volume on U.S. Highway 51. This increase in traffic would not likely destabilize traffic conditions near the SHINE site because traffic analyses indicate that the level of construction- and decommissioning-related traffic would not affect the level of service anywhere in the transportation infrastructure; therefore, the transportation infrastructure would not require any modifications (SHINE 2015a). During operations, a "slight degradation of service" (i.e., traffic delays) would occur at the intersection of westbound State Trunk Highway 11 onto southbound U.S. Highway 51 during the morning during peak hours of commuting. The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility to increase slightly during the operation phase, but it would not be appreciable when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility. Table 6-1 summarizes the potential impacts. The staff also considered cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes them. In Section 4.13, the staff concluded that the cumulative impacts would be SMALL for all areas with the exception of ecological resources and transportation. For ecological resources, the NRC staff concluded that the cumulative impacts would be MODERATE. For transportation, the NRC staff concluded that the cumulative impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Conclusions 6-2 Table 6-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from Construction, Operations, and Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville Site Resource Area Summary of Impact Impact Level Land Use The site would include 91.1 acres (ac) (36.9 hectares (ha)) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas, which is a small portion of the agricultural land within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the site (Section 4.1.1). The location of the proposed facility is within an area zoned for light industrial use. No additional land would be disturbed during operations or decommissioning. SMALL Visual Resources The proposed SHINE facility would not noticeably alter visual resources, based on the low scenic quality, low scenic value, and light industrial viewshed within the vicinity of the proposed site. (Section 4.1.2) SMALL Air Quality Construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would result in additional air emissions. Given the relatively low emissions and the pollution control measures that air permits from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources would require (Section 4.2), the proposed SHINE facility would not noticeably alter air quality in Rock County. SMALL Noise During construction, operations, and decommissioning, noise would be minimal given the minor (1 to 3 dBA) expected increases in noise levels. (Section 4.2) SMALL Geologic Environment Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would consume geologic resources and have the potential to increase soil erosion, but the overall impact would be minor, given that the geologic resources are widely available within the region and erosion would be managed with the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). (Section 4.3) SMALL Water Resources Water-resource impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be negligible, because of the lack of surface-water features on site and the use of municipal water. (Section 4.4) SMALL Ecological Resources Terrestrial and aquatic ecology impacts are expected to be SMALL, based on the limited amount of land that would be disturbed and because the entire site includes previously disturbed habitat. (Section 4.5) SMALL Historic and Cultural Resources SHINE could inadvertently discover previously unidentified cultural resources caused by land disturbance during construction, operations, or decommissioning. However, impacts would be SMALL based on (1) no known historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE's cultural resource management plan procedures, and (4) cultural resource assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff. (Section 4.6) SMALL Socioeconomic Socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL based on the size of the workforce required to construct, operate, and decommission the SHINE facility. (Section 4.7) SMALL Conclusions 6-3 Resource Area Summary of Impact Impact Level Human Health Human health impacts would be minimized because access to the site would be restricted, SHINE would implement normal safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, and SHINE would operate the proposed SHINE facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. (Section 4.8) SMALL Waste Management Based on the availability of waste disposal pathways for radiological and nonradiological waste; SHINE's proposed waste management systems; engineered design features to minimize radioactive and nonradioactive contamination; and NRC, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and State of Wisconsin radiation protection requirements, the NRC staff concludes that radioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. (Section 4.9) SMALL Transportation Traffic would noticeably increase on local roads during construction and decommissioning from commuting workers; the use of construction vehicles; and transportation of construction materials, goods, and other materials to and from the proposed sites (Section 4.10). During operations, the increase in traffic would be minor because of the lower number of employees commuting to and from the site. SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material. (Section 4.10) SMALL to MODERATE Accidents The NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from chemical and radiological accidents in its safety evaluation report (SER). Assuming that the NRC staff determines in its SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 70.61 and 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential chemical and radiological accidents would be SMALL. (Section 4.11) SMALL Conclusions 6-4 Resource Area Summary of Impact Impact Level Environmental Justice Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the proposed site could be affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction and decommissioning. However, these would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Operation of the proposed SHINE facility is not expected to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations, as everyone living near the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park would be exposed to the same potential human health and environmental effects from operations, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in ambient conditions. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. (Section 4.12) Minority and low-income populations would not be expected to experience any high and adverse human health and environmental effects. 6.2 Comparison of Alternatives In Chapter 5, the NRC staff considered the following alternatives to construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin: the no-action alternative; construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site (Alternative Site No. 1); construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site (Alternative Site No. 2); and construction, operations, and decommissioning of a linear-accelerator-based facility at the SHINE site (alternative technology). Tables 5-18 and 5-19 summarize the impacts for the proposed action, the no-action alternative, the two alternative sites, and the alternative technology. In conclusion, the NRC staff notes that the no-action alternative would result in SMALL impacts to all resource areas. However, the no-action alternative does not fulfill the purpose and need of the project. The environmentally preferred alternatives are the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility at the Janesville site. The impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternative technology would be SMALL for all resource areas with the exception of traffic, which would incur SMALL to MODERATE impacts. The other alternatives capable of meeting the purpose and need of the project would entail potentially greater impacts than the proposed action of constructing the SHINE facility. For example, the impacts at both alternative sites would be SMALL for most resource areas; however, the NRC staff determined that impacts from noise would be MODERATE at both the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point sites and that the impacts to visual resources would be SMALL to MODERATE at the Stevens Point site. Similar to those at the proposed Janesville site, the impacts at both the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point sites would be SMALL to MODERATE for traffic. Conclusions 6-5 6.3 Resource Commitments 6.3.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Section 102(2)(C)(ii) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that an EIS include information on any adverse environmental effect that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. Unavoidable adverse impacts are predicted adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided and that have no practical means of further mitigation. Table 6-2 presents the unavoidable adverse impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility and presents mitigations and controls intended to lessen the adverse impact. Unless noted otherwise, mitigation measures were from SHINE's Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a) or from responses to requests for additional information (SHINE 2013, 2014, 2015b). As described above, impacts to all resource areas would be SMALL with the exception of transportation. For those resource areas that would have SMALL impacts, the environmental effects would not be detectable or would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For transportation, the NRC staff determined that the proposed action could noticeably alter traffic conditions on U.S. Highway 51 as described above in Section 6.1. To mitigate the increase in traffic and to help reduce traffic congestion, SHINE plans to use a staggered construction work-shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck deliveries early in the day. In addition, SHINE would ensure that delivery routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas. Table 6-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Resource Area Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impact Land Use and Visual Resources The facility would be built and operated in compliance with all local zoning requirements. Once SHINE completes construction activities, it may vegetate open areas with crops, native prairie grasses, or cool-season grasses to offset loss of agricultural lands. Vegetated areas could also mitigate impacts to visual resources given that the majority of the surrounding viewshed is cultivated fields or grasses. SHINE would also mitigate impacts by landscaping or planting shrubs along U.S. Highway 51 and bordering access roads. Up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of agricultural land could be converted to industrial land use. Partial obstruction of views of the existing landscape as a result of the new facility and the steam plume during operations. Conclusions 6-6 Resource Area Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impact Air Quality Air quality permits from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources would set emission limits and would establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements with which SHINE would be required to comply. SHINE would control emissions of nitrogen oxide from the natural-gas-fired boiler using low nitrogen oxide burners and emissions from gas-fired heaters using combustion controls and properly designed and tuned burners. SHINE would use BMPs and dust control plans for controlling fugitive dust and other emissions. SHINE would develop a comprehensive program to avoid and control GHG emissions associated with the facility that may include developing a GHG emission inventory and investigating and implementing methods for avoiding or controlling the GHG emissions identified in the inventory; implementing energy efficiency and conservation programs at the SHINE facility, such as installing solar panels and/or purchasing electricity generated from renewable energy sources; and encouraging carpooling or other measures to minimize GHG and other emissions due to vehicle traffic during construction and operation of the SHINE facility. Short-term, localized increases in fugitive dust and air emissions would primarily occur at and near the proposed SHINE facility. Increases in GHG emissions from construction equipment, worker vehicle commuting, and facility operations. Noise The facility design (e.g., wall thickness and other physical barriers) and distance to the sensitive receptors would limit offsite noise levels. In addition, during construction, noise from traffic would be mitigated through posted speed limits, traffic control, and administrative measures (e.g., staggered work-shift hours). Additional, short-term, localized noise. Offsite noise levels are not expected to exceed existing ambient noise levels. Conclusions 6-7 Resource Area Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impact Geologic Resources SHINE would adhere to standard industry BMPs to minimize soil erosion and sediment control. SHINE must conduct construction activities in accordance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff, which would require measures to minimize soil compaction and to preserve topsoil; a site-specific construction site erosion control plan, including specific BMPs or pollution control measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff; and a stormwater management plan (e.g., vegetated drainage swales to control runoff). Temporarily disturbed areas during construction activities may be revegetated with crops, cool-season grasses, or native prairie grasses. Construction would consume geologic resources and have the potential to increase soil erosion. Water Resources See the information above for mitigation measures associated with the Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff and the stormwater management plan. The permit also would require the development of spill prevention and response procedures, such as measures to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of fuels and other materials from construction equipment and activities. Wastewater must meet the acceptance requirements of the Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant before it leaves the SHINE facility. Stormwater runoff could potentially affect offsite surface-water quality. No onsite groundwater would be used. Ecological Resources Once SHINE completes construction activities, it may vegetate open areas with crops, native prairie grasses, or cool-season grasses. BMPs, such as shielding or appropriate directional lighting, or both, would be used to mitigate the hazard to birds from artificial nighttime illumination. SHINE would apply herbicides according to an integrated pest management plan, which would include applicable BMPs or related permit requirements. See mitigation measures described above to minimize impacts to aquatic habitats. Loss of low-quality habitat (agricultural fields), the potential for wildlife avoidance displacement caused by noise and other activities, and increased risk of bird collisions with building facilities could occur. Conclusions 6-8 Resource Area Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impact Historic and Cultural Resources SHINE has developed a sitewide cultural resource management plan to manage and protect as-yet unidentified cultural resources. No known historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or historic and cultural resources are on the proposed site. Previously unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-moving activities associated with construction. Socioeconomics The availability of construction workers and housing within the region of influence and the short duration of construction (18 months) would minimize any socioeconomic impacts within the region of influence. New operations jobs would help maintain employment levels and would generate a small amount of additional property and sales tax revenue. The increase in the local population resulting from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility would cause an associated increase in demand for public services and housing. Human Health Radiological: SHINE would construct and operate the proposed facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. SHINE must limit radiological doses to the public and workers within the occupational dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20. SHINE designed buildings containing radioactive material to include shielding that will minimize direct radiation outside the facility and to ensure that radiation will be within 10 CFR Part 20 dose limits at the site boundary. Radiation exposure to workers within the proposed facility will be minimized using shielding, shielded hot cells, shielded transport containers, access control to radiation areas, ventilation, filters, training, protective clothing, and administrative controls. Nonradiological: SHINE would implement normal construction and operational safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. In addition, SHINE would limit toxic chemicals stored or used at the construction site to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code. SHINE would have a Chemical Hygiene Plan to minimize chemical exposure to the workforce and a Chemical Hygiene Officer to administer the plan. Radiological: Workers and members of the public could be exposed to radiation, such as gaseous radioactive effluents that contain krypton, xenon, iodine, and tritium. Nonradiological: Air pollution impacts from fossil-fueled vehicles and equipment, worker hazards typical of any industrial facility, and potential chemical exposures to workers. Conclusions 6-9 Resource Area Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impact Waste Management SHINE would operate the proposed facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. For example, public and worker exposure, radioactive material within the facility, and radioactive effluents released into the environment must meet the radiation protection dose-based limits in 10 CFR Part 20. Wastes generated during plant operations would be collected, stored, and shipped for suitable treatment, recycling, or disposal in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations. In addition, SHINE would implement waste management systems to minimize waste and pollution. Engineered design features would also minimize contamination and exposures. The generation of radiological and nonradiological waste material, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste, also would be unavoidable. Transportation SHINE would stagger construction work-shift schedules to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion. Optimizing the signal timing for vehicles turning from westbound State Highway 11 to southbound U.S. Highway 51 would mitigate traffic delays. SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326, "Transportation"; and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173). In addition, SHINE would follow delivery routes that avoid residential and sensitive areas. During construction and decommissioning, traffic approaching the site access point on U.S. Highway 51, especially during shift changes, would noticeably increase. No noticeable increases in traffic are expected during operations. Accidents The radiological hypothetical accident dose must be within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301. The chemical hypothetical accident dose must be within the dose limits in 10 CFR 70.61, and SHINE must meet the performance requirements in 10 CFR 70.61. SHINE incorporated engineering and administrative controls into the facility design to ensure that exposure from accidents would be within regulatory limits. Very minimal environmental impacts are anticipated. Conclusions 6-10 Resource Area Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impact Environmental Justice See the discussions above on mitigation measures for human health and environmental effects, such as noise, traffic, and air quality. Construction and decommissioning impacts are expected to be short term, would be primarily limited to onsite activities that are temporary in nature, and human health and environmental effects would not be high or adverse. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted comments on the draft EIS in which EPA recommended that SHINE incorporate several potential mitigation measures (EPA 2015). These recommended mitigation measures have been provided to SHINE for their consideration and are summarized below. Green Infrastructure Any locations on the site that are not planned for operations should be considered for conversion to native habitats, increasing the area that can be beneficially used for wildlife, infiltration or stormwater retention, and aesthetics, among other functions. Any roads, parking lots, sidewalks, or other surfaces slated for driving or walking should be constructed using permeable pavement to reduce runoff. Construction schedules of the new facilities should be staggered so that no additional undisturbed land is permanently disturbed; this could mean having one temporary laydown area (that is ultimately slated for a permanent use) serving the construction of new permanent facilities. Construction of all buildings should meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases Clean energy options, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, should be considered in the purchase of maintenance equipment, new equipment, and vehicles. Implementation of any measures that may reduce the facility's carbon dioxide (CO2) footprint, particularly from fuel combustion during the life of operations. Consider the need to develop adaptation measures to address impacts from climate change on the facility, such as increased intensity and frequency of storm and flood events. EPA notes that the diesel emissions reduction measures, as recommended in its August 14, 2013, scoping letter, were included in the draft EIS. EPA commends the NRC for including this language and continues to encourage the applicant to incorporate these measures into its construction planning. Conclusions 6-11 Transportation SHINE and the Janesville Transit System should determine whether a stop at the facility would benefit employees of the facility and help to alleviate potential degradation to traffic patterns along U.S. Highway 51. Continue ongoing coordination with local traffic authorities to ensure levels of service remain appropriate and that users of the road are kept updated on closures and delays. The NRC staff did not consider these mitigation measures when determining the potential impacts from the proposed action because SHINE has not committed to incorporating the suggested mitigation measures. SHINE is not required to implement the suggested mitigation measures because they are recommendations, and not requirements, from EPA . 6.3.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity The construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility and alternatives to the proposed action would result in short-term uses of the environment, as described in Chapters 4 and 5. "Short-term" is the period of time during which construction, operations, and decommissioning activities would take place. The construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility would require short-term use of the environment and commitment of resources and would commit certain resources (e.g., land and energy), indefinitely or permanently. Short-term resource commitments would be similar at the two alternative sites and for the alternative technology if it were to be developed at the proposed Janesville site. These alternatives and the proposed action would result in similar relationships between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. However, the no-action alternative would not result in resource commitments because no new facilities would be constructed or operated. Construction, operations, and decommissioning would require up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas that would be committed to industrial land use during the short term. In addition, the facility would partially obstruct the current viewshed. Construction, operations, and decommissioning could also displace wildlife through destruction of habitat or noise. However, after decommissioning the SHINE facility and restoring the area, the land could be available for other future productive uses, and the onsite viewshed could be restored to the current condition. In addition, wildlife may return to the site once construction or decommissioning is completed if it is restored to suitable habitat. Air emissions from construction, operations, and decommissioning would introduce small amounts of radiological and nonradiological constituents at the facility site. Over time, these emissions would result in increased concentrations and exposure; however, such emissions are not expected to affect air quality or radiation exposure to the extent that they would impair public health and long-term productivity of the environment. Noise emitted by construction, operations, and decommissioning activities would increase the ambient noise levels on site and in adjacent offsite areas. However, once decommissioning activities were completed, noise would return to ambient levels, and no effects would have an impact on the long-term productivity of the proposed SHINE facility. Construction, operations, and decommissioning activities could affect up to 91 ac (37 ha) of onsite soils that are considered prime farmland (when they are not committed to developed Conclusions 6-12 uses) or farmland of statewide importance at the proposed SHINE facility. The majority of the soils on site, however, would not likely be affected from construction, operations, and decommissioning. Affected soils could affect the long-term productivity of the site if construction, operations, or decommissioning activities damage such soils in a manner that would degrade the soil properties associated with prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance designation. Increased employment, expenditures, and tax revenues generated during construction, operations, and decommissioning activities directly benefit local, regional, and State economies over the short term. Local governments investing project-generated tax revenues into infrastructure and other required services could enhance economic productivity over the long term. The management and disposal of low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste requires an increase in energy and consumes space at treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. Regardless of the location, the use of land to meet waste disposal needs would reduce the long-term productivity of the land. Worker vehicles and the delivery and shipment of materials would increase the volume of traffic on local roads. Worker and delivery vehicles would cease once decommissioning is completed and, therefore, would not affect long-term productivity. Installation of water and sewer lines during construction of the proposed SHINE facility would connect the facility to the City of Janesville water supply system. This additional infrastructure would be available and beneficial for any future use of the proposed SHINE facility after its decommissioning. 6.3.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources This section describes the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that have been noted in this EIS. Resources are irreversible when primary or secondary impacts limit future options for a resource. An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or consumption of resources that are neither renewable nor recoverable for future use. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources for construction, operations, and decommissioning of a medical isotope facility include the commitment of water, energy, raw materials, and other natural and man-made resources. In general, the commitment of capital, energy, labor, and material resources are also irreversible. The implementation of the alternative sites or the alternative technology considered in this EIS would entail the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy, water, chemicals, fossil fuels, and other natural and man-made resources. These resources would be unrecoverable. For example, SHINE would consume materials during the construction, as described in Chapter 2. These materials would be irretrievable unless SHINE recycles them during decommissioning (e.g., finds another facility to use such materials). During operations, uranium used as the source for the molybdenum isotope would be the main resource that would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed. Up to 91 ac (37 ha) of soils that are considered prime farmland (when they are not committed to developed uses) or farmland of statewide importance on the proposed SHINE facility could be irreversibly damaged such that the soil properties associated with the prime farmland designation would be irreversibly damaged. Mineral and other geologic resources, such as concrete, granular road base, pavement aggregate, and asphalt necessary for construction of the facility, would be irreversibly committed for construction of the SHINE facility. In addition, a Conclusions 6-13 small amount of soils and sediments would be lost to wind and water erosion during construction, operations, and decommissioning. A negligible increase in the mortality of birds could occur because of their collisions with facility structures. The loss of these birds would be irreversible and irretrievable. Nonradiological irreversible commitments to occupational human health resources may occur. Such impacts would be similar to potential hazards that occur at any industrial construction site. Energy expended would be in the form of fuel for equipment, vehicles, and facility operations and electricity for equipment and facility operations. Electricity and fuel would be acquired from offsite commercial sources. Water would be obtained from existing water supply systems. These resources are readily available, and the amounts required are not expected to deplete available supplies or exceed available system capacities. 6.4 Recommendation After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, the NRC staff recommends, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the issuance of the construction permit to SHINE. The NRC staff based its recommendation on the following factors: SHINE's Environmental Report; the NRC staff's consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; the NRC staff's independent environmental review; and the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received. 6.5 References 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." 10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, "Domestic licensing of special nuclear material." 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and transportation of radioactive material." 49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, "Hazardous materials table, special provisions, hazardous materials communications, emergency response information, training requirements, and security plans." 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, "Shippers-general requirements for shipments and packaging." [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Letter from Westlake K, EPA, to Moser M, NRC.

Subject:

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Janesville, Wisconsin - NUREG-2183 -CEQ #20150133. July 2, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15201A575. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. Conclusions 6-14 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc., Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 13, "Accident Analysis," and Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404. [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326. Motor Carrier Safety Requirements for Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/326> (accessed 17 November 2014). 7-1 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) prepared this environmental impact statement with support from other NRC organizations, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Los Alamos Technical Associates (LATA), and Idoneous Consulting. Idoneous Consulting provided support for technical editing reviews. Table 7-1 identifies each contributor's name, affiliation, and function or expertise. Table 7-1. List of Preparers (in alphabetical order) Name Affiliation Function or Expertise Alexander Adams, Jr. NRR Branch Chief Kevin Folk NRR Water Resources; Geologic Environment Robert Hoffman NRR Historic and Cultural Resources; Transportation; Cumulative Impacts Stephen Klementowicz NRR Human Health; Waste Management; Transportation; Accidents Emily Larson NRR Historic and Cultural Resources; Transportation; Cumulative Impacts; Socioeconomic Impacts; Environmental Justice Steven Lynch NRR Project Manager Nancy Martinez NRR Air Quality and Noise; Water Resources Michelle Moser NRR Project Manager; Ecological Resources; Land Use and Visual Resources; Alternatives Jeffrey Rikhoff NRR Environmental Justice; Socioeconomic Impacts; Cost-Benefit Analysis Allison Travers NRR Alternatives Michael Wentzel NRR Land Use and Visual Resources David Wrona NRR Branch Chief Joanie Dix NNSA Project Manager Rilla Hamilton NNSA Project Manager Randy Howell NNSA Project Manager Robert Hull LATA Project Manager; Alternatives Vicki Kraus LATA Socioeconomic Impacts; Environmental Justice Joe Molter LATA Transportation George Pratt LATA Cumulative Mike Stafford LATA Air Quality and Noise Mitch Strain LATA Land Use and Visual Resources

8-1 8.0 INDEX accidents, 4-37, 4-40, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-52, 5-31, 5-74, 5-98, 5-102, 6-3, 6-9, A-3, A-4, A-9, A-42, A-43, A-44 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), xxi, 1-7, 4-28, 4-83, 9-3, B-4, C-2, C-4, D-3, D-4, D-5 agricultural land, 2-18, 3-1, 3-6, 3-30, 3-32, 3-39, 3-40, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-25, 4-29, 4-31, 4-63, 4-70, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-13, 5-19, 5-39, 5-43, 5-50, 5-51, 5-52, 5-53, 5-55, 5-61, 5-64, 5-83, 5-95, 5-100, 6-2, 6-5, 6-11, A-11 alternatives, iii, xix, xx, 1-4, 2-18, 5-1, 5-6, 5-92, 5-105, 5-106, 6-1, 6-4, 6-11, 6-13, A-1, A-8, A-11, A-24, A-28, A-37, A-40, B-2, D-2 American Medical Isotopes Production Act, 1-3, 1-5, 1-8, 2-16, 2-19, 4-42, 4-74, A-17, A-49 best management practices (BMPs), 4-8, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-66, 4-68, 4-71, 4-78, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-42, 5-44, 5-58, 5-61, 5-64, 5-65, 5-86, 5-88, 5-96, 5-101, 6-2, 6-6, 6-7, A-13 bird, 3-30, 3-33, 3-37, 4-26, 4-27, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-96, 6-7 chemical, 2-15, 3-3, 3-26, 3-28, 3-52, 4-37, 4-38, 4-41, 4-43, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-52, 4-64, 5-9, 5-26, 5-27, 5-45, 5-69, 5-70, 5-89, 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-97, 5-102, 6-3, 6-8, 6-9, A-4, A-13, A-19, A-20, A-42, B-5 Clean Air Act (CAA), xxi, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 3-57, 3-58, 4-9, 4-64, 4-81, 5-40, 5-85, A-29, B-3, B-10, B-14 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), xxi, 1-4, 4-1, 4-52, 4-53, 4-80, 5-1, 5-99, 5-107, 6-13, A-21, A-40, A-49 critical habitat, 3-35, 4-27, B-4, D-1, D-2 demographic, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-65, 4-54 discharges, 2-16, 3-25, 3-26, 3-29, 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, 4-40, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 5-17, 5-42, 5-59, 5-86, A-13, A-15 dose, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-52, 4-59, 4-60, 4-73, 5-26, 5-27, 5-36, 5-38, 5-45, 5-69, 5-70, 5-80, 5-81, 5-89, 5-98, 5-102, 6-3, 6-8, 6-9, A-4, A-10, A-16, A-22, A-23, A-27, A-29, A-30, A-42, A-43, B-2, B-3 education, 2-17, 3-43, 3-45, 3-46, 3-67, 4-31, 4-33, 4-35, 4-36, 5-23, 5-24, 5-66, 5-112, A-24 emissions, 3-12, 3-13, 3-15, 3-51, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-36, 4-39, 4-40, 4-59, 4-60, 4-64, 4-65, 4-70, 4-72, 4-76, 4-77, 5-12, 5-13, 5-36, 5-38, 5-40, 5-45, 5-47, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-80, 5-81, 5-85, 5-89, 5-92, 5-95, 5-98, 5-100, 5-103, 6-2, 6-4, 6-6, 6-10, 6-11, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-9, A-10, A-20, A-21, A-22, A-23, A-35, A-47, B-3, B-10 employment, 3-42, 3-43, 4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-59, 4-60, 4-72, 4-76, 5-23, 5-36, 5-37, 5-44, 5-47, 5-66, 5-79, 5-80, 5-88, 5-91, 6-8, 6-12 endangered species, 1-6, 3-36, 5-5, 5-63, B-1 Endangered Species Act (ESA), xxii, 1-6, 1-8, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-56, 3-57, 4-27, 5-64, 5-65, A-8, B-4, B-14, C-1, D-1, D-2, D-6 Environmental Report (ER), iii, xvii, xx, xxii, 1-4, 1-5, 1-9, 2-8, 2-11, 2-15, 2-18, 2-20, 3-1, 3-35, 3-51, 3-62, 4-44, 4-46, 4-49, 4-61, 4-73, 4-84, 5-2, 5-21, 5-31, 5-64, 5-74, 5-112, 6-5, 6-13, 6-14, A-4, A-5, A-8, A-18, A-22, A-23, A-25, A-27, A-28, A-29, A-34, A-38, A-39, A-42 erosion, 3-3, 3-19, 3-21, 4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 4-26, 4-66, 4-68, 5-9, 5-16, 5-18, 5-21, 5-22, 5-41, 5-42, 5-58, 5-60, 5-64, 5-65, 5-85, 5-86, 5-95, 5-96, 5-101, 6-2, 6-7, 6-13, A-14, B-7, B-12 Essential fish habitat (EFH), 3-38, 4-28 Index 8-2 farmland of statewide importance, 3-3, 3-6, 3-22, 4-3, 5-9, 5-52, 5-57, 5-84, 6-12 fission, xviii, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 4-47, 4-48, 5-92, A-8, A-31, A-32 fugitive dust, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-15, 4-16, 5-12, 5-13, 5-54, 5-55, 6-6 greenhouse gas, xxii, 3-12, 3-14, 3-56, 4-8, A-22, A-45, A-46 habitat, 3-26, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-60, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-63, 4-70, 4-77, 5-5, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-39, 5-43, 5-62, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-83, 5-87, 5-96, 5-101, 6-2, 6-7, 6-11, A-8, B-4, D-1, D-2, D-3 hazardous waste, 2-16, 4-43, 5-45, 5-46, 5-89, 5-90, 5-97, 6-9, 6-12, A-14, A-15, A-36, A-38, B-5, B-7, B-11 hot cell, 2-10, 2-15, 2-16, 4-38, 4-41, 4-42, 4-74, 5-93, 5-94, 6-8, A-29, A-32 iodine-131, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-14, 3-51, 5-92, A-31, A-33 irradiation, 1-2, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-13, 2-16, 4-42, 4-47, 4-48, 4-74, 5-93, 5-95, A-17, A-19, A-39, A-46 Janesville, Wisconsin, iii, xiii, xv, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-3, 1-5, 2-1, 2-6, 3-1, 3-10, 3-38, 3-57, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-63, 4-72, 4-73, 4-80, 4-83, 4-86, 5-2, 5-6, 5-93, 5-100, 5-104, 5-106, 5-117, 6-1, 6-4, 6-13, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, A-1, A-11, A-15, A-17, A-26, A-34, B-8 jobs, 3-43, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 5-67, 5-100, 6-8, A-10 Karner blue butterfly, 5-5, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65 low-enriched uranium, 1-3, 1-4, 5-92, 5-93, 5-100 low-level radioactive waste, 2-15, 3-51, 3-52, 5-46, 5-90, 5-97, 6-9, 6-12, A-16 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 4-28, B-4, D-3, D-6 mineral resources, 4-2, 4-66, 4-77, 5-8, 5-10, 5-41, 5-50, 5-52, 5-85, 5-86 mitigation, 4-23, 4-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-29, 5-69, 5-70, 5-73, 6-5, 6-7, 6-10, 6-11, A-6, A-22, A-23, A-36, A-39, A-46 mixed waste, A-38, B-11 molybdenum-99, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-9, 2-1, 2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-14, 2-20, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-92, 5-93, 5-94, 5-98, 5-100, 5-103, 5-117, A-7, A-24, A-33 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), xvii, xviii, xxiv, 1-1, 1-3, 1-5, 1-8, 2-19, 3-66, 4-2, 4-29, 4-52, 4-53, 4-80, 4-82, 5-1, 5-10, 5-52, 5-93, 5-99, 5-107, 5-110, 6-1, 6-5, 6-13, 9-4, A-8, A-22, A-24, A-25, A-27, A-40, A-49, A-50, B-2, B-4, B-15, D-1, D-3, D-6 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 3-34, 3-35, 3-38, 3-60, 4-27, 4-28, B-4, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-6 National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), xviii, xxiv, 1-3, 1-5, 1-8, 2-1, 2-18, 4-81, 5-92, 5-94, 5-103, 5-105, 5-109, 5-111, 7-1, 9-3, A-8 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), xxiv, 4-18, 4-21, 4-68, 5-42, 5-86, A-39, B-1, B-5, B-14 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), xxiv, 3-40, 3-60, 4-28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-79, 5-6, 5-22, 5-23, 5-65, 5-66, 5-101, 5-111, 6-2, 6-8, B-4, D-3 no-action alternative, iii, xix, 5-1, 5-2, 5-104, 5-106, 6-4, 6-11 nonattainment, 3-12, 3-13 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), xxiv, 3-17, 3-50, 3-61, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 5-68, 5-97, 5-101, 6-3, 6-8, A-11, B-4 personal protective equipment, 2-16, 4-41 population, 3-2, 3-38, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-60, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-49, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-70, 4-72, 4-76, 4-78, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-31, 5-32, 5-34, 5-35, 5-36, 5-37, 5-44, 5-66, 5-67, 5-68, 5-75, 5-77, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-88, 5-97, 6-8, A-11, B-3 population centers, 3-2 prime farmland, 3-3, 3-6, 3-21, 4-2, 4-3, 4-63, 4-66, 5-8, 5-10, 5-15, 5-16, 5-39, 5-41, 5-50, 5-52, 5-57, 5-84, 6-11, 6-12, B-4, B-6 Index 8-3 production facility, iii, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-4, 2-1, 2-8, 3-50, 3-60, 4-1, 4-10, 4-31, 4-41, 4-47, 4-48, 4-72, 4-81, 5-1, 5-2, 6-1, A-1, A-8, A-19, A-27, A-44, A-49, B-2, D-1 public health, 2-13, 2-14, 3-12, 3-50, 4-44, 4-45, 5-30, 5-74, 5-97, 5-98, 5-105, 6-11, A-29, B-1, B-3, B-8 public services, 4-72, 4-78, 5-24, 5-25, 5-44, 5-67, 5-68, 5-88, 5-97, 5-99, 6-8 radioactive waste, 2-6, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-18, 2-19, 3-51, 3-52, 4-36, 4-37, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-44, 4-45, 4-47, 4-74, 4-75, 5-27, 5-30, 5-46, 5-70, 5-73, 5-90, 5-94, 5-97, 5-98, 5-102, 6-3, 6-9, 6-12, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-29, A-31, A-37, A-38 radioisotope, iii, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 3-50, 3-60, 4-1, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-24, 4-31, 4-36, 4-39, 4-41, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-61, 4-75, 4-81, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-12, 5-26, 5-27, 5-54, 5-69, 5-71, 5-73, 5-92, 5-94, 5-100, 6-1, A-1, A-8, A-16, A-19, A-24, A-37, A-49, B-2, D-1 Rock River, xiii, 3-3, 3-19, 3-20, 3-23, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-48, 3-59, 3-62, 3-63, 3-65, 3-66, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-84, 4-85, 5-115, A-14, A-38, D-3 runoff, 2-5, 3-23, 3-25, 3-26, 3-29, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-24, 4-26, 4-27, 4-67, 4-70, 4-77, 5-18, 5-21, 5-22, 5-42, 5-43, 5-59, 5-61, 5-62, 5-64, 5-65, 5-86, 5-87, 5-96, 6-7, 6-10, A-13, A-14, A-39, A-45, B-5, B-7, B-10 safety evaluation report (SER), xxv, 4-38, 4-46, 4-49, 4-52, 5-102, 6-3, A-4, A-10, A-22, A-23, A-27, A-28, A-37, A-42, A-43, A-44 schools, 3-47, 4-32, 4-34, 5-4, 5-24, 5-25, 5-67, 5-68 scoping, xvii, 1-4, 1-5, 1-8, 3-1, 4-29, 4-61, 4-81, 6-10, A-1, A-2, A-22, A-49, D-4, D-5 shielding, 2-7, 2-15, 4-26, 4-38, 4-41, 4-42, 4-47, 4-48, 6-7, 6-8 SHINE, iii, ix, xi, xiii, xiv, xv, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxv, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-8, 3-9, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-40, 3-42, 3-47, 3-48, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-55, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-81, 4-83, 4-84, 4-86, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-35, 5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-49, 5-50, 5-51, 5-52, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-61, 5-62, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-66, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 5-74, 5-75, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-83, 5-84, 5-85, 5-86, 5-87, 5-88, 5-89, 5-90, 5-91, 5-92, 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-99, 5-100, 5-101, 5-102, 5-103, 5-104, 5-105, 5-106, 5-109, 5-112, 5-117, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, 6-13, 6-14, 9-1, A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-20, A-21, A-22, A-23, A-24, A-25, A-26, A-27, A-28, A-29, A-30, A-31, A-32, A-33, A-34, A-35, A-36, A-37, A-38, A-39, A-40, A-41, A-42, A-43, A-44, A-46, A-47, A-48, A-49, A-50, B-1, B-8, B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, B-15, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-6, D-1, D-2, D-3 soil, 3-3, 3-6, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-25, 3-29, 3-50, 3-61, 4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 4-25, 4-26, 4-66, 4-68, 4-70, 4-74, 4-83, 5-9, 5-15, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-40, 5-41, Index 8-4 5-43, 5-57, 5-58, 5-60, 5-61, 5-64, 5-65, 5-85, 5-86, 5-87, 5-95, 5-101, 5-111, 6-2, 6-7, 6-12, A-28 solid waste, 2-16, 2-17, 4-40, 4-43, 5-45, 5-46, 5-89, 5-90, 5-97, A-36, B-1 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), xxv, 1-7, 4-28, 9-1, A-26, D-5 stormwater, 2-1, 2-5, 4-1, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-67, 4-68, 4-70, 5-18, 5-19, 5-22, 5-42, 5-43, 5-61, 5-64, 5-65, 5-86, 5-87, 5-96, 6-7, 6-10, A-13, A-14, A-39, A-45, B-5, B-7, B-10 tax, 3-46, 3-47, 4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-72, 5-24, 5-25, 5-44, 5-67, 5-68, 5-88, 5-97, 5-99, 6-8, 6-12, A-11 technetium-99m, 1-1, 5-98 traffic, xx, xxv, 3-14, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-67, 4-6, 4-7, 4-9, 4-10, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-65, 4-75, 4-76, 4-78, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-36, 5-37, 5-46, 5-47, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 5-74, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-91, 5-98, 5-99, 5-102, 5-103, 5-104, 5-106, 5-116, 6-1, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, A-11, A-12, A-22, A-35, A-36, A-41, A-47 tritium, 2-7, 2-10, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 3-51, 4-38, 4-42, 6-8, A-31 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), iii, xviii, xxii, 1-3, 1-5, 1-8, 2-1, 2-16, 2-18, 2-19, 4-42, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-65, 4-72, 4-74, 4-80, 4-81, 5-92, 5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-103, 5-108, 7-1, 9-3, A-8, A-17, A-37, A-45, A-46, A-49, C-4 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), xxii, 2-11, 2-13, 2-15, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-75, 4-82, 5-29, 5-30, 5-72, 5-74, 5-97, 5-98, 5-102, 6-3, 6-9, A-41, B-6, B-7, B-10, B-11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), xxii, 1-8, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 4-8, 4-11, 4-12, 4-16, 4-18, 4-43, 4-49, 4-50, 4-64, 4-68, 4-74, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 5-12, 5-13, 5-54, 5-55, 5-108, 5-109, 6-10, 6-11, 6-13, 9-2, 9-4, 9-5, A-2, A-5, A-17, A-18, A-20, A-22, A-26, A-27, A-29, A-30, A-35, A-36, A-37, A-38, A-40, A-43, A-45, A-48, A-49, B-1, B-3, B-5, B-10, B-14, C-3, C-6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), xxii, 1-7, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-56, 3-58, 4-27, 5-5, 5-6, 5-20, 5-21, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-109, 9-2, 9-3, B-4, C-1, C-4, C-6, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-6 U.S. Highway 51, 2-1, 2-2, 2-12, 3-1, 3-2, 3-7, 3-8, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-23, 3-26, 3-52, 3-54, 3-55, 4-4, 4-5, 4-9, 4-10, 4-13, 4-17, 4-20, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-59, 4-65, 6-1, 6-5, 6-9, 6-11, A-12, A-35 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), iii, v, xiii, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxiv, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 2-1, 2-5, 2-6, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-18, 2-20, 3-1, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-21, 3-23, 3-26, 3-27, 3-29, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-58, 3-60, 3-61, 3-66, 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-78, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-86, 5-1, 5-2, 5-6, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-35, 5-36, 5-38, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-52, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-58, 5-60, 5-61, 5-63, 5-64, 5-66, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 5-74, 5-75, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-84, 5-85, 5-86, 5-87, 5-89, 5-90, 5-91, 5-92, 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-101, 5-102, 5-105, 5-106, 5-109, 5-110, 5-111, 5-117, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-13, 7-1, 9-4, A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-19, A-20, A-21, A-22, A-23, A-24, A-25, A-26, A-27, A-28, A-29, A-30, A-31, A-32, A-33, A-34, A-35, A-36, A-37, A-38, A-39, A-40, A-41, A-42, A-43, A-44, A-45, A-46, A-47, A-48, A-49, A-50, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-9, B-14, Index 8-5 C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5 uranium, xviii, xxii, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-8, 2-10, 2-14, 2-16, 3-50, 4-39, 4-42, 4-74, 5-26, 5-27, 5-69, 5-71, 5-92, 5-93, 5-100, 5-105, 6-12, A-3, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12, A-14, A-17, A-29, A-37, A-42, A-43 utilization facility, 2-18, A-15, A-44 viewshed, 3-8, 4-4, 4-6, 4-61, 4-63, 4-71, 5-10, 5-11, 5-40, 5-52, 5-53, 5-84, 5-100, 6-2, 6-5, 6-11 wastewater, 2-12, 2-16, 3-49, 3-50, 3-66, 4-20, 4-21, 4-27, 4-39, 4-67, 4-68, 4-74, 4-77, 5-17, 5-19, 5-22, 5-42, 5-59, 5-61, 5-65, 5-86, 5-96, A-28, A-29, B-12 wildlife, 3-26, 3-30, 3-31, 3-33, 3-48, 3-56, 4-26, 4-27, 4-60, 4-63, 4-67, 4-70, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-37, 5-39, 5-43, 5-62, 5-64, 5-65, 5-81, 5-83, 5-87, 5-96, 6-7, 6-10, 6-11, A-24, A-45, B-4, B-5, B-6 Wisconsin Administrative Code (WAC), xxv, 2-16, 3-12, 3-15, 3-17, 3-26, 3-28, 3-34, 3-64, 3-65, 4-9, 4-18, 4-36, 4-37, 4-41, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-84, 4-85, 5-17, 5-45, 5-46, 5-59, 5-60, 5-89, 5-90, 5-97, 5-114, 6-8, 6-9, 6-14, A-4, A-11, A-13, A-38, A-39, A-50, B-6, B-7, B-10, B-11 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), xxv, 1-7, 2-16, 3-3, 3-14, 3-25, 3-26, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-48, 3-49, 3-62, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 4-9, 4-12, 4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 4-61, 4-62, 4-65, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-74, 4-85, 5-5, 5-6, 5-12, 5-13, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-20, 5-21, 5-24, 5-38, 5-39, 5-43, 5-54, 5-55, 5-59, 5-60, 5-63, 5-67, 5-82, 5-87, 5-100, 5-114, 5-115, 6-2, 6-6, A-2, A-4, A-8, A-13, A-14, A-18, A-23, A-24, A-36, A-39, A-50, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-10, B-11, C-1, C-4, C-6 workers, 2-4, 2-6, 2-14, 2-18, 3-17, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-46, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 4-6, 4-9, 4-10, 4-14, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-46, 4-47, 4-59, 4-60, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-76, 4-78, 5-12, 5-13, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-36, 5-37, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-54, 5-55, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-88, 5-89, 5-91, 5-92, 5-97, 6-3, 6-8, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-10, A-11, A-30, A-34, A-35, A-42, A-43, B-1, B-2 xenon-133, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-14, 3-51, 5-92, A-31, A-33

9-1 9.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ARE SENT Table 9-1. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of This Environmental Impact Statement Are Sent Name and Title Affiliation and Address Andrew Anselmi Riverfront, Inc. 1107 Barberry Drive Janesville, WI 53545 John Barrett, Chairman Citizen Potawatomi Nation 1601 South Gordon Cooper Drive Shawnee, OK 74801 Stuart Bearheart, Chairman St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin St. Croix Tribal Center 24663 Angeline Avenue Webster, WI 54893 John Blackhawk, Chairman Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 100 Bluff Street P.O. Box 687 Winnebago, NE 68071 Gary Besaw, Chairman Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin P.O. Box 910 Keshena, WI 54135 Mr. Ellsworth Brown, Society Director State Historic Preservation Office Division of Historic Preservation and Public History Wisconsin Historical Society 816 State Street, Room 305 Madison, WI 53706 Laura Bub, Environmental Analysis and Review Specialist State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 3911 Fish Hatchery Road Fitchburg, WI 53711 Gerald and Muriel Bumgarner None given Richard Vann Bynum, Ph.D., Chief Operating Officer SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2555 Industrial Drive Monona, WI 53713 Duane Cherek, Manager of Planning Services Community Development Department 18 North Jackson Street P.O. Box 5005 Janesville, WI 53547-5005 Melissa Cook, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Forest County Potawatomi Community 8130 Mish Ko Swen Drive P.O. Box 340 Crandon, WI 54520 Jim Costedio, Licensing Manager SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2555 Industrial Drive Monona, WI 53713 Dan Cunningham Forward Janesville 14 South Jackson Street, Suite 200 Janesville, WI 53548 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 9-2 Name and Title Affiliation and Address Kristen Cutler, Ph.D., National Security and International Affairs Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office Building 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20503 Dave Dobson Friends of Welty Environmental Center P.O. Box 131 Beloit, WI 53512 Teri Engelhart, REP Section Supervisor Wisconsin Emergency Management 2400 Wright Street Madison, WI 53704 Environmental Impact Statement Filing Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Jim Farrell 18 North Jackson Street Janesville, WI 53545 Peter J. Fasbender, Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2661 Scott Tower Drive New Franken, WI 54229 Sharon Fitzpatrick Riverfront, Inc. 1107 Barberry Drive Janesville, WI 53545 Harold Frank, Chairman Forest County Potawatomi Community 5416 Everybody's Road Crandon, WI 54520 Mark Freitag, Janesville City Manager City Manager Janesville City Hall P.O. Box 5005 Janesville, WI 53547-5005 John P. Froman, Chief Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 118 South Eight Tribes Trail P.O. Box 1527 Miami, OK 74355 Andrew Fox None given Jim Jensen, Chief Janesville Fire Department 303 Milton Avenue Janesville, WI 53545-3151 Kevin Jensvold, Chairman Upper Sioux Community P.O. Box 147 5722 Travelers Lane Granite Falls, MN 56241 Ronald Johnson, President Prairie Island Indian Community 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN 55089 Niel Johnson Janesville Gazette 1 South Parker Drive P.O. Box 5001 Janesville, WI 53547 Grace Goldtooth-Campos, Tribal Historic Preservation Office Lower Sioux Indian Community 39527 Reservation Highway 1 P.O. Box 308 Morton, MN 56270 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 9-3 Name and Title Affiliation and Address Jon Greendeer, President Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin P.O. Box 667 W9814 Airport Road Black River Falls, WI 54615 David Grignon, Tribal Historic Preservation Office Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin P.O. Box 910 Keshena, WI 54135 Richard Gruber Mercy Health System P.O. Box 5003 Janesville, WI 53547-5003 Richard T. Henning None given Rilla Hamilton National Nuclear Security Administration, NA-212 U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Randy Howell National Nuclear Security Administration, NA-212 U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Joe Kopacz, Student Iowa State University 4721 Greenbrier Drive Davenport, IA 52807 Alfred Lembrich None given Douglas Marklein, Janesville City Council City Council City Hall P.O. Box 5005 Janesville, WI 53547-5005 Bill McCoy None given Wanda McFaggen, Tribal Historic Preservation Office St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin St. Croix Tribal Center 24663 Angeline Avenue Webster, WI 54893 Tom Melius, Midwest Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service American Boulevard West, Suite 990 Bloomington, MN 55437-1458 Kenneth Meshigaud, Chairperson Hannahville Indian Community N14911 Hannahville B-1 Road Wilson, MI 49896 Richard Miller None given Joan Neeno St. Mary's Janesville Hospital 3400 East Racine Street Janesville, WI 53546 Reid Nelson, Director Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Office of Federal Agency Programs 401 F Street NW, Suite 308 Washington, DC 20001 Raymond New None given Liana Onnen, Chairperson Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation 16281 Q Road Mayetta, KS 66509 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 9-4 Name and Title Affiliation and Address Myra Pearson, Tribal Chairperson Spirit Lake Tribe P.O. Box 359 Fort Totten, ND 58335 Cindy Pederson, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 2443 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532 Janet Piraino District Director at U.S. Representative Mark Pocan Madison District Office 10 East Doty Street Suite 405 Madison, WI 53703 Elizabeth Poole, Environmental Scientist NEPA Implementation Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Boulevard, E-19J Chicago, IL 60604 Gary Pratt, Chairman Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 335588 East 750 Road Perkins, OK 74059 Denny Prescott, President Lower Sioux Indian Community 39527 Reservation Highway 1 P.O. Box 308 Morton, MN 56270 Gale S. Price, Manager of Building and Development Services Economic Development Department 18 North Jackson Street P.O. Box 5005 Janesville, WI 53547-5005 Anthony Reider, President Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota P.O. Box 238 Flandreau, SD 57208 Bill Quackenbush, Tribal Historic Preservation Office Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin P.O. Box 667 W9814 Airport Road Black River Falls, WI 54615 Bruce Renville, Tribal Chairman Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation P.O. Box 509 Agency Village, SD 57262 Paul Schmidt, Manager Radiation Protection Section Wisconsin Department of Health Services P.O. Box 2659 Madison, WI 53701-2659 Joshua Smith, Administrator Rock County, Wisconsin Rock County Courthouse 51 South Main Street Janesville, WI 53545 Robert D. Spoden, Sheriff Rock County, Wisconsin 200 E US Highway 14 Janesville, WI 53545 George Thurman, Principal Chief Sac and Fox Nation Administration Building 920883 South Highway 99, Building A Stroud, OK 74079 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 9-5 Name and Title Affiliation and Address The National Organization of Test, Research, and Training Reactors (TRTR) Newsletter TRTR Newsletter University of Florida Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611 Roger Trudell, Tribal Chairman Santee Sioux Nation 425 Frazier Avenue North, Suite 2 Niobrara, NE 68760 Judy Roberts Vaugh None given Tim Weber Webco, Inc., General Contractors and Forward Janesville 14 South Jackson Street, Suite 200 Janesville, WI 53548 Kenneth Westlake U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Boulevard, E-19J Chicago, IL 60604 Mike Wiggins, Jr., Chairman Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians P.O. Box 39 Odanah, WI 54861 Bob Winding Mortenson Construction 10 East Doty Street Madison, WI 53703 Michael Wolff Paxton and Vierling Steel 501 Avenue H Carter Lake, IA 51510 Jeff Zuelke None given

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SHINE MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

A-1 A. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SHINE MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A.1 Comments Received During the Scoping Period The scoping process for the environmental review of the construction permit application for the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) began on July 1, 2013, with the publication of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Notice of Intent to conduct scoping in the Federal Register (78 FR 39343). The scoping process included two public meetings held in Janesville, Wisconsin, on July 17, 2013. Approximately 60 people attended the meetings. After the NRC presented its prepared statements on the construction permit review process, the meetings were open for public comments. Attendees provided oral statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. A summary and transcripts of the scoping meetings are available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The scoping meetings summary can be found under ADAMS No. ML13260A294. Transcripts for the afternoon and evening meetings can be found under ADAMS Nos. ML13260A280 and ML13260A281, respectively. In addition to comments that the NRC received during the public meetings, the agency also received comments electronically and through the mail. Each commenter was given a unique identifier to allow every comment to be traced back to its author. Table A-1. identifies the individuals who provided comments and an ADAMS No. to identify the source document of the comments. Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues raised by commenters. Comments have been grouped into the following general categories: Specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of the NRC environmental regulations related to a construction permit. These comments address issues related to the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. The comments also address alternatives to proposed action and related Federal actions. General comments in support of, or opposed to, the SHINE facility or comments regarding the construction permit process, the NRC's regulations, and the regulatory process. Comments that address issues that do not fall within, or are specifically excluded from, the purview of NRC environmental regulations related to the construction permit process. These comments may address issues, such as emergency preparedness, security, and safety. Appendix A A-2 Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Scoping Comment Period Each commenter is identified, along with an affiliation, if any, and the source of the comment. Commenter Affiliation (if stated) ID Comment Source ADAMS No. Dave Dobson None given 01 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280 Melissa Cook Forest County Potawatomi Community 02 Letter ML13224A164 Eric Heggelund Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 03 Letter ML14045A298 Richard Henning None given 04 Letter ML13233A023 Al Lembrich None given 05 Letter ML13233A022 Douglas Marklein Janesville City Council 06 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280 Bill McCoy None given 07 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280 Richard Miller None given 08 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280 Janet Piraino Congressman Mark Pocan 09 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280 Jamie Stout None given 10 Letter ML13263A012 Kenneth Westlake U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 11 Letter ML13238A121 Comments that are general or outside the scope of the SHINE facility environmental review are not included here but appear in the Scoping Summary Report (ADAMS No. ML15062A111). To maintain consistency with the Scoping Summary Report, Appendix A retains the unique identifiers used in that report for each comment. The Scoping Summary Report provides the comments addressed in this Appendix A in their original form at the end of the report. The NRC staff placed comments received during the scoping comment period applicable to this environmental review into categories based on topics in the environmental impact statement. These categories are listed in Table A-2. . Table A-2. Issue Categories Technical Issues Accidents Air Quality Alternatives Ecological Resources Geologic Environment Historic and Cultural Resources Human Health Land Use Transportation Water Resources Waste Management The following pages contain the comments, identified by the commenter's identification and comment number, and the NRC staff's response. Comments are presented in the same order as listed in Table A-2. Appendix A A-3 A.1.1 Accidents Comments: 01-2: My only other concern would have to do with the issue of aircraft landing because the site is very close to the airport, planes coming in to land at Rock County airport. It is important to make sure that the facility is built in such a way that nothing serious would happen in terms of any kind of radioactive release if the largest airplane that's going to land at the airport were to crash right into the building. So that is one of the important considerations there. 05-3: There is a matter that the FFA [FAA] may have concerns with the proximity, size, type & use of this proposed Shine building, considering the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and its runways being right across the street. Even though its runways may not be directly in line with the proposed building, many airport crashes occur where the airplanes veer off the runway to either left or right of the runway. Additional concerns would be the height of the proposed building possibly impeding line of sight for pilots. Would the proposed building withstand a large cargo or other large plane that could crash into it due to some malfunction, and cause release of contaminated material and cause environmental dangers? 05-13: The local citizens have concerns and possibly the FFA [FAA] with the Shine building location, height and its uranium content being right across the street from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and its runways. There are possibilities of an airplane crash and potential uranium exposure or contamination from a demolished building and its contents. Could there be an impediment to pilot's line of sight in evaluating their approach to land? Is the height of Shine's building too high and raise the risk of a plane strike when something goes wrong with the resulting environmental concerns? 05-15: The large Seneca Foods canning company and its processing of vegetables is located just to the North/East, down-wind of the Shine site. There are hundreds of acres of farm crops that they harvest from this entire nearby area for their plant. Any accident, leakages, or contaminations to air, water, land could be very harmful to the editable crops, the entire food chain and to this business. The present environment could be greatly threatened. 07-1: Number one, the airport issue that was just brought up is how the building is going to be done, what protection are we going to have. What if we have some idiot wants to fly into it like we've had in other places, you know. I mean I've done helicopters when I was in Vietnam. Anything could happen. Anything. So even a plane motor can fall off and land into it and bust it all to pieces. What protection are we going to have from a leakage with that uranium because we've also got the farms out there. We also got Seneca right down the road here, which is less than a mile and a half from where we are sitting right now. They have fields across the highway. They've got fields out towards the Blackhawk Tech and all this over here that if the fumes that would go over that would destroy those crops from being put in that particular time of need. So we've got to think about it. Seneca also wants the addition over here. Right, City Council members? So we're going to have to worry about that because that is one thing that we are very concerned about. 11-7: The Draft EIS should discuss facility and system features to ensure safety and minimize off-site releases in the event of an accident or other unanticipated event. Response: These comments express concerns regarding potential accidents from aircraft or other radiological exposures caused by accidents or leaks. One comment also expressed concern on the potential impact from the facility on pilots and aircraft coming to and from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. Appendix A A-4 Section 4.11 of the environmental impact statement (EIS) discusses the environmental impacts associated with potential radiological and hazardous chemical accidents that might occur at the proposed SHINE facility. The term "accident," as used in this EIS, refers to any off-normal event that releases radioactive or hazardous chemicals into the environment that may affect facility workers and members of the public. Potential initiating events and credible operational accidents for the proposed SHINE facility constitute the design-basis accidents. In its Environmental Report (ER), SHINE considered the impacts of an aircraft collision as a design-basis accident. In Section 4.11, however, the NRC staff considers the potential impacts from the maximum hypothetical accident as the basis for the analysis of environmental impact from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility. The maximum hypothetical accident considers a potential accident that would result in the same or higher radiological exposures as a credible design-basis accident, such as an aircraft collision with the SHINE facility or another accident that could result in radioactive releases. Therefore, the analysis in this EIS considers the potential exposures from accidents that would result in the same or higher exposures as that from an aircraft collision. SHINE determined that the calculated doses for the maximum hypothetical accident at the proposed SHINE facility would be within the annual dose limits of 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 20.1301 to a member of the public. Section 4.11 describes various ways in which SHINE would minimize radioactive releases in case of an accident. As described in Section 4.11, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from the maximum hypothetical accident. The NRC staff's safety evaluation report (SER) will document this independent evaluation. Assuming that the NRC staff determines in its SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential radiological accidents, including aircraft collisions, would be SMALL. In addition, see A.1.7, Human Health, for a discussion of potential radiological exposures to the public during normal operations. As described in Appendix B of the EIS, SHINE must meet the requirements of several other Federal agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The NRC staff notes that the FAA's review of the SHINE project is outside the scope of the NRC's environmental review. However, for the purpose of responding to this comment, the NRC staff provides the following information. As described in the Environmental Report, SHINE submitted structure evaluation requests to the FAA on October 26, 2011. The purpose of this request was to ensure that the building heights and other facility components met FAA's regulations and requirements, given the proximity of the proposed SHINE site to the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. The FAA issued "Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation to SHINE" on November 9 and 15, 2011. A.1.2 Air Quality Comment: 03-3: A review regarding an air permit should be thoroughly examined by the project proponents. The project involves the addition of at least one stationary source (the stand-by emergency diesel generator). SHINE is evaluating the eligibility of this stationary source for a Type A Registration Permit. At this time, further review regarding the air permit applicability is required, per s. NR 405, 406, and 407 Wisconsin Administrative Code. Response: This comment describes the types of air permits that SHINE could require from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). As described in Section 4.2, SHINE would be Appendix A A-5 required to comply with any Federal and State air quality requirements and operate within the limitations stipulated within any Federal or State permits. Comment: 11-1: EPA notes that both diesel and natural gas are identified as fuel sources in the ER. The draft EIS should include why two sources are necessary. Further, we recommend SHINE consider the use of renewable energy sources either in lieu of or to supplement the proposed diesel and natural gas sources. If SHINE or NRC dismisses the use of alternative energy sources, the draft EIS should state why. Response: The comment suggests that the draft EIS should discuss why diesel and natural gas sources are necessary and for SHINE to consider the use of renewable energy sources. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIS, during construction and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility, diesel equipment is needed for construction and decommissioning; furthermore, natural-gas-fired heaters and one boiler would be needed to meet heating and hot water requirements for the proposed SHINE facility. The NRC staff notes that it is beyond the agency's regulatory authority to require SHINE to utilize alternative energy sources. Nonetheless, as discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIS and the Environmental Report, SHINE plans to implement programs, where practical, to promote energy efficiency and conservation at the SHINE facility, install solar panels and/or purchase electricity generated from renewable energy sources (SHINE 2013a), and implement diesel emissions reduction techniques. Comment: 11-5: The draft EIS should describe how diesel emissions will be minimized throughout construction and decommissioning of the facility. EPA suggests the following diesel emission reduction techniques be employed to further minimize impacts: Using low-sulfur diesel fuel (15 parts per million sulfur maximum) in construction vehicles and equipment. Retrofitting engines with an exhaust filtration device to capture diesel particulate matter before it enters the construction site. Positioning the exhaust pipe so that diesel fumes are directed away from the operator and nearby workers, thereby reducing the fume concentration to which personnel are exposed. Using catalytic converters to reduce carbon monoxide, aldehydes, and hydrocarbons in diesel fumes. These devices must be used with low sulfur fuels. Ventilating wherever diesel equipment operates indoors at the Meredosia and injection well sites. Roof vents, open doors and windows, roof fans, or other mechanical systems help move fresh air through work areas. As buildings under construction are gradually enclosed, remember that fumes from diesel equipment operating indoors can build up to dangerous levels without adequate ventilation. Appendix A A-6 Attaching a hose to the tailpipe of diesel vehicles running indoors and exhaust the fumes outside, where they cannot re-enter the workplace. Inspect hoses regularly for defects and damage. Using enclosed, climate-controlled cabs pressurized and equipped with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters to reduce the operators' exposure to diesel fumes. Pressurization ensures that air moves from inside to outside. HEPA filters ensure that any incoming air is filtered first. Regularly maintaining diesel engines, which is essential to keep exhaust emissions low. Follow the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule and procedures. Smoke color can signal the need for maintenance. For example, blue/black smoke indicates that an engine requires servicing or tuning. Reducing exposure through work practices and training, such as turning off engines when vehicles are stopped for more than a few minutes, training diesel equipment operators to perform routine inspection, and maintaining filtration devices. Purchasing new vehicles that are equipped with the most advanced emission control systems available. Using electric starting aids, such as block heaters, with older vehicles to warm the engine reduces diesel emissions. Using respirators, which are only an interim measure to control exposure to diesel emissions. In most cases, an N95 respirator is adequate. Workers must be trained and fit-tested before they wear respirators. Depending on work being conducted, and if oil is present, concentrations of particulates present will determine the efficiency and type of mask and respirator. Personnel familiar with the selection, care, and use of respirators must perform the fit testing. Respirators must bear a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approval number. Never use paper masks or surgical masks without NIOSH approval numbers. Response: The comment suggests that the draft EIS should describe how diesel emissions would be minimized throughout construction and decommissioning of the facility and provides suggestions on how SHINE could minimize diesel emissions. The NRC staff notes that it is beyond the agency's regulatory authority to require or implement mitigation measures to minimize diesel emissions. Nonetheless, as described in Section 4.2 of the EIS and in SHINE's request for additional information response (SHINE 2013b), SHINE plans to implement the following diesel emissions reduction techniques, where practical: (1) Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 parts per million sulfur maximum) will be used in the diesel equipment. (2) Exhaust filtration devices (diesel oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate matter filters, and/or catalytic converters) will be used. (3) Diesel fumes from exhaust pipes will be directed away from workers and operators of equipment. Appendix A A-7 (4) New diesel equipment that is purchased will have the required emission control systems. (5) Engine idling time will be minimized. (6) Diesel equipment inspection and necessary maintenance will be performed to ensure proper condition of the exhaust filtration devices. (7) Contractor(s) will be responsible for implementing diesel equipment recommended maintenance, procedures, and periodic checks to ensure that emissions are kept low. (8) Diesel equipment that operates indoors will be vented to the outside using fitted hoses or portable ductwork. A.1.3 Alternatives Comments: 05-9: In British Columbia, engineers and other experts have successfully developed medical isotopes using a cyclotron. These isotopes for scans can be created by in hospital run cyclotrons, eliminating transportation dangers and the rush to hospital due to short use life. Would not that be safer and healthier from production, to transportation, and to actual use on a patient and even for disposal? Why would not the NRC curtail the unnecessary use of uranium for a better, cleaner, and healthier environment? Why would you even grant any medical isotope licenses to any who would use uranium processed isotopes without fail safe methods and procedures all through the process? The North Star isotope facility in Beloit, Wi., 12 miles from Janesville, will be producing medical isotopes with a different process within a year of two, from what I read. Would it not make more sense to regionalize as to site locations of the four companies planning to produce isotopes in the U.S.? To not bunch them up? Transportation and timing would be much more efficient. So why would the NRC approve an already outdated process that Shine proposes? The North Star site is ahead of Shine. In my opinion, Shine took the wrong course in going the current uranium route. The Arizona proven process and North Star took the better route. Don't feel sorry for Shine Medical Technologies, some technologies succeed, some do not. 05-19: Why have two medical isotope places (North star & Shine) within 12 miles of each other? With the processed products short life and needed short transportation times, would it not make more sense to allow four regional sites, spaced across the country, because I understand there are four isotope companies planning sites and operations now? Other sites that Shine had looked at would be much better & safer in my opinion. 07-7: They've got other sites they have looked at. Now why didn't they take one of those other sites? 08-1: Actually, I was coming across a comment on-I saw an article in Popular Science. They were talking about using, in Canada, where they use these isotopes and make it [in] a hospital. And I thought is this going to be effective somewhere down the line, but when Mr. Mackey actually explained to us, well, it's completely different, but it's just a point that is this facility, five years down the road, going to go bust. In other words, technologies change. Response: These comments suggest alternative technologies or alternative sites to produce molybdenum-99. Appendix A A-8 Chapter 5 of the EIS describes alternatives to granting a construction permit for the proposed SHINE facility, including alternative sites (Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point) and an alternative technology (linear-accelerator-based), and the environmental impacts of those alternatives. The need to compare the proposed action with alternatives arises from the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the NRC regulations implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 50); and the final interim staff guidance in NUREG-1537 (NRC 2012), which states that the EIS will include an analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. The decision to produce radioisotopes is at the discretion of applicants (NRC 2012), such as SHINE. Similarly, the NRC does not have a role in the planning decisions as to whether a particular medical radioisotope production facility should be constructed and operated. Therefore, it is beyond the NRC's regulatory authority to require an applicant to construct a facility at a specific location or to use a specified technology. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a cooperating agency on the EIS (NRC 2015). If the NRC issues the required permits and licenses, the proposed Federal action for the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration is to decide whether to provide additional cost-sharing financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate the commercial production of medical radioisotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium. The funding would help accelerate activities such as construction, purchase of equipment, and initial operation using a subcritical fission process. A.1.4 Ecological Resources Comment: 03-1: SHINE submitted an Endangered Resources Review (ER Log #12-020) request on January 19, 2012, to the WDNR Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation (formerly known as the Bureau of Endangered Resources) for their proposed facility location in Janesville. The purpose of the review is to obtain information on rare plants and animals, including state and federally listed species, high quality natural communities, and other endangered resources that may be impacted by the project. The review also includes recommendations to help projects comply with Wisconsin's Endangered Species Law (Wis. Stats. 29.604), the Federal Endangered Species Act, and other laws and regulations protecting endangered resources. The review concluded that no action would be needed to avoid impacts to rare or sensitive species or communities. The current condition of the property as an active agricultural field far from any wetlands, water, or buffer areas makes it unsuitable habitat for any listed species or natural communities located in the area. Response: This comment describes the rare plants and animals, including State and Federally listed species, high-quality natural communities, and other endangered resources, that could occur on the proposed SHINE site. As described in the comment and in Section 4.5 of the EIS, the proposed SHINE site is an active agricultural field and provides unsuitable habitat for any State or Federally listed animals. Appendix A A-9 A.1.5 Geologic Environment Comment: 05-7: How deep will the building excavation be? How much of the building be below ground level? Response: This comment is asking how deep SHINE would excavate and what portion of the building would occur below ground. As described in Section 4.3.1 and based on the preliminary design, construction of the Production Facility Building would require excavation to a depth of 39 feet (12 meters). Utility routings and other foundation slabs and footings would require excavation to a depth of about 5 feet (1.5 meters). A portion of the Production Facility Building would be located below ground. A.1.6 Historic and Cultural Resources Comment: 02-1: As this project occurs within Potawatomi ancestral and previously occupied lands, we would like to express our concerns with any impacts to historic and cultural properties located within the project area of potential effect for the project mentioned above. We appreciate receiving results of an archival review, cultural resource investigation studies, and archaeological reports. Should there be an impact or effect to cultural or historic properties as a result of this project, we will request consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Response: This comment expresses concerns regarding impacts to historic and cultural properties located within the project area. The comment also asks to be kept informed of any related reports or studies. As described in Section 4.6 of the EIS, there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and cultural resources located within the area of potential effect on the proposed SHINE site. The NRC staff has attempted to contact representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi to discuss the undertaking. The last attempt to contact the Forest County Potawatomi was in March 2015. A.1.7 Human Health Comments: 05-2: This proposed site is less than ,06 [.06] of a mile South of a Trailer Court. Potential Environmental risks causes those residents concern about any planned or unplanned release of any dangerous or contaminated airborne emissions from the site, and being carried by normal Southerly or S/W winds directly over the nearby trailer court. There is also the potential risk of fire or explosion or other accidents that could pose a danger to the nearby residents at the Trailer Court. This location appears contrary to NRC desires that uranium facilities of all kinds be located outside of cities and in more remote areas to reduce dangers, hazardous exposures, and protect the public from such exposures and more easily protect the environment and humans. Appendix A A-10 05-4: There are a number of other environmental concerns. One involves nearby high quality agriculture land and its following food chain. There is the large Macfarlane Pheasant farm and meat processing facility approximately less than a mile to the North. Any releases of hazardous materials, particles, or radiation emissions could cause great harm to his business and to those who may eat contaminated products before receiving knowledge of it. There is also much high quality farm land to the East of the proposed Shine site, where hundreds of acres of corn and other crops are raised and harvested for & by the canning company Senica Foods. They have a large nearby processing plant in town, just to the North/East, down wind of the proposed site. Any leak of hazardous material or waste like uranium contaminated material or air particles could be a disaster to important food production, for who knows how long. There could also be ground and ground water contamination from hidden or undiscovered leakage of hazardous materials, like radiation or uranium products or waste. 05-12: The occupied Trailer Court, is less than .06 of a mile down-wind from the Shine site. If there should be any fire, explosion, leaks or accident's with dangerous or contaminated airborne emission releases or other waste from the site, that could pose potential dangers and risks to those residing downwind in this nearby Trailer Court. That's a potential environmental risk. 05-14: Other environmental concerns involve risks to the food chain. There is a large pheasant farm and it's meat processing plant less than a mile to the North and downwind of the Shine site. Release of hazardous materials, airborne harmful particles or radiation emissions could cause great harm to feed, pheasants, their business and loss of jobs, and potential contamination of the food supply for human consumption. 07-4: That's another thing we've got to worry about folks, our food chain. We also got the pheasant farm right across the road from there. That stuff gets on feathers. You think that man is going to be able to sell his pheasants? I don't think so. How do we know how much contamination? What does this give us, 72 hours? Well, how do we know it's not already in their system? Now, I did have a hard thing up in Madison at the VA. I don't know what it was, but I know I was allergic to it. It caused me problems. But I didn't ask what it was. They told me it's similar to what this was and I said that's close to what this is and he says well, it's similar. I said well, you know something, if I'm allergic, how many more of these other people might be allergic to it accidentally? Response: These comments express concerns regarding radiological and nonradiological exposures to workers and the public as a result of operations of the SHINE facility. Section 4.8 of the EIS provides the NRC's assessment of the potential radiological and nonradiological effects from the proposed SHINE facility. As described in Section 4.8 of the EIS, radiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility would include offsite doses to members of the public and onsite doses to facility workers. SHINE determined that the maximum dose to a member of the public would be within the annual dose limits of 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) in 10 CFR 20.1301. Further, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from operations of the SHINE facility. The NRC staff's SER will document this independent evaluation. Assuming that the NRC staff determines in its SER that the maximum dose to workers and the public is within the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential radiological exposures would be SMALL. In addition, the design of the facility incorporates measures to minimize radiation exposure to workers and members of the public by limiting the release of radioactive gaseous effluents; SHINE would operate the proposed facility in Appendix A A-11 accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements; and the NRC has the authority to issue, inspect, and enforce radiation protection standards. Nonradiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility to workers and members of the public would be regulated by the State of Wisconsin in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code. In addition, SHINE would manage and minimize nonradiological exposures by complying with Occupational Safety and Health Administration and State of Wisconsin regulations and by using multiple planned features (e.g., facility design, Chemical Hygiene Plan, supervision, training, and protective equipment). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes, in Section 4.8 of this EIS, that nonradiological impacts to workers and members of the public during routine facility operations would be SMALL. In addition, see Section A.1.1, Accidents, for a discussion of potential impacts to the public during a maximum hypothetical accident and Section A.1.8, Land Use, for a discussion of potential impacts to land use, such as agricultural lands. A.1.8 Land Use Comments: 05-1: First, in your material on this, the NRC presented incorrect important information, on page 4, by stating the proposed Shine facility would be located approximately four miles south of Janesville, Wisconsin. This site is within the Janesville city limits, on land purchased by the city and connected to other city tax incremental financing district land. 05-11: The NRC information mailed out was incorrect by stating the proposed Shine site would be located approximately 4 miles South of Janesville, WI. The fact is, it will be within the city limits of Janesville. I understood the NRC preferred sites that were away from population, animal, crops and food chain sources and operations, was I wrong? 07-8: How close is it? Now there's a pamphlet that we received from the NRC which I've already discussed with an individual here, that was this thing that said this thing was four miles outside of the City of Janesville. Well, it's not. It might be from the center of town four miles. Response: The comments express concern regarding the correct distance between the proposed SHINE site and the City of Janesville. As described in the EIS, the proposed SHINE site is approximately 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) from the center of the City of Janesville. In addition, see A.1.7, Human Health, and Section 4.8 of the EIS, for a discussion of potential radiological exposures to the public and regulatory protections that limit radiological exposures to the public. Also, see Section A.1.3, Alternatives, and Chapter 5 of this EIS for a discussion of alternatives considered. A.1.9 Transportation Comment: 11-6: The Draft EIS should identify any traffic management or infrastructure improvements to US Highway 51 that will be required to handle increased capacity of truck and employee traffic. Any improvements and resultant impacts should be considered connected actions. The Draft EIS should indicate whether SHINE intends to use the adjacent Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport as a means of shipping and receiving materials. If yes, any improvements to the airport should be disclosed and considered connected actions. Appendix A A-12 Response: The comments express concern regarding potential environmental impacts from traffic management or infrastructure improvements on U.S. Highway 51 and at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. As described in Section 4.10 of the EIS, SHINE plans to use staggered work shift schedules to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion. Although traffic signal timing could be optimized to further enhance traffic flow, no modifications to the transportation infrastructure would be required. Section 4.10 of the EIS also describes SHINE's estimate to transport up to 39 monthly medical isotope shipments. Most of these shipments would be by air through the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. A.1.10 Water Resources Comments: 05-5: Water use concerns: Senica [Seneca] Foods is in the process of enlarging and already using a very large unknown amount of water in million of gallons and will be using much more after enlarging their processing of vegetables production. Now Shine alone, indicates it will use about 6600 gallons per day or 2,409,000 gallons per year. Both of these businesses may threaten our well water & pumping resources in the summer. We have at least two city wells that have high levels of nitrates that can't be used for drinking alone and in recent news Rock County has just experienced a huge increase of nitrate in wells throughout the County. Where will we get good drinking water? Last year many area wells went dry according to news reports. We must preserve our water and other natural resources and address environmental concerns. 05-16: There are water use concerns. Shines indicates it would use approximately 6,600 gallons of water per day, that amounts to 2,409,000 gallons per year. The nearby Seneca Foods uses even much higher amounts of water as well, and will be expanding and using more water yet. The large water use may threaten our water resources and even pumping capacities during the hot summer. We need to preserve our drinking water resources. 07-2: Now our water. All the wells that we have here in this community are drinking water in this community. This is something that's also in here with Al's. We've got a well right across the little bit of a pond right here. We've got another one across the road. We've got another one right over here on the corner. And we've already had some problems with some nitrogen problems and everything with some of our water wells around here. Well, you know, we don't want no uranium problems because you don't know how far that thing is going to seep down in our ground. The gentleman said where he was at said that 21 something that's supposed to have a water well up there. Well, wait a minute. Last we was told, there is no water well is now to be drilled up there. That would contaminate our water. Enough is enough is said about that. You want to contaminate our water? Response: These comments express concern regarding groundwater use, drinking water availability, and groundwater quality. One comment also expresses concern regarding SHINE's drilling of onsite wells. Section 4.4 of the EIS describes the potential impacts to water use and quality and Section 4.13.4 of the EIS describes the potential cumulative impacts from other water users on water use and quality. In Section 4.4.2, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater Appendix A A-13 hydrology, quality, and use from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. SHINE would not use onsite groundwater during construction, operations, and decommissioning. Instead, SHINE would obtain water from the City of Janesville Water Utility water treatment plant. Total water use during operations is projected to be 6,073 gallons per day (22,990 liters per day), or 0.006 million gallons per day (23 cubic meters per day). The water treatment plant has a treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd (72,290 m3/day) with an average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd (54,900 m3/day). Thus, the incremental contribution of influent from the proposed SHINE facility is a very small percentage (i.e., 0.13 percent) of the available treatment capacity and would not affect the water treatment plant's ability to provide for the treatment of other current or reasonably foreseeable residential, commercial, and industrial dischargers to the water treatment plant. As also described in Section 4.4.2, the NRC staff expects that construction, operations, and decommissioning would not have any impact on local groundwater quality because of the depth of groundwater and provisions for proper design and construction of the facility site's stormwater management and drainage system. SHINE has stated that all equipment and material storage areas would comply with appropriate regulations requiring secondary containment of stored liquids and materials to prevent their release where such materials could contaminate site soils or stormwater runoff, or infiltrate to contaminate groundwater. There would be no discharge of effluents to the subsurface at the site. SHINE installed onsite groundwater monitoring wells to determine the depth to groundwater, and onsite groundwater wells would not be used to withdraw groundwater. Comments: 03-2: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Construction Site and Industrial Storm Water Discharge Permitting, NR 216, Wisconsin Administrative Code: As described in Subchapter III of NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code, landowners of construction projects where one or more acres of land will be disturbed must obtain a WPDES [Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] Construction Site Storm Water Discharge Permit. A Water Resources Application for Project Permits (WRAPP) (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/construction/forms.html) and applicable fee must be submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at least 14 working days before construction will begin. Permittees must develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Storm Water Management Plan describing the best management practices that will be implemented on-site. Weekly on-site inspections throughout the duration of the project and after storm water events are also required. Additionally, industrial facilities that must obtain industrial storm water discharge permit coverage are listed in NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code, Subchapter II. The determination of whether an industrial facility must obtain storm water discharge permit coverage is based both on the facility's Standards Industrial Classification (SIC) code and whether or not the facility has the potential to contaminate storm water. Permitted facilities must develop a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The goal of this plan is to encourage source-area control through identification of a storm water pollution prevention individual, site-specific best management practices, and implementation schedules to help decrease the amount of contaminated storm water runoff from a facility. Some industrial facilities may also be required to conduct annual chemical monitoring for pollutants in runoff from their sites. Facilities with discharges composed entirely of storm water and at which there is no exposure of industrial materials and activities to storm water, may qualify for a Conditional No Exposure Exclusion, as detailed in s. NR 216.21(3). Industrial Notice of Intent and No Exposure Certification forms can be found online at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/ industrial/forms.html and shall be Appendix A A-14 submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at the same time as the construction site WRAPP (at least 14 working days prior to expected start of construction). 07-6: Our water, our environmental. They say that they're not going to have to use our stormwater sewage. Well, where is that stuff going to go to if it's on their property, it's going to have to run somewhere? It's sure not going to run and stay on their land. You're going to have roads there. It's going to be running down the roads right down through everything, right? How do we know they ain't going to leak? Response: The first comment describes the types of construction and industrial stormwater discharge permits that SHINE must obtain. The second comment expresses concern regarding the potential environmental impacts from stormwater sewage and other runoff. As described in Section 4.4 of the EIS, SHINE would be required to perform all activities in accordance with the Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013). SHINE would be required to prepare a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention measures. In accordance with this permit, these measures would be required to include proper management of all construction materials and chemicals to prevent them from being exposed to, and conveyed by, stormwater to waters of the State. The permit would explicitly require the development of spill prevention and response procedures, such as measures to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of fuels and other materials from construction equipment and activities. Wastewater from the SHINE facility would be conveyed to the City of Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant through a sanitary sewer line. A.1.11 Waste Management Comments: 05-6: Now the second part, where will Shine's hazardous waste and all those 2,409,000 gallons of salt brine/uranium waste water go, much of it contaminated water? What kind of monitoring systems will be required for leaks and waste filtering and radon levels in all areas, including all waste products, as well as incoming uranium sources? How can they filter out all the salt brine and the trace uranium from the waste water? We can't drain all this inferior water into the Rock River and contaminate our sewage disposal system and underground water supplies. Has a study been down on the depth and capacities of our underground water supply and aquifer levels? How far down beneath the building site does one reach the first water table? How far down to the second water table? Who is responsible for site clean up, should an accident take place and contaminate the entire site? What if Shine would just pick up and leave? Can the site be cleaned up say after ten years use, so that the site can safely be used for any other purpose? How much contaminated waste water or material can be accepted and stored on site and for how long? Shine has said it will be using a salt brine in their accelerators in conjunction with uranium. There is great concern that this will quickly cause great dangerous erosion/corrosion to all elements and cause further damage disposing waste salt water with uranium contaminated water. These two products together presents and accelerates all the dangers resulting from corrosion caused by salt brine. 05-17: Shine's use of salt brine within the accelerators with uranium appears very risky, with the increased corrosion dangers of salt brine and expected leaks. Shine says they clean them every 5 1/2 days. How do they clean them and what products can they use to clean them? Where does all the waste water and salt brine water go? How is that water safely cleaned or filtered? Appendix A A-15 07-3: What are we going to do with the water which is the-this stuff is put into the accelerators which is done by a salt brine. They're going to have tanks there to haul this stuff away. It's my understanding they had some tanks similar to that up in Pennsylvania or Connecticut or somewhere just recently that NRC had to go and check on something about them leaking. Well, these things will have to be hauled out of here. They've got to be hauled down to Arizona and Texas. Wait a minute here, folks. We got not only changes to worry about, we've got this stuff being hauled all over across the country and where did it come from? Janesville, Wisconsin. Response: These comments express concern regarding the disposal of nonradiological and radiological waste that would be generated at the SHINE facility and potential exposure from the generation of nonradiological and radiological waste. Section 4.9 of the EIS describes the waste management programs for radiological waste. In this section, the NRC staff concludes that nonradiological and radioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulatory requirements based on SHINE's proposed waste management systems; engineered designs features to minimize radioactive contamination; and the NRC's, the Department of Transportation's, and State of Wisconsin's radiation protection requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts from radiological waste would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. As described in Section 2.7 of the EIS, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, a licensed production or utilization facility that permanently ceases operations shall submit a decommissioning report. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.33(k) requires that a report indicate how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the facility. In addition, see A.1.7, Human Health, and Section 4.8 of the EIS for a discussion of potential radiological exposures to the public during construction, operations, and decommissioning. In addition, see Section 4.8 of the EIS for a discussion of water use and discharges during construction, operations, and decommissioning. Comment: 03-4: SHINE has indicated that they will submit a notification of exemption from State regulations regarding treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste under Wis. Stats. 291, Wis. Admin. NR 660 and Wis. Admin. NR 662 for waste generated and managed under an NRC license. Response: The comment suggests that SHINE will submit a notification of exemption from the State regarding the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. In Section 2.7.2 of the EIS, the NRC staff states that SHINE does not intend to treat or permanently store hazardous wastes on site. SHINE would dispose of hazardous wastes generated at the facility at a licensed hazardous waste disposal site. Because SHINE will not store or treat hazardous wastes on site, it will not require a hazardous waste treatment or storage permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). Comment: 11-2: The Draft EIS should describe how the facility will comply with Underground Storage Tanks (UST) regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for underground storage of fuel. Appendix A A-16 Response: This comment questions how SHINE will comply with underground storage tank regulations under RCRA for underground storage of fuel. As described in Sections 2.7 and 4.9.2 of the EIS, SHINE would implement management systems to control, handle, process, store, and transport nonradioactive materials and waste generated during construction, operations, and decommissioning. The NRC staff expects that these management systems would ensure that the nonradioactive materials and wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance with all Federal and State regulatory requirements, including those under RCRA. Comments: 11-4: The Draft EIS should describe the disposal facility options available in the event that an anticipated disposal or storage facility is no longer available. Waste stream and disposal facility availability should be reviewed on an annual basis to confirm knowledge of the waste streams relative to the disposal options available and to avoid a situation of accumulating waste without a disposal path. The availability of options for each solid and liquid waste stream should also be discussed. Section 19.2.5.3.1 (Solid Radioactive Waste Handling System) discusses the generation and management of a used resin classified as Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste that would be shipped to Waste Control Specialists (WCS) of Texas for long-term storage. The Draft EIS should acknowledge that currently there is not a permanent disposal option available for commercially-generated GTCC waste, hence the need for long-term storage at WCS. The Draft EIS should evaluate whether it is possible to modify the system so that the used resin is generated as either Class A, B, or C low-level radioactive waste, which currently have available disposal options. The Draft EIS should provide information on the radionuclide inventory anticipated at the site during typical operations, with information on what would be considered process material, waste material temporarily stored on site for eventual off-site transport and disposal, or other site-specific material/product/waste designations. Radionuclide inventory limits under the NRC license should also be described. Response: These comments express concerns regarding the accumulation of waste and radionuclides on site, as well as disposal facility options. Section 2.7 of the EIS describes the storage, treatment, and transportation of radioactive and nonradioactive waste. Section 2.7 states that construction, operations, and decommissioning would result in the accumulation of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes. SHINE does not anticipate any long-term storage of radioactive or nonradioactive materials, such as medical radioisotope products, target solution, reagents, or resulting wastes. SHINE would treat and temporarily store the solid radioactive and nonradioactive waste generated as part of the radioisotope production process within the facility until it could ship the waste off site for disposal. While temporarily stored on site, NRC regulations require that radioactive material within the facility and radioactive effluents released into the environment meet the radiation protection dose-based limits in 10 CFR Part 20. NRC Appendix A A-17 regulations also require occupational and public exposure to radioactive material be as low as is reasonably achievable, as required by 10 CFR 20.1101(b). Section 2.7 of the EIS further describes the waste disposal options for radiological and nonradiological waste. In addition, a provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) states that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE) does not have access to a disposal path. For example, if a disposal pathway for GTCC waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its safe storage and disposal. A.2 Comments Received on the Draft EIS On May 11, 2015, the NRC made publicly available the Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit Application for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-2183, referred to as the draft EIS) to Federal, State, regional, local government agencies, tribes, and interested members of the public. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its Notice of Availability regarding the draft EIS on May 22, 2015 (80 FR 29701). The public comment period ended on July 6, 2015 (80 FR 27710). As part of the process to solicit public comments on the draft EIS, the NRC did the following: placed a copy of the draft EIS at the Hedberg Public District Library in Janesville, Wisconsin; made the draft EIS available in the NRC's Public Document Room in Rockville, Maryland; placed a copy of the draft EIS on the NRC Web site, at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr2183/; provided a copy of the draft EIS to members of the public who requested one; sent copies of the draft EIS to certain Federal, tribal, state, and local government agencies; published a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register on May 14, 2015 (80 FR 27710); filed the draft EIS with the EPA (80 FR 29701); and announced and held two public meetings at the Rotary Botanical Gardens in Janesville, Wisconsin, the afternoon and evening of June 10, 2015, to describe the preliminary results of the environmental review and take public comments. Approximately 25 people attended the afternoon meeting and 25 people attended the evening meeting. A certified court reporter prepared written transcripts of the meetings. A meeting summary, presentation slides, and transcripts are available in ADAMS (No. ML15170A262). The NRC received eight written comments on the draft EIS through http://www.regulations.gov/, written letter, and written comments provided during public meetings, as well as one oral comment provided during the public meetings. Some of the commenters who spoke at the public meetings also submitted written comments. The total number of commenters is nine. Appendix A A-18 To identify individual comments, the NRC reviewed the comment submittals and the afternoon and evening meeting transcripts, assigning each commenter a unique identifier, so every comment could be traced back to its author. Table A-3 identifies the individuals who provided comments and the Commenter ID associated with each person's set of comments. The comments received and associated responses are provided below to make it easier for commenters to find their comments and the NRC staff response. Table A-3. Individuals Providing Comments During the Draft EIS Comment Period Each commenter is identified, along with an affiliation, and the source of the comment. Commenter Affiliation (if stated) ID Comment Source ADAMS No. Bill McCoy Self 1 Afternoon public meeting ML15181A447 Bill McCoy Self 2 Written comment ML15188A088 Alfred Lembrich Self 3 Written comment ML15188A089 R. Vann Bynum SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 4 Written comment ML15182A117 Logan Pappenfort Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 5 Written comment ML15175A169 Kenneth Westlake U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 6 Written comment ML15201A575 Laura Bub Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 7 Written comment ML15189A069 Lindy Nelson U.S. Department of the Interior 8 Written comment ML15191A322 Leslie Eisenberg Wisconsin Historical Society 9 Written comment ML15191A323 In the sections below, each comment has a comment ID consisting of two numbers separated by a hyphen. The part of the comment ID before the hyphen is the Commenter ID from Table A-3. The part of the comment ID after the hyphen is the comment number, which refers to the sequential comment given by the commenter. For example, comment X-Y is the Y comment from commenter X. The following sections present the comments and the NRC responses to them. Consistent with 10 CFR 51.91, when comments have resulted in modification or supplemental information presented in the draft EIS, those changes are noted within the NRC response. When comments do not warrant further response, the NRC staff explains why, citing sources, authorities, or reasons that support the explanation, as appropriate. Changes made to the draft document are marked with a change bar (vertical lines) on the side margin of the page. Some of the references have been updated in the final EIS, such as the most current version of the SHINE ER (SHINE 2015a). The response to comments refers to citations as they are cited in the chapter that they appear in the final EIS. The NRC staff placed comments received during the comment period into categories based on topics in the EIS. These categories are listed in Table A-4. Appendix A A-19 Table A-4. Issue Categories Technical Issues Accidents Air Quality Alternatives Ecological Resources Historic and Cultural Resources Human Health Land Use Proposed Action Socioeconomics Transportation Waste Management Water Resources In addition, the NRC staff received comments on the environmental review process; opposition to the proposed action; siting, safety, and emergency planning; other out-of-scope comments; and editorial comments. The following pages contain the comments, identified by the commenter's identification and comment number, and the NRC staff's response. Comments are presented in the same order as listed in Table A-4. A.2.1 Accidents Comment 4-45: Page 4-47, Line 12: The radiation effects of the postulated maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) in the radioisotope production facility would be mitigated by the walls in the noble gas removal system room and isolated by Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) Ventilation Zone 1 (RVZ1) and RCA Ventilation Zone 2 (RVZ2), as described in Subsection 13b.2.1.3 of the PSAR. Recommend revising the wording to state, "The radiation effects of this MHA in the radioisotope production facility would be mitigated by the walls in the noble gas removal system room and isolated by RVZ1 and RVZ2." Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. Consistent with the comment, the NRC staff revised the maximum hypothetical accident discussion to reflect that the radiological effects of the MHA would be mitigated by the walls in the noble gas removal system room and isolated by Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) Ventilation Zone 1 (RVZ1) and RCA Ventilation Zone 2 (RVZ2). Comment 4-46: Page 4-47, Line 28: Only the RVZ1 and RVZ2 portions of the RCA Ventilation System (RV) are safety-related. RCA Ventilation Zone 3 (RVZ3) and Facility Ventilation Zone 4 (FVZ4) are nonsafety-related (see Table 3.5-1 of the PSAR). Recommend revising the wording to state, "These safety-related structures, systems, and components include the systems described above (i.e., the irradiation unit cell confinement, radiation monitoring system, pipe penetration shields, TSV off-gas system, noble gas removal system walls, RVZ1, RVZ2, secure chemical containers, and other safety-related structures, systems, and components)." Appendix A A-20 Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC revised the maximum hypothetical accident discussion to reflect that only the Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) Ventilation Zone 1 (RVZ1) and RCA Ventilation Zone 2 (RVZ2) (rather than the entire RCA ventilation system) are safety-related, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-47: Page 4-48, Line 1: SHINE revised the description of the hazardous chemical dispersion analysis for the SHINE facility provided in Subsections 13b.3.2 and 19.4.11.2.13 of the PSAR via Reference (4) [SHINE 2015b]. Recommend revising the description of the SHINE hazardous chemical dispersion analysis contained in Section 4.11.2, including the results reported in Table 4-13, to be consistent with the revised Subsection 19.4.11.2.13 and Table 19.4.11-1 provided via Reference (4) [SHINE 2015b]. Response: This comment suggests that the NRC staff include a revised version of SHINE's description of the hazardous chemical dispersion model as described in SHINE's response to the NRC's requests for addition information (RAIs) submitted on June 16, 2015. The NRC staff revised the description of the hazardous chemical dispersion analysis and Table 4-13 in the EIS (Section 4.11.2) to be consistent with the information provided in SHINE's June 2015 response to RAIs, as suggested by the comment. A.2.2 Air Quality Comment 4-27: Page 4-7, Line 14: As shown in Revision 6 of CALC-2013-0007, provided as Attachment 3 to Enclosure 1 of Reference (2) [SHINE 2015c], hydrocarbons emissions from diesel equipment exhaust are estimated to be 22 tons/year, not 2 tons/year. Recommend revising the value to 22 tons/year, and the corresponding "Total" and "Percent of Rock County Annual Emissions" for hydrocarbons accordingly. Response: This comment suggests that the NRC staff include SHINE's revised assumptions for the estimated hydrocarbon emissions from diesel equipment exhaust. The NRC staff revised the hydrocarbon emissions from diesel equipment, total hydrocarbon emissions, and percent of Rock County annual emissions in Table 4-3 of the EIS to reflect the revisions in SHINE's response to RAIs submitted on February 6, 2015, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-28: Page 4-7, Line 14: Reference MRI 2006 describes a recommended PM2.5/PM10 ratio of 0.1, not PM10/PM2.5. Recommend revising Note (b) of Table 4-3 to state, "-and for PM2.5/PM10, a ratio of 0.1 (EPA 1984; MRI 2006)." Appendix A A-21 Response: This comment suggests a correction to a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the PM2.5/PM10 ratio in note (b) in Table 4-3 and Table 4-9 of the EIS, as suggested by the comment. Comments 4-30 and 4-32: 4-30: Page 4-12, Line 17: SHINE does not expect to ship all off-site (radiological) waste shipments to Clive, Utah. In order to determine bounding emissions values during the operations phase, SHINE assumed all off-site (radiological) waste shipments are shipped to the EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah, as it is furthest disposal facility from the SHINE facility. The expected waste disposal facilities for SHINE's off-site (radiological) waste shipments are provided in Subsection 19.4.10.1.1 of the PSAR. Recommend revising the wording to state, "However, these emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI because they are expected to be shipped to facilities in Clive, Utah; Andrews, Texas; and/or Kingston, Tennessee (SHINE 2013a) and would therefore traverse various counties, AQCRs, and states." 4-32: Page 4-14, Line 8: SHINE does not expect to ship all offsite (radiological) waste shipments to Clive, Utah. See previous comment for Page 4-12, Line 17 [Comment 4-30]. Response: These comments suggest a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the discussions regarding offsite (radiological) waste shipments, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-33: Page 4-15, Line 1: Since the decommissioning phase is only expected to be six months, SHINE provided air emissions estimates during decommissioning in tons, not as an annual rate (i.e., tons/year). Recommend revising the units in Table 4-9 to tons. Response: This comment suggests a correction to a table in the EIS. The NRC revised Table 4-9 of the EIS, as suggested by the comment, to state the estimated number of tons for decommissioning. Comment 4-34: Page 4-15, Line 1: SHINE revised the total emissions during the decommissioning phase in Revision 6 of CALC-2013-0007, provided as Attachment 3 to Enclosure 1 of Reference (2) [SHINE 2015c]. Recommend revising Table 4-9 to reflect the most current SHINE estimation of emissions during the decommissioning phase. Response: This comment suggests a revision in the EIS to reflect SHINE's revised emissions calculations included in SHINE's response to RAIs submitted on February 6, 2015. The NRC staff reviewed SHINE's response to RAIs and revised Table 4-9 in the EIS accordingly, consistent with SHINE's revised emission calculations. Comment 6-9: On December 18, 2014, the Council on Environmental Quality released revised draft guidance for public comment that describes how Federal departments and agencies should consider the Appendix A A-22 effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change in their NEPA reviews. The revised draft guidance supersedes the draft GHG and climate change guidance released by CEQ in February 2010. This guidance explains that agencies should consider both the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change, as indicated by its estimated GHG emissions, and the implications of climate change for the environmental effects of a proposed action. Recommendation: As discussed above under "Green Infrastructure," EPA recommends that the Applicant identify opportunities to minimize GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the facility to the extent feasible. For example, clean energy options, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, can be considered in the purchase of maintenance equipment, new equipment and vehicles. We also recommend any measures that may reduce the facility's carbon dioxide (C02) footprint, particularly from fuel combustion during the life of operations. Finally, EPA recommends that the applicant consider the need to develop adaptation measures to address impacts from climate change on the facility, such as increased intensity and frequency of storm and flood events. EPA notes that our diesel emissions reduction measures, as recommended in our August 14, 2013 scoping letter, were included in the Draft EIS. EPA commends NRC for including this language and continues to encourage the Applicant to incorporate these measures into their construction planning. Response: This comment recommends that the applicant identify opportunities to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the construction and operation of the facility to the extent feasible. The NRC does not have the authority to require mitigation measures. The NRC staff has forwarded the commenter's recommendation to the applicant. In its ER, SHINE stated that it is committed to minimizing GHG emissions and that it will develop a comprehensive program to avoid and control GHG emissions associated with the facility. Initiatives to reduce GHG emissions may include: participating in EPA initiatives, such as the Climate Leaders Program, ENERGY STAR Commercial Buildings Program, Green Power Partnership, and SmartWay Transport Partnership; developing a GHG emissions inventory and investigating and implementing methods for avoiding or controlling the GHG emissions identified in the inventory; implementing energy efficiency and conservation programs at the SHINE facility, installing solar panels, and/or purchasing electricity generated from renewable energy sources; and encouraging carpooling or other measures to minimize GHG emissions due to vehicle traffic during construction and operation of the SHINE facility. The comment also recommends that the applicant consider the need to develop adaptation measures to address impacts from climate change on the facility. Such climate change adaptation measures are out of scope for the environmental review, which documents the potential environmental impacts of construction, operations, and decommissioning on the environment, and, therefore, were not evaluated in the development of this EIS. However, the NRC staff's safety evaluation report (SER) considers the geography and demography; nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities; meteorology; hydrology; and geology, seismology, and geotechnical engineering related to the proposed SHINE site to ensure that the facility meets the regulatory occupational and public dose limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20. For Appendix A A-23 example, Chapter 2 in the SER evaluates the preliminary design of structures, components, equipment, and systems intended to ensure safe operation, performance, and shutdown when subjected to extreme weather, floods, seismic events, missiles (including aircraft impacts or from extreme weather events), and loss of offsite power. As a part of this review, the NRC staff evaluates whether any potential radiological releases would be within the regulatory occupational and public dose limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20. Chapter 2, "Site Characteristics," of NUREG-1537, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non Power Reactors," Parts 1 and 2, provided the guidance for reviewing and evaluating the SHINE site characteristics, as described in the SHINE preliminary safety analysis report. "Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, 'Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors,' for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors," Parts 1 and 2, provided relevant supplemental nonreactor guidance for reviewing the SHINE site characteristics. The NRC staff will document its evaluation in Chapter 2 of the SHINE SER. In response to this comment, the NRC staff revised Table 6-2 in the EIS to include the mitigation measures SHINE may include to reduce GHG emissions. Comment 7-2: The dEIS states that, "As of February 2014, the WDNR was actively working with SHINE to determine which of these permits would be required (WDNR 2014a)," and "SHINE intends to submit an application for a Type A Registration Construction Permit to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (SHINE 2013b)." It should be noted that the Department has not yet received an application for an air pollution control permit from SHINE. Section 4.2.2 discusses air emissions from operations. The Department is unable to confirm the assumed emissions without a permit application. Response: This comment states WDNR cannot confirm SHINE's estimated emissions because, as of June 2015, SHINE has not submitted an application to WDNR. In response to this comment, the NRC staff deleted the statement in the EIS regarding WDNR working with SHINE to determine the applicability of air quality permits from WDNR. Consistent with SHINE's ER and its response to a request for additional information (RAI) submitted on November 19, 2013, the EIS states that SHINE intends to submit a Type A Registration Construction Permit application. A.2.3 Alternatives Comments 1-2 and 3-3: 1-2: There's other places in the State of Wisconsin that this building could be put, Badger Army Depot is for one. It's less than a five minute helicopter flight to Dane County Airport. I just left from up there this morning to do the fast track. So my recommendation is because of the contaminated land already up there, to save us from having contaminated land down here in Janesville. 3-3: There are also many remote, somewhat useless land site available elsewhere, like former mining sites, etc. Response: These two comments suggest additional alternative sites for the NRC staff to examine in the final EIS. The NRC staff acknowledges that a large number of potential alternative sites could exist within Wisconsin and the surrounding region. When a large number of potential Appendix A A-24 alternatives exist, NEPA requires that an agency analyze a reasonable number of examples in the EIS (46 FR 18026). For the purposes of this EIS, the NRC staff determined that examining two alternative sites in depth was reasonable, because the proposed site and the two alternative sites are located in other regions and environments within Wisconsin and the SHINE site selection process evaluated several other sites. The Badger Army Ammunition Plant, suggested as an alternative by one commenter, is located in Sauk County, Wisconsin, and includes 7,354 acres (2,976 hectares) of industrial buildings, grasslands, and open space. The Badger Plant was constructed in 1942 as an ammunition propellant production factory in support of World War II. The plant was also used to produce ammunition during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 1997, the U.S. Army announced its intention to decommission the plant as part of a larger effort to decommission ordnance plants no longer needed after the Cold War. In early 2000, the Sauk County Board of Supervisors initiated a planning process for reusing the site, including the development of the Badger Reuse Plan (Badger Reuse Committee 2001). The plan calls for the site to be managed in various ways, including conservation, prairie and savanna restoration, agriculture, education, and recreation. The General Services Administration is in charge of the redistribution of this land and has offered portions of it to the following Federal and State agencies, local government, and Tribe: U.S. Department of Agriculture Dairy Forage, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Ho-Chunk Nation, National Park Service and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Town of Sumpter, and Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Based on the above information, the NRC staff excluded the Badger Army Ammunition Plant from detailed evaluation because the land is not currently available for private development and because construction and operation of the SHINE facility is not compatible with the goals of the Badger Reuse Plan. In addition, NEPA does not require the NRC staff to analyze every possible alternative site in situations when a large number of potential alternatives exist. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to these comments. Comment 4-51: Page 5-96, Line 9: Although molybdenum-100 is a naturally occurring isotope, molybdenum enriched in molybdenum-100 is not naturally occurring. Recommend revising the wording, "For the linear-accelerator-based alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by irradiating natural molybdenum (molybdenum enriched in the radioisotope molybdenum-100) in an accelerator." to state, "For the linear-accelerator-based alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by utilizing an accelerator to irradiate natural molybdenum that has been enriched in the radioisotope molybdenum-100." Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS, as suggested by the comment. A.2.4 Ecological Resources Comment 4-19: Page 3-33, Line 1: Table 3-8, Common and Abundant Wildlife Observed on or Near the Proposed Site, contains wildlife which SHINE did not classify as either Common or Abundant. SHINE field surveys classified the abundance of Canadian geese as "occasional," the abundance of red-tailed hawk as "uncommon," the abundance of killdeer as "occasional," and the abundance of field sparrow as "uncommon." In addition, although the field survey abundance of avifaunal species was provided by SHINE in Table 19.3.5-5 of the PSAR, SHINE did not classify the abundance of Appendix A A-25 mammals or reptiles and amphibians in field surveys. Recommend revising the title of Table 3-8 to "Wildlife Observed On or Near the Proposed Site." Response: This comment suggests that Table 3-8 in the EIS be revised to reflect, consistent with the ER, that certain species listed in Table 3-8 are not "common" or "abundant," but that are observed to be "occasional" or "uncommon." The NRC staff has revised the title of Table 3-8 to "Wildlife Observed On or Near the Proposed Site," to show that SHINE's observations indicated that the species listed in the table are common, abundant, occasional, or uncommon. Comment 4-37: Page 4-24, Line 29: The proposed SHINE facility would permanently convert 0.18 ac. of developed open space into an industrial area, not developed or open areas. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff agrees and revised the EIS by changing "developed or open areas" to "developed open space," as suggested by the comment. A.2.5 Historic and Cultural Resources Comment 5-1: The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma is unaware of any documentation directly linking Indian Religious Sites to the newly proposed project location. There appear to be no objects of cultural significance or artifacts linked to our tribe located on or near the project location. The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma is unaware of items covered under NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) to be associated with the proposed project site. These items include: funerary or sacred objects; objects of cultural patrimony; or ancestral human remains. The Peoria Tribe has no objection at this time to the proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility. If, however, at any time items are discovered which fall under the protection of NAGPRA, the Peoria Tribe requests immediate notification and consultation. In addition state, local and tribal authorities should be advised as to the findings and construction halted until consultation with all concerned parties has occurred. Response: This comment states that the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma is unaware of any documentation directly linking Indian religious sites to the newly proposed project location, and the Peoria Tribe requests immediate notification and consultation if, at any time, items are discovered that fall under the protection of NAGPRA. The NRC coordinates with Federal, State, and local agencies, as appropriate, throughout its NEPA review process. Consistent with the NRC standard review plan, documentation of all coordination and consultation activities is included in the EIS (Appendix D). Section 4.6.4.1 of the EIS describes SHINE's sitewide cultural resource management plan (CRMP) to manage and protect as-yet unidentified cultural resources, which describes when further notifications and consultations would occur. For example, if cultural resources or materials are discovered during construction, the activity would be immediately halted; the area would be protected; the SHINE Environment, Health, and Safety (ES&H) Manager would be notified; and consultation with the Wisconsin Historical Society might be initiated. Consultation may require additional investigation and preservation Appendix A A-26 plans, which would be developed by the SHINE ES&H Manager. All investigation and preservation plans would be approved by SHINE management and in consultation with the Wisconsin Historical Society. Work that uncovered potential cultural resources would not recommence without SHINE management approval. If actual or suspected human remains are unearthed during construction, construction activities would halt immediately, and the area would be protected. The procedures for uncatalogued burial sites found in Wisconsin Statute 157.70 would be followed, and local law enforcement would be contacted, as described in SHINE's response to RAIs on November 19, 2013. Additionally, SHINE would educate its employees and contractors on requirements of the CRMP if they are engaged in the construction of the proposed site in a capacity that disturbs the ground or that could result in the discovery of cultural resources. Actions for the special case of the discovery of human remains would be discussed in the training CRMP. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment. Comment 9-1: I have reviewed the specifications for the entire project on behalf of the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office and agree with the "no historic properties" determination presented for the proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin, and for the two alternate sites located in Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point, Wisconsin. Response: This comment states that the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office agrees with the NRC staff's determination of "no historic properties." In response to this comment, the NRC staff has updated the Historic and Cultural resources discussions in Sections 4.6, 5.2.2.6, and 5.2.3.6 in the EIS to reflect the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office's determination. A.2.6 Human Health Comment 4-42: Page 4-39, Line 34: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-2 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014] clarified the duration of the decommissioning phase for the SHINE facility (six months). Recommend revising the duration of decommissioning period and the resulting estimate of recordable cases of non-fatal workplace injuries and illnesses during the decommissioning period. Response: This comment suggests that the NRC staff use an estimate of 6 months for the decommissioning phase, as clarified in SHINE's response to RAIs submitted on October 15, 2014. The NRC staff revised Section 4.8.3 to reflect a decommissioning period of 6 months, as suggested by the comment. In addition, the NRC staff updated the estimates of recordable cases of nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses consistent with SHINE's response to the RAIs. As noted in Section 4.8.3, using a 6-month duration reduced the estimated number of recordable cases of nonfatal workplace injuries and illness. Comment 6-4: The Draft EIS includes several determinations about whether a potential impact is based on models. In most instances, the name of the model and specifics about model inputs and assumptions are not included in the Draft EIS. EPA is aware that this information could be proprietary or included in other documents. Appendix A A-27 Recommendation: EPA recommends that the Final EIS include the name of the models, inputs, and assumptions identified in the Draft EIS for the following determinations, with locations in the Draft EIS given in parentheses. If this information is provided elsewhere, please provide specific locations. Or, if this information is proprietary, please contact us to discuss comment resolution in the Final EIS. Estimate values for gaseous radioactive effluents and determination for exposure potential to an individual(s) off site. (Table 2-2, page 2-16); Determining compliance with regulatory requirements for public exposure to radiation (Section 3.8.1.2, page 3-54, lines 1-5; Section 4.8.2.1, page 4-36, lines 44-46, and page 4-37, lines 1-2; Section 4.11.1, page 4-4 7, lines 18-25; Section 4.13.8, page 4-70, lines 38-46; Section 5.2.2.13, page 5-46, lines 21-47, and page 5-47, lines 1-2; Section 5.2.3.8, page 5-71, lines 5-10; Section 5.2.3.13, page 5-91, lines 28-44) Response: This comment expresses concerns regarding the level of detail in descriptions of computer models to determine the potential impacts in the EIS. The purpose of the EIS is to provide the public and the Commission with a description of potential environmental impacts. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A, and 40 CFR 1502.15, the level of detail provided within the EIS is commensurate with the potential for adverse or significant environmental impacts. This is consistent with one of the goals of NEPA, which is to concentrate on issues significant to the proposed action and their potential environmental impacts, and further, that affected resources are analyzed in proportion with their importance and the expected level of impact to them. In addition to the EIS, the NRC staff's thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from operating the SHINE facility will be documented in the NRC staff's SER. Part of this independent review will verify that the radiological exposure to the members of the public would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20. How the NRC staff gathered data for the EIS, as well as additional information that will be provided in the final SER, is described below. For the values of the gaseous radioactive effluents used to determine potential exposure to offsite individuals found in Table 2-2 of the EIS, the NRC staff used the gaseous effluent numbers provided by SHINE in Table 19.4.2-1 from its ER. The development of those numbers is documented in S&L 2012-08751 Rev. 2, "Normal Gaseous Effluent Releases: Radionuclide Concentrations and Dose Assessment," a proprietary document produced by the consulting firm Sargent & Lundy. Those numbers are based on an estimate of 50 weeks of operation a year for SHINE's production facility, as described in SHINE's ER. The NRC staff reviewed the estimates and found them acceptable to discuss the impacts associated with the proposed action. For more information, Section 2.7.1.1 of the EIS contains a gaseous waste effluent discussion, and Section 19.4.2.1.2.1.1 of SHINE's ER discusses the gaseous effluents from isotope production. SHINE also used models to calculate the radioactive dose estimates presented in Sections 3.8.1.2, 4.8.2.1, and 4.11.1 of the EIS. Additional information on the dose estimates of the maximally exposed individual referred to in Section 3.8.1.2 and the maximum dose to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous effluents referred to in Section 4.8.2.1 of the EIS is in Section 19.4.8.2.4.1 of the ER, which includes a discussion of computer models and calculations. The calculated number for the maximum dose to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous effluents is presented in Table 19.4.8-5 of SHINE's ER. Additional information on the maximum hypothetical accident dose estimates referred to in Section 4.11.1 of the EIS is in Section 19.4.11.2.1 of the ER, and it includes a discussion of the methodology and calculations used for those dose estimates. The NRC staff reviewed the dose estimates for Appendix A A-28 the maximally exposed individual, the maximum hypothetical accident, and the maximum dose to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous effluents and found them to be below the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, as well as below the as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) dose constraints found in 10 CFR 20.1101. As noted above, the NRC staff's thorough independent review of dose estimates will be documented in the NRC staff's SER. Part of this independent review will be to verify that the radiological exposure to the members of the public would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20. The comment also seeks clarification for the assumptions made in determining the human health impacts in the cumulative analysis in Section 4.13.8 of the EIS. To determine those impacts, the NRC staff reviewed the information provided in Section 19.4.13.8.2 of SHINE's ER. Facilities listed therein as having the potential for adding radiological exposure to members of the public were considered in the cumulative impacts analysis in Section 4.13.8 of the EIS. As discussed in Section 4.13.8 of the EIS, the NRC staff will complete its thorough independent safety evaluation to verify that the cumulative radiological exposure to the members of the public would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20 and document its findings in its SER. The comment also seeks clarification for the assumptions made in determining the human health impacts in the alternatives analysis within Sections 5.2.2.13, 5.2.3.8, and 5.2.3.13. The NRC staff notes that, according to the Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria" (NRC 2012), the NRC staff may present a qualitative discussion of potential impacts to each resource area, such as that provided in Sections 5.2.2.13, 5.2.3.8, and 5.2.3.13. For example, Sections 5.2.2.13, 5.2.3.8, and 5.2.3.13 of the EIS qualitatively discuss the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point alternative sites, respectively. In determining those impacts, the NRC staff reviewed the information provided in Sections 19.5.2.1.2.1.9, 19.5.2.1.2.2, and 19.5.2.1.2.2.14 of SHINE's ER. Table 19.5.2-1 and Table 19.5.2-14 in SHINE's ER lists sites near the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point alternative sites that use radioactive materials. The NRC staff reviewed all of the data presented in SHINE's ER regarding the alternative sites and determined that, based on the regulatory controls that are or would be in place to control radiation exposure, the distance between the facilities that use radioactive material, and the dilution of the radioactive materials, the cumulative radiological impacts on human health would be SMALL. Because sufficient detail is already included in the EIS, the NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. Comment 6-5: The Applicant will employ three separate water treatment processes: a demineralization process, a cooling water treatment process, and a facility heating water treatment process. Rock County, Wisconsin is a Zone One Radon County (http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html), meaning there are relatively high concentrations of naturally occurring radiation in the soil and groundwater in this area. Water treatment and demineralization will have a tendency to concentrate naturally occurring radioactive materials. Recommendation: The Final EIS should address plans for monitoring and subsequent handling and disposal of wastewater and wastewater treatment residuals should high concentrations of radium or other radionuclides be encountered during the production process. Appendix A A-29 Response: This comment suggests that the EIS address plans for SHINE's wastewater treatment processes in regard to naturally occurring radioactive materials. Section 2.7.12 of the EIS describes SHINE's radioactive liquid waste treatment and disposal processes. Treatments for radioactive liquid wastes would include radioactive decay, pH adjustment, volume reduction through evaporation, and solidification in a hot cell using Portland cement. In its ER, SHINE (2015a) stated that radioactive wastes would be stored on site long enough for radioactive decay before being packaged and shipped out to a disposal facility. As discussed in Section 2.5.1 of the EIS, SHINE would obtain water for operations from the Janesville Water Utility. Water from the Janesville Water Utility would be treated prior to SHINE's use, and therefore, would be below the maximum contaminant level for uranium and other radionuclides, which is a standard set and enforced by EPA and States in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. As such, it would be unlikely that SHINE would accumulate much naturally occurring radioactive material in its radioactive liquid waste streams during the production process. If any were to accumulate, it would be handled by the same processes described in Section 2.7.12 of the EIS for treatment and disposal. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment because the information suggested by the comment is described in the EIS. Comment 6-6: Agreement States and NRC regulated facilities are to keep all exposures of the public to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). In order for EPA to rescind regulation of airborne dose exposure from NRC-licensed or Federal facilities, NRC and any delegated program would meet the requirements of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 61, Subpart I requirements, as outlined in the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and EPA. Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify how the Applicant plans to achieve ALARA to the airborne dose exposure to radionuclides as agreed to between NRC and EPA in the 1998 MOU regarding 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, prior to the rescission. Response: This comment suggests that the EIS clarify how SHINE plans to achieve the ALARA dose criteria for public exposure to airborne radioactive effluent releases, as described in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, before the rescission. Subpart I does not apply to SHINE, as stated in 40 CFR 61.100: The provisions of this subpart apply to facilities owned or operated by any Federal agency other than the Department of Energy and not licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, except that this subpart does not apply to disposal at facilities regulated under 40 CFR part 191, subpart B, or to any uranium mill tailings pile after it has been disposed of under 40 CFR part 192, or to low energy accelerators. Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 61 was last updated in 1996 (61 FR 68972) and in the rule summary, it states: As required by section 112(d)(9) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, EPA has determined that the NRC regulatory program for licensed facilities other than commercial nuclear power reactors protects public health with an ample margin of safety, the same level of protection that would be afforded by continued implementation of subpart I. Section 3.8.1.2 of the EIS describes the NRC regulatory requirements for public exposure to radioactive effluents. The ALARA dose constraint, which is applicable to the SHINE facility, is found in 10 CFR 20.1101(b) and requires NRC licensees to use, to the extent practical, Appendix A A-30 procedures and controls based on sound radiation protection principles to achieve ALARA doses to members of the public (and facility workers). Guidance for regulatory compliance for applicants of non-power reactors is found in NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors." The NRC staff notes that neither agency could locate an 1998 MOU. Nonetheless, as described above, 10 CFR 20.1101(b) requires NRC licensees to use, to the extent practical, procedures and controls based on sound radiation protection principles to achieve ALARA doses to members of the public (and facility workers). Because SHINE has to comply with the ALARA dose criteria in 10 CFR 20.2101(b) as stated in Section 3.8.1.2 of the EIS, EPA has determined that NRC regulations provide adequate public protection from radioactive effluents, and 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, does not apply to SHINE, the NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. A.2.7 Land Use Comments 4-17, 4-24, 4-52, and 4-54: 4-17: Page 3-1, Line 35: 0.2 percent of the proposed SHINE site is developed open space, not developed land or open space. Recommend revising accordingly. 4-24: Page 4-1, Line 33: The proposed SHINE site currently includes 0.18 ac. of developed open space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising accordingly. Page 4-1, Line 35: The proposed SHINE site currently includes 0.18 ac. of developed open space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising accordingly. 4-52: Page 5-102, Line 2: The proposed SHINE site would include 0.18 ac. of developed open space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising the description provided for the cost benefit category "Land Use" accordingly. Page 6-2, Line 1: The proposed SHINE site would include 0.18 ac. of developed open space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising the Summary of Impact for Land Use accordingly. 4-54: Page 6-10, Line 6: Construction, operations, and decommissioning would require 0.18 ac. of developed open space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: These comments suggest revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the text to describe portions of the SHINE site as "open developed space" throughout the EIS, as suggested by the comments. A.2.8 Proposed Action Comment 4-2: Page 2-5, Line 8: As described in the SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-1 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014], a concrete batch plant will not be located on the proposed SHINE site Appendix A A-31 during construction. Recommend removing "concrete batch plant operation" from the list of activities included in construction. Page 2-5, Line 14: As described in the SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-1 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014], a concrete batch plant will not be located on the proposed SHINE site during construction. Recommend removing the discussion of feed materials necessary for operating the concrete batch plant. Response: These comments suggest revisions to correct a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff deleted the discussion of an onsite concrete batch plant, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-3: Page 2-7, Line 1: The SHINE Waste Staging and Shipping Building is incorrectly labeled as the Waste Storage and Shipping Building. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests a revision to correct an illustration in the EIS. The NRC staff revised Figure 2-4 to include the correct label in the EIS, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-4: Page 2-7, Line 17: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-7 (Reference 2) [SHINE 2015c] clarified the expected number of truck deliveries per month (36), the number of medical isotope shipments per month (39), the average number of radioactive waste shipments per year (25.6), and the number of off-site (non-radiological) waste shipments per month (1). Recommend revising the number of shipments and deliveries accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the number of shipments and deliveries in the EIS, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-6: Page 2-11, Line 10: It is stated that the deuterium ion beam strikes tritium nuclei, resulting in lighter hydrogen atoms and neutrons being produced. However, the deuterium ion beam striking the tritium gas results in the production of helium nuclei and neutrons rather than lighter hydrogen atoms, as described in Subsection 19.2.2.1 of the PSAR. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS to indicate that the resulting ion beam would strike the tritium gas and produce helium nuclei and neutrons, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-7: Page 2-11, Line 28: The off-gas system being described recombines radiolytically-produced hydrogen and oxygen and captures iodine using an adsorption material. The off-gas system handles and contains radiolytic and fission products gases, rather than specifically recovering xenon-133 and iodine-131. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS to indicate that the off-gas system would be used to handle and contain Appendix A A-32 radiolytic and fission product gases released from the target solution, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-8: Page 2-11, Line 32: The hot cells in the SHINE facility are not containments. Recommend revising the parenthetical to state, "shielded nuclear radiation confinement chambers." Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the parenthetical statement in the EIS to indicate that the SHINE hot cells are shielded nuclear radiation confinement chambers, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-9: Page 2-11, Line 41: The purification process described would yield a high-purity product. The dissolution and evaporation processes, which occur as part of the SHINE extraction process, yield a crude Mo-99 product, rather than a high purity product. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS to indicate that the SHINE dissolution and evaporation processes yield a crude Mo-99 product, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-10: Page 2-12, Line 38: The SHINE facility does not include a diesel-driven fire pump system. The fire water supply system, described in Subsection 9a2.3.3 of the PSAR, includes an electric motor-driven fire pump and a diesel engine-driven fire pump. In addition, as described in the SHINE Response to Proposed Action Request #3 (Reference 3) [SHINE 2013b], the 1,860 annual gallons of diesel fuel estimate includes testing and maintenance on both the standby diesel generator and the diesel-driven fire pump. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify statements in the EIS. The NRC staff revised statements in the EIS to indicate that SHINE would use approximately 1,860 gal (7,000 L) of diesel fuel annually to maintain and test a standby diesel generator, as well as a diesel engine-driven fire pump, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-11: Page 2-12, Line 42: The SHINE facility includes a single natural gas-fired boiler, as described in the SHINE Response to Air Quality Request #9 (Reference 3) [SHINE 2013b]. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS to indicate that SHINE has a single natural gas-fired boiler, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-13: Page 2-14, Line 10: As described in Subsection 5a2.1.1 of the PSAR, the Primary Closed Loop Cooling System (PCLS) removes heat from the target solution vessel (TSV) via the Appendix A A-33 exterior surfaces of the TSV. Recommend revising the wording to state, "The primary closed-loop cooling system would remove heat from the target solution vessel by actively circulating water along the exterior surfaces of the vessel." Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS to indicate that the cooling system would remove heat from the target solution vessel by actively circulating water along the exterior surfaces of the vessel, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-14: Page 2-15, Line 4: The neutron drivers are expected to be replaced on an approximately yearly basis, as described in Subsection 19.2.5.3.1. Recommend revising the parenthetical to state, "i.e., the neutron driver that would be periodically replaced". Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the parenthetical statement to indicate that the neutron driver would be periodically replaced, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-15: Page 2-15, Line 22: The TSV is part of the subcritical assembly system, which is separate from the TSV off-gas system. Recommend revising the wording to reflect Subsection 19.4.2.1.2.1.1 of the PSAR, which states, "Process off-gases are treated in two separate, but connected, systems: the target solution vessel (TSV) off-gas system and the process vessel vent system (PVVS)." Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS to indicate that gaseous radioactive effluents would be routed through the target solution vessel off-gas system and the process vessel vent system, as suggested by the comment. Comment 6-3: The Draft EIS lists three isotopes currently slated for production at the facility (molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133). The Draft EIS is unclear if the Applicant anticipates needing to add additional isotopes to the facility's production capabilities (based on market conditions or technological advancements, for example). Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify whether the Applicant anticipates needing to add additional isotope production capabilities (other than the ones listed). If the Applicant anticipates needing additional production capabilities, the Final EIS should identify potential expansion locations and resultant impacts, including anticipated management of waste streams associated with additional isotope production. Response: This comment seeks to clarify SHINE's intentions to add production capability for radioisotopes other than those listed in its construction permit application. The radioisotopes listed in SHINE's construction permit application are molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), iodine-131 (I-131), and xenon-133 (Xe-133). The EIS evaluates the environmental impacts from the proposed action, as described in Section 1.2 in the EIS, which includes the production of Mo-99, I-131, and Xe-133. If, in the future, SHINE decides to produce radioisotopes other than those listed in its construction permit Appendix A A-34 application, SHINE would need to determine whether an amendment to its license would be necessary. If an amendment is necessary, the NRC staff would then review the amendment application and the environmental impacts of producing the additional radioisotopes. A.2.9 Socioeconomics Comment 4-21: Page 3-49, line 44: The Fireside Theater is the Fireside Dinner Theatre, and it is located on Janesville Avenue in Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin. It is not located in Janesville, Wisconsin. Recommend removing the Fireside Theater from the list of tourist attractions and activity centers in Janesville. Response: This comment suggests revisions to correct a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff removed the Fireside Theater from the list of tourist attractions and activity centers in Janesville, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-22: Page 3-50, Line 28: The nearest snowmobile trail to the SHINE site was described in Subsection 19.3.7.2.5.3 of the PSAR. Recommend revising the citation (SHINE 2013b) to (SHINE 2013a). Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. As suggested by the comment, the NRC staff revised the EIS reference citation to SHINE 2015, which is the most recent version of the ER that describes the nearest snowmobile trail. Note that in some chapters, such as Chapter 3, the most recent version of the ER is cited as SHINE 2015a. Comment 4-39: Page 4-31, Line 29: SHINE estimated there would be 26 Equipment Operator/Engineers available in Rock County during the Decommissioning Phase, as shown in Table 19.4.7-1 of the PSAR. Recommend revising the "Available Labor Force in ROI" for Equipment Operator/Eng. during Decommissioning from 20 to 26, and revising the corresponding "Total" accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. As suggested by the comment, the NRC staff revised Table 4-12 in the EIS to indicate the availability of 26 equipment operators/engineers in the region of influence during decommissioning and the corresponding total. Comment 4-40: Page 4-36, Line 6: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-5 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014, ML14296A189] clarified the peak number of workers at the site during the construction phase (451). Recommend revising the peak number of workers at the site during construction from 421 to 451. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the peak number of workers at the site during construction from 421 to 451, as suggested by the comment. Appendix A A-35 Comment 4-49: Page 5-69, Line 26: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-5 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014, ML14296A189] clarified the peak number of workers that SHINE anticipates at the site during the construction phase (451). Recommend revising the number of workers needed to construct the proposed facility from 420 to 451. Page 5-69, Line 31: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-5 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014, ML14296A189] clarified the peak number of workers that SHINE anticipates at the site during the construction phase (451). Recommend revising the number of workers needed to construct the proposed facility from 420 to 451. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the peak number of workers needed at the site during construction from 420 to 451, as suggested by the comment. A.2.10 Transportation Comment 4-53: Page 6-9: SHINE will not be providing a traffic signal at the entrance and exit to the SHINE site, as described in the SHINE Response to Transportation Request #1 (Reference 3) [SHINE 2013b]. The increase in traffic volume from employees working at the SHINE facility results in a slight degradation in the level of service at the intersection of U.S. Highway 51 and State Highway 11 during the morning peak hour, resulting in an increased delay at the intersection, as described in Subsection 19.4.7.2.1 of the PSAR. Optimizing the signal timing at the intersection to accommodate a greater turning movement from westbound State Highway 11 to southbound U.S. Highway 51 would mitigate traffic delays. Recommend revising the Mitigation Measures for Transportation accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement to explain that optimizing the signal timing for vehicles turning from westbound State Highway 11 to southbound U.S. Highway 51 would mitigate traffic delays. Comment 6-10: The Draft EIS states that the Beloit-Janesville Express operates weekdays between Beloit and Janesville (Section 3.9.1 - Roads); the closest stops to the facility are Kellogg Ave (to the north) and Sunny Lane (to the south). At this time, there are no plans to include a new stop on this route serving the facility. Recommendation: EPA recommends the Applicant and the Janesville Transit System determine whether a stop at the facility would benefit employees of the facility and help to alleviate potential degradation to traffic patterns along U.S. Highway 51. The Applicant anticipates an additional 1,000 vehicle trips daily associated with the facility (or an approximately 11 % increase from current conditions) in traffic volumes on U.S. Highway 51 during construction activity (Section 4.10.1 Transportation - Construction). EPA commends the Applicant for already committing to staggered work schedules during construction and demolition, during which an increase in the number of trucks and vehicles would be highest. We also commend the Applicant for planning to implement a carpooling program for employees during operation to minimize worker vehicle emissions. Appendix A A-36 Recommendation: EPA recommends on-going coordination with local traffic authorities to ensure levels of service remain appropriate and that users of the road are kept updated of closures and delays. Any anticipated system or infrastructure upgrades deemed necessary as a result of the facility should be identified in the Final EIS. Response: This comment recommends that the applicant work with the Janesville Transit System to determine ways to help alleviate potential traffic. The NRC does not have the authority to require this mitigation measure. The NRC staff has forwarded these recommendations to the applicant. In addition, the recommended mitigation has been added to Section 6.3.1 in the final EIS, which discusses mitigation measures recommended by EPA. A.2.11 Waste Management Comments 4-16 and 4-43: 4-16: Page 2-16, Line 29: Class A waste is shipped approximate yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site, as described in Subsection 19.2.5.3.1 of the PSAR; however, one year is not a limit of accumulation/storage. Recommend revising the wording to state, "Class A waste is shipped approximately yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site." 4-43: Page 4-40, Line 38: Class A waste is shipped approximate yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site, as described in Subsection 19.2.5.3.1 of the PSAR; however, one year is not a limit of accumulation/storage. Recommend revising the wording to state, "Class A waste is shipped approximately yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site." Response: These comments suggest revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the EIS to reflect that Class A waste is shipped approximately yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site, as suggested by the comments. Comment 6-11: The Draft EIS states that the Applicant does not intend to treat or permanently store hazardous wastes on site, meaning it will not require a hazardous waste treatment or storage permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Section 2.7.2 Nonradioactive Waste, page 2-17, lines 38-42). Recommendation: EPA recommends this section be clarified to indicate that Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is the permitting authority for hazardous waste treatment and storage per RCRA. Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the EIS to show that WDNR is the permitting authority for hazardous waste treatment and storage per the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Comment 6-1: EPA has reviewed the Draft EIS and cited reference materials regarding radioactive solid wastes. Table 11.2-1, "Waste Stream Summary" (reference SHINE 2013a Chapter 11 - Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Appendix A A-37 Report) provides the destinations of the solid, resin, and liquid wastes. Zeolite Beds and another proprietary waste stream are said to be generated as greater-than-class-C (GTCC) with Waste Control Specialists listed as a destination. Waste Control Specialists has GTCC storage capability, but not GTCC disposal capability. The Draft EIS states that if a disposal pathway for GTCC waste does not exist, the Department of Energy (DOE) will be responsible for its safe storage and disposal in accordance with the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2065). There is currently no disposal path for GTCC waste and DOE is currently evaluating alternatives for GTCC disposal (http://www.gtcceis.anl.gov). Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify whether DOE or the Applicant will be responsible for the storage of the facility's GTCC wastes at Waste Control Specialists. The Final EIS should state that once DOE establishes a disposal pathway for GTCC, it should promptly facilitate the disposal of the Applicant's GTCC wastes. EPA also recommends that the Applicant clarify whether a radioisotope production process can be engineered so as to eliminate the generation of GTCC waste for which there is no current disposal path, and otherwise reduce or limit the generation of other waste streams to Class A levels. Response: This comment states that greater than Class C (GTCC) waste would be generated during operation of the SHINE facility, and it recommends that the final EIS clarify whether DOE or the applicant would be responsible for the storage of the facility's GTCC waste once it is shipped to Waste Control Specialists, given that no disposal pathway exists for GTCC. DOE may have a role in final disposition of GTCC wastes, due to a mandate in the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (AMIPA). The AMIPA requires DOE to establish a Uranium Lease and Take Back (ULTB) Program, which includes, inter alia, a requirement that DOE be responsible for the final disposition of radioactive waste generated in medical isotope production using DOE-leased uranium, for which DOE determines a producer does not have access to a disposal path. However, the ULTB Program has not yet been established, so the Department cannot yet describe the process through which wastes would be accepted or disposed. Chapter 11 of the SHINE PSAR describes SHINE's proposed radioactive waste management program, radioactive waste controls, and release of radioactive waste. The NRC staff documented its evaluation of these areas for the purposes of issuing a construction permit in Chapter 11 of its SER. If SHINE submits an application for an operating license, further evaluation of the programs and controls related to SHINE's waste management would occur during the review of SHINE's FSAR in support of an operating license application. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(b) requires that the NRC staff prepare a supplement to the EIS that would update the prior review based on any new or updated information provided in the operating license application or identified during the NRC's staff independent review. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. Comment 6-2: UREX process raffinate is listed as a Class B liquid waste with Energy Solutions as the destination. Energy Solutions is not authorized to receive Class B and Class C waste according to its waste acceptance criteria document (http://www.energvsolutions.com/wp-contentluploads/2014/J 1 /B WF-W AC-Rev-93.pdf). Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify how Energy Solutions can be a destination for Class B UREX process raffinate waste. Appendix A A-38 Response: This comment seeks clarification regarding the disposal of UREX raffinate, a Class B radioactive waste. Table 19.2.5-1 in SHINE's ER states that UREX raffinate would be generated as a Class B radioactive waste. However, as described in a letter dated October 1, 2015, SHINE indicated that UREX raffinate would be stored on site, during which time decay would occur. SHINE expects that sufficient decay would occur such that the waste would be classified as Class A waste and, at which point, SHINE would transport it to EnergySolutions (SHINE 2015d). See Section 2.7.1 of the EIS for a further description of SHINE's radioactive waste processes. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. Comment 7-3: There is reference in the dEIS to properly handling the low level mixed waste that is proposed to be generated. It should be noted that in January 2014, the Department communicated with SHINE related to this topic and SHINE was informed of the Department's requirements. Several times in the document, NR 460, Wisconsin Administrative Code, is referenced regarding hazardous waste and nonhazardous waste. See the following from the draft: "In the State of Wisconsin, EPA has delegated the primary responsibility for implementing RCRA regulations to the State of Wisconsin. For example, Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 460 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste." This should be corrected to reference NR 660, Wisconsin Administrative Code (not NR 460) and the reference to nonhazardous waste should be deleted or should include that the nonhazardous Solid Waste General requirements are detailed in NR 500, Wisconsin Administrative Code. Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. As suggested by the comment, the NRC revised the EIS to show that State of Wisconsin RCRA regulations are in NR 660 and that nonhazardous waste requirements are covered by NR 500. A.2.12 Water Resources Comment 4-18: Page 3-29, Line 34: As described in Section 3.3.1 of the Preliminary Hydrological Analyses of the SHINE site, provided as Attachment 23 to Enclosure 1 of Reference (3) [SHINE 2013b], advective travel time analyses would be updated for the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) when a full year of groundwater monitoring data is available. Table 2.4-13 of the PSAR provides the SHINE estimate for advective travel time to the Rock River. Recommend revising the wording to state, "SHINE estimated that the expected travel time to the Rock River is 9.0 years." Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the discussion as suggested by the commenter and included the updated information from the preliminary safety analysis report, which is cited as SHINE 2015a in Section 3.4.2.1 of the final EIS. Appendix A A-39 Comment 4-35: Page 4-21, Line 43: An estimate of the amount of water to be used for dust mitigation and suppression during construction was provided via Reference (3) [SHINE 2013b]. Recommend revising the reference citation from (SHINE 2013a) to (SHINE 2013b). Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff corrected the reference citation to refer to SHINE's response to RAIs, which is SHINE 2013 in Chapter 4 of the final EIS. Comment 4-36: Page 4-23, Line 12: Figure 19.2.3-1 of the PSAR provides an average daily demand quantities for the SHINE facility, and those average values are not based on 5.5 days of water usage per week. Though a single irradiation cycle is 5.5 days, the SHINE facility will be in operation seven days per week. Recommend revising Note (a) of Table 4-11 to state, "Values are average daily demand. Conversions are rounded." Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the footnote as suggested. Comment 7-1: Within the document, lines 40-42 of page 4-19 currently state that: "This stormwater system would be designed to address the 1-year, 2-year, and 24-hour storm events per State regulations and the 10-year and 100-year events, as required by the City of Janesville (SHINE 2013a)." The Department recommends that the storm water system design reference compliance with NR 151 and NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code instead of (or in addition to) the specific regulations. The peak discharge requirement (from various storm events) that is referenced is only one of the storm water requirements and there are other specific regulatory obligations that would need to be met (total suspended solids reduction & infiltration, for example). Additionally, referencing compliance with NR 151 and NR 216, Wis. Adm. Codes, incorporates both the Construction Site Storm Water Runoff permit and the Industrial Storm Water permit that are both required of this site. The sentence might be most simply re-worded to read, "The storm water system(s) shall be designed to comply with NR 151 and NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code and the City of Janesville's requirements." Response: This comment discusses the conceptual design basis of SHINE's proposed stormwater management system, as described in its ER, and the appropriate State regulations that would be applicable to the SHINE project. Section 4.4.1.2 of the EIS discusses the applicability of Wisconsin NPDES permit requirements to the project, including the need for SHINE to obtain a Wisconsin General Permit for construction site stormwater runoff. Section 4.3.1 of the EIS also references compliance with NPDES permitting provisions and, specifically, the applicability of Wisconsin Administrative Codes NR 151 and NR 216. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. Appendix A A-40 A.2.13 Environmental Review Process Comment 3-2: Our ground water is precious and our high quality land and dairy use is very important as well as the safety of our citizens. One of you sub- environmental agencies reported that it was not their duty to rule on the building permit process. That means the environmental component didn't even investigate fully any of our concerns apparently. Response: This comment suggests that an environmental agency does not review the building permit. The NRC staff conducts an environmental review for a construction permit application in accordance with its NEPA regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. In addition, SHINE is required to receive various permits and approvals from other Federal, State, and local agencies, some of which are intended to protect the environment. Appendix B of the EIS provides a summary of the other Federal, State, and local permits and approvals that would be required for SHINE to build and operate the proposed facility. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment. Comment 6-13: EPA continues to recommend clear and objective metrics or thresholds be identified for the three significance levels (SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE), particularly for where there are ranges. Response: This comment recommends providing a clear and objective explanation of thresholds or metrics at which an impact will be defined as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, especially when the impact level is a range (e.g., SMALL to MODERATE). Impacts to resources affected by the proposed action and the various alternatives are defined in the Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors; and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria" (NRC 2012). The Final Interim Staff Guidance established a standard of significance for each environmental resource area based on the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significantly" (see 40 CFR 1508.27). Since the significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, both "context" and "intensity," as defined in CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1508.27, were considered. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects will occur. In the case of the SHINE environmental review, the context is the environment surrounding the proposed or alternative site, and intensity refers to the severity of the impact in whatever context it occurs. Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL-environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commission's regulations are considered SMALL. MODERATE-environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource. LARGE-environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. Appendix A A-41 These above definitions are in Section 1.4 of this EIS. The NRC staff also used the following definitions: Significance indicates the importance of likely environmental impacts and is determined by considering two variables: context and intensity. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects will occur. Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, in whatever context it occurs. Ranges of impacts may be provided if environmental conditions are uncertain, or if there are multiple circumstances associated with environmental conditions surrounding the proposed or alternate sites. For example, at the proposed SHINE site, the potential impact on transportation during operations would range from SMALL to MODERATE. Most of the time, the impacts would be SMALL because of the relatively small increase in traffic as compared to the average daily and annual traffic flows near the proposed SHINE site and because SHINE and common carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material. However, impacts would be MODERATE during periods of morning peak-hour traffic delays because the additional traffic attributable to SHINE worker vehicles would result in morning peak-hour traffic delays sufficient to reduce the existing level of service (traffic flow) at a key intersection near the SHINE facility. In response to this comment, the NRC staff revised Section 1.4 to better define "significance," "context," and "intensity." In addition, the NRC staff revised the introduction to Section 4.0 to describe situations in which the NRC staff may use a range of impact levels. A.2.14 Opposition to the Proposed Facility Comments 1-1, 1-3, and 3-4: 1-1: I know two years ago I spoke on the same; for safety around the airport and everything else. I did talk to pilots going in and out of the airport, and they said this is the wrong place for this building to be put. They would hope the NRC would see to deny the building permit for this. 1-3: As a citizen of Janesville, I am saying no for the building permit to be issued to SHINE. I don't care what the city official says; I'm speaking on behalf of a citizen of Janesville. 3-4: I feel that the location is not protected by sufficient safeguards when it is placed within the city limit of a city with 63,000 inhabitants, to say nothing about the dangers to our land and resources and so close to a busy airport and highways. Shine even admits that they need much more money to move forward. Any building permit should be delayed until much, much later to really determine the need for Shines production, especially at this site. It is the worst possible site for such an outdated dangerous process. Also no permits should be issued until Shine has the money in hand before even moving an inch forward on this process. Any building permit would be premature. The NRC should face the facts and ask itself if this facility and location is really needed considering the modern advancement of technology that has been tested and has been proven to produce of Molly 99 by a much safer method. As a resident of this city, I therefore request that the NRC deny any building permit requested by Shine at this time and at this proposed location within the Janesville city limits. Especially because in my opinion this site is a very poor location and there are way too many all-around safety issues that have not been properly investigated or resolved and concerning the Appendix A A-42 environment. It seemingly also lacks a great many safeguards at this location and because of outdated processes. Response: The above comments express opposition to the proposed SHINE facility. The commenters cite the potential for accidents-including those from an aircraft, potential siting issues due to the proximity of the City of Janesville, and general safety concerns-as reasons for their opposition. These comments express general opposition to the SHINE facility or discuss safety-related concerns but provide no substantive information relevant to the environmental review. Therefore, these comments are outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the following information is provided to respond to portions of the comments related to in-scope topics, such as potential accidents. Commenters expressed concerns regarding potential accidents from aircraft or other radiological exposures. Section 4.11 discusses the environmental impacts associated with potential radiological and hazardous chemical accidents that might occur at the proposed SHINE facility. The term "accident," as used in this EIS, refers to any off-normal event that releases radioactive or hazardous chemicals into the environment that may affect facility workers and members of the public. Potential initiating events and credible operational accidents for the proposed SHINE facility constitute the design-basis accidents. In its ER, SHINE considered the impacts of an aircraft collision as a design-basis accident. In Section 4.11, however, the NRC staff considers the potential impacts from the maximum hypothetical accident as the basis for the analysis of environmental impact from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility. The maximum hypothetical accident considers a potential accident that would result in the same or higher radiological exposures as a credible design-basis accident, such as an aircraft collision with the SHINE facility or another accident that could result in radioactive releases. Therefore, the analysis in this EIS considers the potential exposures from accidents that would result in the same or higher exposures as that from an aircraft collision. SHINE determined that the calculated doses for the maximum hypothetical accident at the proposed SHINE facility would be within the annual dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301 of 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) to a member of the public. Section 4.11 describes various ways in which SHINE would minimize radioactive releases in case of an accident. As described in Section 4.11, the NRC staff will complete a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from the maximum hypothetical accident. The NRC staff's SER will document this independent evaluation. Assuming that the NRC staff determines, in its SER, that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential radiological accidents, including aircraft collisions, would be SMALL. Also see the response to Comment 3-1 in A.2.15, "Out of Scope: Siting, Safety, and Emergency Planning." The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of these comments. A.2.15 Out of Scope: Siting, Safety, and Emergency Planning Comment 3-1: Why would the NRC allow the use of uranium based processes to produce Molly 99 within the city limits of a city with excess of 63,000 inhabitants. It was my understanding that the NRC once said that they prefer any uranium used in production or use should be beyond 10 miles from, densely populated areas or cities. Appendix A A-43 Why would the NRC allow this at this time when there are much safer production methods without using the kind of uranium that Shine proposes, such as North Star in Beloit, 10 miles away. There are other modern methods to meet the demand for Molly 99 without the dangers of contamination and accidents within our city limits. I thought the NRC was interested in safety and reducing the amount of uranium being used around the country instead of expanding the dangers everywhere by allowing it all over among populated areas. Response: This comment expresses concerns related to the siting of the SHINE facility and general safety concerns. This comment is outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the following information is provided as background regarding the safety review for the SHINE construction permit application. The NRC staff will evaluate the geography and demography; nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities; meteorology; hydrology; and geology, seismology, and geotechnical engineering related to the proposed SHINE site to ensure that the facility meets the regulatory occupational and public dose limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20. Chapter 2, "Site Characteristics," of NUREG-1537, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non Power Reactors," Parts 1 and 2, provided the guidance for reviewing and evaluating the SHINE site characteristics, as described in the SHINE preliminary safety analysis report. "Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, 'Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors,' for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors," Parts 1 and 2, provided relevant supplemental nonreactor guidance for reviewing the SHINE site characteristics. The NRC staff will complete a thorough independent safety review that will be documented in the NRC staff's SER. This review will include an assessment of impacts from radiological exposures to members of the public and onsite doses to facility workers. NRC's review will evaluate whether the maximum dose to a member of the public during normal operations and during the maximum hypothetical accident would be within the limits defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC would not issue the construction permit unless the NRC staff's independent review verifies that the maximum dose to a member of the public during normal operations and during the maximum hypothetical accident would be within the limits defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment. Comment 6-7: The facility will produce more than 500,000 Curies per year of radioactive material. EPA recognizes that the probability of an accident is low, given the type of technology used at the facility. However, given the large amount of radioactive material produced and since this is the first of its kind in the area, the section detailing accidents and response should be strengthened (Section 4.11 Accidents). Recommendation: EPA recommends the Applicant provide additional details on accident preparedness plans. We recommend including reference to any agreements with local, state, or Federal emergency responders. We also recommend the Final EIS include details of public outreach specifically related to emergency response (such as handouts sent to adjacent property owners). Response: This comment expresses concerns regarding the level of detail provided in SHINE's description of its emergency plan and a description of the emergency plan within the EIS. This comment is outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the following information is provided Appendix A A-44 as background regarding the emergency planning review for the SHINE construction permit application. With respect to emergency planning, NUREG-0849, Section 3.0, "Organization and Responsibilities," Evaluation Items 1.a. and 1.c., state that the emergency plan should describe "[t]he functions as applicable to emergency planning of Federal, State, and local government agencies and the assistance that they would provide in the event of an emergency" and "[t]he arrangements and agreements, confirmed in writing with local support organizations that would augment and extend the capability of the facility's emergency organization." The NRC has reviewed SHINE's preliminary emergency plan as required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(10) and described in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The SHINE Preliminary Emergency Plan, Rev. 0, in Section 3.7, addresses arrangements and agreements made with local support organizations that would augment and extend the capability of the facility's emergency organization. In response to an RAI issued by the NRC staff, SHINE stated the following in its October 15, 2014 (ADAMS No. ML14296A192) reply: SHINE will provide letters of agreement made with local support organizations that would augment and extend the capability of the facility's emergency organization with the SHINE Emergency Plan, which will be provided as part of the SHINE OL Application. The NRC staff will evaluate the adequacy of these agreements during its review of the operating license application, if it is submitted to the NRC, and will detail those findings in its SER. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment. Also see responses under Section A.2.1, Accidents, regarding the adequacy of the accidents analysis in the EIS and additional analyses that will be conducted in the SER. A.2.16 Out of Scope: Other Comment 2-1: Building is only good for 35 years then has to go down. That will cost 7 to 10 percent more to put down this building. Response: This comment expresses concerns related to the adequacy of funds during decommissioning. This comment is outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the following information is provided as background regarding NRC's role in verifying the financial viability of SHINE. As described in Section 2.7, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, a licensed production or utilization facility that permanently ceases operations shall submit a decommissioning report. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.33(k) requires that an applicant for an operating license submit a report to indicate how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the facility. Comment 6-8: The Draft EIS details the locations of permanent structures, buildings, and roads required for the facility, including an estimate of the type and amount of construction materials required. Structures and building includes an administrative building, water and fuel tanks, production facility, and other various support buildings. This site would also include an entrance road and Appendix A A-45 parking lots. Overall, approximately 41 acres would be disturbed, of which 15 acres would be temporary. EPA commends the Applicant for already identifying several ways to reduce environmental impacts, such as committing to conversion of unused, temporarily disturbed lands to native prairies. EPA has several recommendations regarding immediate site land use planning and green infrastructure. Please note that we are aware of NRC's limited ability to include the following recommendations in the license; however, we find these measures to further reduce environmental impacts and would encourage the Applicant to incorporate them into site planning. The Final EIS should clarify to what extent the DOE (as a cooperating agency and prospective provider of funding to the Applicant under a cooperative agreement) would require energy efficiency measures, greenhouse gas reductions, and other sustainability measures, per Executive Order 13693. Any locations on the site which are not planned for operations should be considered for conversion to native habitats, increasing the area which can be beneficially used for wildlife, infiltration or stormwater retention, and aesthetics, among other functions. The Final EIS should include more information on the sources of the required construction materials, as listed in Table 2-1 (Estimated Construction Material Requirements). Please outline whether this material can be made of second-sourced material (i.e., reclaimed aggregate). EPA understands there are specific safety codes that may prevent this; however, we recommend that any auxiliary buildings, new roads, and other non-safety related structures be constructed with materials that are recycled, if possible. If you need more information about this, please see our website about environmentally responsible purchasing at www.epa.gov/epp. Any roads, parking lots, sidewalks, or other surfaces slated for driving or walking should be constructed using permeable pavement to reduce runoff. EPA recommends staggering construction schedules of the new facilities so that no additional undisturbed land is permanently disturbed. This could mean having one temporary laydown area (that is ultimately slated for a permanent use) serving the construction of new permanent facilities. EPA encourages the Applicant to construct all buildings to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. If LEED standards are pursued, this information should be included in the Final EIS. Any potential use of Energy Star appliances, EPA's WaterSense program, or other similar programs should be identified in the Final EIS. In lieu of including this commitment in the license, the Applicant should report to EPA once these measures have been implemented, if applicable. Appendix A A-46 Response: This comment recommends ways that the applicant could mitigate impacts by using green infrastructure and modifying site planning, construction, and operational methods. The NRC does not have the authority to require these mitigation measures. The NRC staff has forwarded the recommendations to the applicant. In response to this comment, the NRC staff added the recommended mitigations to Section 6.3.1 in the EIS. This comment also recommends that the final EIS clarify to what extent the DOE would require energy efficiency measures, greenhouse gas reductions, and other sustainability measures, per Executive Order 13693. The DOE would not require any of the measures described in the comment. The SHINE facility would be considered a non-Federal facility, and is therefore not subject to such Federal facility requirements. A.2.17 Editorial Comments 4-1, 4-5, 4-12, 4-20, 4-23, 4-25, 4-26, 4-29, 4-31, 4-38, 4-41, 4-44, 4-48, 4-50, and 4-55: 4-1: Page 1-3, Line 36: A single value of 5,000 6-day curies (Ci) is converted to two values of 6-day becquerels (Bq) (2x1014 and 3x1014). Recommend removing the 3x1014 6-day Bq value. Page 1-3, Line 44: The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 appears to have been incorporated into Section 2065 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, not Section 3171. Subpart F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which includes Section 3171, describes the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. Recommend revising the U.S. Code reference to 42 U.S.C. 2065, consistent with Section 2.7.1.2, Section 4.9.1, and Section 4.13.9. Page 1-8, Line 4: The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 appears to have been incorporated into Section 2065 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, not Section 3171. Subpart F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which includes Section 3171, describes the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. Recommend revising the U.S. Code reference to 42 U.S.C. 2065, consistent with Section 2.7.1.2, Section 4.9.1, and Section 4.13.9. 4-5: Page 2-8, Line 5: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "An individual irradiation unit would comprise-" with "An individual irradiation unit would be comprised of-". 4-12: Page 2-13, Line 38: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "Ordiance" with "Ordinance". Page 2-14, Line 3: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "Ordiance" with "Ordinance". 4-20: Page 3-33, Line 1: The scientific name of the northern cardinal is "Cardinalis cardinalis" and the scientific name of the striped skunk is "Mephitis mephitis." Recommend revising Table 3-8 accordingly. Page 3-37, Line 41: Recommend revising the wording "Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that no Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species is unlikely to occur within the action area." to "Given the available information, the NRC staff Appendix A A-47 concludes that no Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species is likely to occur within the action area." 4-23: Page 4-1, Line 26: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "describe" with "described in". 4-25: Page 4-2, Line 30: The total value of temporarily disturbed land in Table 4-1 does not account for the 0.62 ac. of off-site land. Recommend revising the total value of disturbed land to 15.16 ac. (6.13 ha.). 4-26: Page 4-6, Line 9: Typographical error in the words "Semi Tractor" in the equipment listing provided in Table 4-2. 4-29: Page 4-8, Line 34: Section 4.14 does not contain a reference for (SHINE 2013). Recommend revising the citation to (SHINE 2013b), which provided measures to minimize emissions due to worker vehicles. Page 4-9, Line 31: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "construction" with "operations." Page 4-11, Line 3: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "Version 123145" with "Version 12345." 4-31: Page 4-13, Line 31: Typographical error in the Total Activity for the Backhoe/Loader Cat 430. Recommend revising the Total Activity to 3,542 hours. Page 4-13, Line 31: Typographical error in the Total Activity for the Pickup Truck F-250. Recommend revising the Total Activity to 9,583 hours. 4-38: Page 4-28, Line 19: Per the NRC's response to Comment 02-1 in Section A.1.6 of Appendix A, the last attempt to contact the Forest County Potawatomi was in February 2015. Recommend revising accordingly. 4-41: Page 4-37, Line 31: A description of the Chemical Hygiene Plan was provided via Reference (3) [SHINE 2013, ML13303A887]. Recommend revising the reference citation from (SHINE 2013a) to (SHINE 2013b). Page 4-37, Line 38: A description of the Chemical Hygiene Plan was provided via Reference (3) [SHINE 2013, ML13303A887]. Recommend revising the reference citation from (SHINE 2013a) to (SHINE 2013b). Page 4-37, Line 45: A description of the Chemical Hygiene Plan was provided via Reference (3) [SHINE 2013, ML13303A887]. Recommend revising the reference citation from (SHINE 2013a) to (SHINE 2013b). 4-44: Page 4-42, Line 40: Table 3-21 provides average daily traffic counts in the vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility. Recommend revising the table reference from Table 3-14 to Table 3-21. Appendix A A-48 Page 4-46, Line 2: Recommend removing underline from the text. Page 4-46, Line 3: Recommend removing underline from the text. 4-48: Page 4-70, Line 17: Section 4.14 does not contain a reference for (SHINE 2013). Recommend revising the citation to (SHINE 2013a). Page 5-10, Line 9: Typographical error in the total acreage within a five mile radius of the SHINE site provided in Table 5-2. Recommend revising the total acreage within a five mile radius of the SHINE site from "50,2645 ac" to "50,265 ac". Page 5-20, Line 39: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "common cottontail" with "common cattail". Page 5-65, Line 21: Recommend removing underline from the text of both plants in Table 5-11. 4-50: Page 5-77, Line 32: The Stevens Point site is located in Census Tract 9607.02, not Census Tract 9607.2. Recommend revising accordingly. Page 5-81, Line 33: The Stevens Point site is located in Census Tract 9607.02, not Census Tract 9607.2. Recommend revising accordingly. 4-55: Page A-17, Line 21: The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 appears to have been incorporated into Section 2065 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, not Section 3171. Subpart F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which includes Section 3171, describes the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. Recommend revising the U.S. Code reference to 42 U.S.C. 2065, consistent with Section 2.7.1.2, Section 4.9.1, and Section 4.13.9. Response: These comments recommend editorial changes to the EIS. The NRC staff incorporated all the revisions into the EIS. All changes to the EIS text can be identified by change bars in the margin of each page. Comment 6-12: To facilitate the review, EPA continues to recommend figures be provided in color, where appropriate and where color gradient is used in analyzing the information. Response: This comment recommends that the NRC provide figures in color. No substantive information was provided. The NRC staff did not make this editorial change because the electronic version of the EIS contains color figures. Further, the use of black, white, and gray scale is in accordance with NRC's guidance for preparing documents such as the EIS in NUREG-0650, "Preparing NUREG-Series Publications," and because the use of color printing is significantly more expensive than black and white, NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment. A.3 References 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." Appendix A A-49 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 800, "Protection of historic properties." 46 FR 18026. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning the CEQ's [Council on Environmental Quality's] National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. Federal Register 46(55):18026-18028. March 23, 1981. 61 FR 68972. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "National Emission Standards for Radionuclide Emissions From Facilities Licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Facilities not Covered by Subpart H [Final rule]." Federal Register 61(251):68972-68981. December 30, 1996. 78 FR 39343. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. [Intent to prepare environmental impact statement and conduct scoping process; public meeting]." Federal Register 78(126):39343-39344. July 1, 2013. 80 FR 27710. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Construction Permit Application for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility [Draft environmental impact statement; public meetings and request for comment]." Federal Register 80(93):27710-27711. May 14, 2015. 80 FR 29701. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability." Federal Register 80(99):29701-29702. May 22, 2015. American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 42 U.S.C. §2065 et seq. Badger Reuse Committee. 2001. Final Report on the Work of the Badger Reuse Committee including Values, Criteria, and Concept Plan Map for the Reuse of the Badger Army Ammunition Plant Property. March 28, 2001. Available at <https://www.co.sauk.wi.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/baap-finalreport.pdf> (accessed 16 July 2015). Forest County Potawatomi. 2013. Letter from Cook M, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, to Wong MC, NRC.

Subject:

Request for scoping comments concerning the SHINE Medical Technologies radioisotope production facility. July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13224A164. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. October 17, 2012. ADAMS Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. "Approval of Memorandum of Agreement between DOE and NRC on the Environmental Review Related to the Issuance of Authorizations to Construct Build and Operate SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc." Washington, DC: NRC. February 3, 2015. ADAMS No. ML13304B666. Appendix A A-50 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR): Chapter 13, "Accident Analysis," and Chapter 19, "Environmental Review." Monona, WI: SHINE. March 26, 2013, and May 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13172A324. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR): Chapter 13, "Accident Analysis," and Chapter 19, "Environmental Review." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. Letter from Vann Bynum R, SHINE, to NRC, Document Control Desk.

Subject:

SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Revision to Sections 13b.3 and 19.4 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A131. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015c. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A395. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015d. Letter from Piefer G, SHINE, to NRC, Document Control Desk.

Subject:

SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Description of the SHINE Process for Preparing Consolidated Liquid Waste Streams for Disposal as Class A Waste. October 1, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15274A539. [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 216. Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Chapter NR 216. Storm Water Discharge Requirements. Revised April 2013. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/nr> (accessed 3 January 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 405. Prevention of Significant Deterioration. July 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/405.pdf>. [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406. Construction Permits. March 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/406.pdf>. [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 407. Operation Permits. February 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/407.pdf>. [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Construction Site Storm Water Permit Overview. Web page updated November 12, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Stormwater/construction/overview.html> (accessed 3 January 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. Letter from Heggelund E, WDNR Environmental Analysis and Review Specialist, to Moser M, NRC Environmental Project Manager.

Subject:

WDNR Comments for the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Statement and Scoping for SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production Facility. February 7, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14045A298. APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS

B-1 B. APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS A number of Federal laws and regulations affect environmental protection, health, safety, compliance, and consultation at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed facilities. Certain Federal environmental requirements have been delegated to State authorities for enforcement and implementation. Furthermore, States have enacted laws to protect public health and safety and the environment. It is the agency's policy to ensure that NRC-licensed facilities are operated in a manner that provides adequate protection of public health and safety and of the environment through compliance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, and other requirements. The requirements that may be applicable to the operation of NRC-licensed facilities encompass a broad range of Federal laws and regulations that address environmental, historical and cultural, health and safety, transportation, and other concerns. Generally, these laws and regulations relate to how a facility would conduct the work involved in performing a proposed action to protect workers, the public, and environmental resources. Some of these laws and regulations require permits or consultation with other Federal agencies or State, Tribal, or local governments. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), authorizes the NRC to enter into agreement with any State to assume regulatory authority for certain activities (42 U.S.C. 2021). The NRC and the Governor of Wisconsin signed an agreement transferring NRC regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials (in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass) to the State of Wisconsin, which became the 33rd Agreement State, effective August 11, 2003. As an Agreement State, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services is responsible for licensing and inspecting the above-named materials, except at nuclear power plants and Federal facilities (WDHS 2014). In addition to carrying out some Federal programs, State legislatures develop their own laws. State statutes supplement, as well as implement, Federal laws for the protection of air, water quality, and groundwater. State legislation may address solid waste management programs, locally rare or endangered species, and historical and cultural resources. The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., herein referred to as CWA), allows for primary enforcement and administration through State agencies, given that the State program is at least as stringent as the Federal program. The State program must conform to the CWA and to the delegation of authority for the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the State. The primary mechanism to control water pollution is the requirement for direct dischargers to obtain an NPDES permit or a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, when the authority has been delegated from the EPA, under the CWA, as is the case for Wisconsin. One important difference between Federal regulations and certain State regulations is the definition of waters regulated by the State. Certain State regulations may include underground waters, whereas the CWA only regulates surface waters. B.1 Federal, State, and Local Requirements Construction and operation of the SHINE facility would be subject to Federal, State, and local requirements. Tables B-1, B-2, and B-3 identify the principal Federal, State, county, and city Appendix B B-2 environmental regulatory requirements that may be applicable to the proposed SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) or the alternative sites. Along with each regulatory requirement is a brief description. The requirements are organized into categories, such as general requirements, water resources, and pollution prevention. Table B-1. Potentially Applicable Federal Statutes, Regulations, and Orders Statute/Regulation/Order Description General Requirements Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. The 1954 Atomic Energy Act, as amended (AEA), and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.), give the NRC the licensing and regulatory authority for nuclear energy uses within the commercial sector. The Acts give the NRC responsibility for licensing and regulating commercial uses of atomic energy and research and test reactors, and allow the agency to protect workers and the public by establishing dose and concentration limits for activities under NRC jurisdiction. The NRC implements its responsibilities under the AEA through regulations established in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (NEPA), requires Federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decisionmaking process by considering the environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. NEPA establishes policy, sets goals (in Section 101), and provides means (in Section 102) for carrying out the policy. Section 102(2) contains action-forcing provisions to ensure that Federal agencies follow the letter and spirit of the Act. For major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement that includes the environmental impacts of the proposed action and other specified information. 10 CFR Part 50 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities," contains NRC regulations issued under the AEA, as amended (68 Stat. 919), and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242) to provide for the licensing of production and utilization facilities. This part also gives notice to all persons who knowingly supply-to any licensee, applicant, contractor, or subcontractor-components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services, that relate to a licensee's or applicant's activities subject to this part, that they may be individually subject to NRC enforcement action for violation of 10 CFR 50.5. Appendix B B-3 Statute/Regulation/Order Description Air Quality Protection Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. The Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), is intended to "protect and enhance the quality of the nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population." The CAA establishes regulations to ensure maintenance of air quality standards and authorizes individual States to manage permits. Section 118 of the CAA requires each Federal agency, with jurisdiction over properties or facilities engaged in any activity that might result in the discharge of air pollutants, to comply with all Federal, State, inter-State, and local requirements with regard to the control and abatement of air pollution. Section 109 of the CAA directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants. EPA has identified these standards and set them for the following criteria pollutants: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. Section 111 of the CAA requires the establishment of national performance standards for new or modified stationary sources of atmospheric pollutants. Section 160 of the CAA requires the evaluation of specific emission increases before permit approval to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. Section 112 requires specific standards for the release of hazardous air pollutants (including radionuclides). These standards are implemented through plans developed by each State and approved by the EPA. The CAA requires sources to meet standards and to obtain permits to satisfy those standards. Nuclear facilities may be required to comply with CAA Title V, Sections 501-507, for sources subject to new source performance standards or sources subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. EPA regulates emissions of air pollutants in 40 CFR Parts 50 to 99. Environmental Justice and Public Health Protection 10 CFR Part 20 10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation," contains NRC regulations that establish standards for protection against ionizing radiation resulting from activities conducted under licenses issued by the NRC. The NRC issued these regulations under the AEA, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. The purpose of these regulations is to control the receipt, possession, use, transfer, and disposal of licensed material by any licensee in such a manner that the total dose to an individual (including doses resulting from licensed and unlicensed radioactive material and from radiation sources other than background radiation) does not exceed the standards for protection against radiation prescribed in the regulations in this part. Executive Order 12898 Executive Order 12898, "Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations," requires Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Amended by Executive Order 12948. Executive Order 13045 Executive Order 13045, "Protection of children from environmental health risks and safety risks," prioritizes the identification and assessment of environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and ensures that those risks are addressed. Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq. The Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended, requires facilities to maintain noise levels that do not jeopardize public health or safety. Appendix B B-4 Statute/Regulation/Order Description Occupational Safety and Health Administration occupational noise exposure regulations, 29 CFR 1910.95 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations establish workplace standards for noise. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651 The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires compliance with all applicable worker safety and health legislation (including guidelines of 29 CFR Part 1960). Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions, 69 FR 52040 (2004) The NRC is committed to the general goals of Executive Order 12898 and to full compliance with the NEPA requirements. Historic preservation and cultural resources National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), was enacted to create a national historic preservation program, including the National Register of Historic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Section 106 of the Act requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations implementing Section 106 of the Act are found in 36 CFR Part 800. The regulations call for public involvement in the Section 106 consultation process, including Indian Tribes and other interested members of the public, as applicable. Land-Use Protection Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, 7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq. The Farmland Protection Policy Act sets guidelines that require all agencies to identify prime farmland proposed to be converted to nonagricultural land use and to evaluate the impact of the conversion. Protected Species Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), was enacted to prevent the further decline of endangered and threatened species and to restore those species and their critical habitats. Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service on Federal actions that may affect listed species or designated critical habitats. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1801-1884 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (MSA), governs marine fisheries management in U.S. Federal waters. The Act created eight regional fishery management councils and includes measures to rebuild overfished fisheries, protect essential fish habitat, and reduce bycatch. Under Section 305 of the Act, Federal agencies are required to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service for any Federal actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitat. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq. To minimize adverse impacts of proposed actions on fish and wildlife resources and habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that Federal agencies consult Government agencies regarding activities that affect, control, or modify waters of any stream or bodies of water. It also requires that justifiable means and measures be used in modifying plans to protect fish and wildlife in these waters Appendix B B-5 Statute/Regulation/Order Description Waste Management and Pollution Prevention Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires the EPA to define and identify hazardous waste; establish standards for its transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal; and require permits for persons engaged in hazardous waste activities. Section 3006 (42 U.S.C. 6926) allows States to establish and administer these permit programs with EPA approval. EPA regulations implementing the Act are found in 40 CFR Parts 260 to 299. Regulations imposed on a generator or on a treatment, storage, or disposal facility vary according to the type and quantity of material or waste generated, treated, stored, or disposed of. The method of treatment, storage, and disposal also affects the extent and complexity of the requirements. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 establishes a national policy for waste management and pollution control that focuses first on source reduction and then on environmental issues, safe recycling, treatment, and disposal. Water Resources Protection Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. and the NPDES, 40 CFR Part 122 The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended (CWA), was enacted to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's water." The Act requires all branches of the Federal Government that have jurisdiction over properties or facilities engaged in any activity that might result in a discharge or runoff of pollutants to surface waters to comply with Federal, State, inter-State, and local requirements. As authorized by the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into U.S. waters. The NPDES program requires all facilities that discharge pollutants from any point source into U.S. waters to obtain an NPDES permit. A nuclear facility may also participate in the NPDES General Permit for Industrial Stormwater due to stormwater runoff from industrial or commercial facilities to U.S. waters. EPA is authorized under the CWA to directly implement the NPDES program; however, EPA has authorized many States to implement all or parts of the national program. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is the responsible State agency for NPDES permitting. Section 401 of the CWA requires States to certify that the permitted discharge would comply with all limitations necessary to meet established State water-quality standards, treatment standards, or schedule of compliance. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead agency for enforcement of CWA wetland requirements (33 CFR Part 320). Under Section 401 of the CWA, EPA or a delegated State agency has the authority to review and approve, impose a condition, or deny all permits or licenses that might result in a discharge to State waters, including wetlands. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. The Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended (CZMA), was enacted by Congress in 1972 to address the increasing pressures of overdevelopment upon the Nation's coastal resources. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administers the CZMA. The CZMA encourages States to preserve; protect; develop; and, where possible, restore or enhance valuable natural coastal resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using those habitats. Participation by States is voluntary. To encourage States to participate, the CZMA makes Federal financial assistance available to any coastal State or territory, including those on the Great Lakes, which is willing to develop and implement a comprehensive coastal management program. Appendix B B-6 Statute/Regulation/Order Description Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. The Wild and Scenic River Act created the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, which was established to protect the environmental values of free-flowing streams from degradation by impacting activities, including water resources projects. Transportation Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 14 CFR Part 77 The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, refers to construction of structures that may potentially affect air navigation. Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1975, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., 49 CFR Part 107 The Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1975, as amended, refers to transportation of hazardous materials. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular, AC 150/5200-33B The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular, AC 150/5200-33B, "Hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports," provides guidance on certain land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports. It also discusses airport development projects that could affect aircraft movement near hazardous wildlife attractants. Table B-2. Potentially Applicable Wisconsin State Requirements Statute/Regulation/Order Citation Responsible Agency Description Air Quality Protection Wisconsin Air Pollution Statutes Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 285 WDNR, Air Management Program Defines air quality standards, permits and fees, and enforcement and penalties. Wisconsin Air Pollution Control Rules Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapters NR 400-499 WDNR, Air Management Program Contains State air pollution control rules. See NR 406 and NR 407 for construction permit and operation permit rules. Greenhouse gases are covered in NR 407.075. Land Use and Economic Programs Wisconsin Tax Increment District Law ss.66.1105 Department of Revenue Allows municipalities a way to encourage economic development within a designated portion of a municipality. Wisconsin Statute on Migrant Protection Wisconsin Statutes, Chapters 103.90-103.97 Department of Workforce Development Provides migrant worker protections. Wisconsin Statutes on Farmland Preservation Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 91 WDNR Defines prime farmland. Appendix B B-7 Statute/Regulation/Order Citation Responsible Agency Description Building Plan Review Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 101; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapters SPS 361 and 362 Department of Safety and Professional Services Is required before a local building permit can be issued for a commercial building to ensure compliance with State building codes. Protected Species Wisconsin Statutes on State-Protected Species Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 29, and Administrative Rule NR 27 WDNR Identifies rare species, natural communities, or natural features tracked in the Natural Heritage Inventory database. Transportation State Trunk Highways, Federal Aid Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 84 Wisconsin DOT Advises towns, villages, cities, and counties on construction and maintenance of highways and bridges. Wisconsin Airport Land Use Guidebook Guidebook Bureau of Aeronautics, Wisconsin DOT Helps communities and airports work cooperatively to plan for and establish compatible land use around airports and to mitigate existing incompatible conditions. Waste Management and Pollution Prevention Wisconsin Statutes on Pollution Prevention Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 299.13 WDNR Establishes pollution prevention policy and includes regulations. Wisconsin Statutes on Hazardous Waste Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 291; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapters NR 660 and 662 WDNR Regulations regarding the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Water Resources Protection Wisconsin Water Resources Statutes Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 283; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 216 WDNR Requirements to protect water quality, including permits and plans to minimize erosion and control stormwater runoff. See above description under the CWA. Appendix B B-8 Table B-3. City of Janesville and Rock County, Wisconsin, Ordinances and Plans Ordinance or Plan Responsible Agency Description Land-Use Protection Rock County Comprehensive Plan 2035, 2009 Rock County Planning, Economic & Community Development Agency Guides long-term economic development; sets policies and goals for cultural and historic resource conservation (Rock County Planning, Economic & Community Development Agency, Strategic & Comprehensive Planning Division). Janesville, Wisconsin's Park Place Development Guide City of Janesville Community Development Department Guide for following development processes. City of Janesville Ordinance 18.24.050A City of Janesville Community Development Department Ensures compliance with local ordinances for site layout and plans for parking, lighting, landscaping, etc. City of Janesville Ordinance 15.01.100A City of Janesville Community Development Department Ensures compliance with local ordinances regarding the construction of buildings; installation of plumbing systems; installation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; and occupancy of completed buildings. City of Janesville Ordinance 13.16 City of Janesville Community Development Department Ensures compliance with local ordinances regarding construction, installation, and operation of connections to the municipal sewer and water systems. City of Janesville Ordinance 18.24.040 City of Janesville Community Development Department Ensures compliance with local ordinances regarding the construction of multiple buildings on the same site. Transportation Airport Overlay Zoning District Ordinance of the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport (SWRA) City of Janesville Community Development Director Promotes the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the community and residents; protects the SWRA approaches and surrounding airspace from encroachment; and limits exposure of impacts to persons and facilities near the SWRA. Rock County Hazard Mitigation Plan Rock County Local Emergency Planning Committee Ensures compliance with local ordinances regarding the construction, maintenance, and operation of utilities within highway right-of-way. The permit includes risk assessments for all types of hazards. B.2 Operating permits and other requirements Table B-4 lists the permits and licenses that SHINE plans to obtain from Federal, State, and local authorities to construct and operate the SHINE facility. Appendix B B-9 Table B-4. Permits and Approvals Required for Construction and Operation Agency Regulatory Authority Permit or Approval Summary of Activities Expected Timeframe of Receipt Status Permits and Approvals from Federal Agencies NRC Atomic Energy Act 10 CFR 50.50 and 10 CFR 50.35 Construction Permit Construction of the SHINE facility 2015-2016 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the construction permit was submitted in 2013. Atomic Energy Act 10 CFR 50.57 Operating License Operation of the SHINE facility 2018 Atomic Energy Act 10 CFR Part 40 Source Material License Possession, use, and transfer of radioactive source material 2018 Atomic Energy Act 10 CFR Part 30 By-Product Material License Possession, use, and transfer of radioactive by-product material 2018 Atomic Energy Act 10 CFR Part 70 Special Nuclear Material License Receipt, possession, use, and transfer of special nuclear material 2018 FAA Federal Aviation Act Construction Notice FAA Form 7460-1 Construction of structures that could affect air navigation 2015 FAA Form 7460-1 was submitted in 2011; Determination of No Hazard was received 11/2011; Determination of No Hazard extension was received 04/2012; Determination of No Hazard expired 11/2014; SHINE plans to resubmit FAA Form 7460-1 in 2015. Construction Notice FAA Form 7460-2 Construction of structures that could affect air navigation 2017 SHINE intends to submit FAA Form 7460-2 within 5 days of when construction reaches its greatest height. Appendix B B-10 Agency Regulatory Authority Permit or Approval Summary of Activities Expected Timeframe of Receipt Status EPA CWA, 40 CFR Part 112, Appendix F Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan for Construction and Operation Storage of oil during construction and operation 2015 SHINE intends to develop the SPCC plan in 2015. DOT Hazardous Material Transportation Act, 49 CFR Part 107 Certificate of Registration Transportation of hazardous materials 2018 SHINE intends to submit DOT Form F-5800.2 Q1 in 2018. Permits and Approvals from State Agencies WDNR Federal CAA; Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 285; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 406 Air Pollution Control Construction Permit; Air Pollution Control Operation Permit Construction of an air pollution emissions source that is not specifically exempted 2015 SHINE intends to submit an application for a Type A Registration Construction Permit and Operation Permit in 2015. Federal CWA; Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 285; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 216 Construction Storm Water Discharge Permit Discharge of stormwater runoff from the construction site 2015 SHINE intends to submit a Water Resource Application for Project Permits to request coverage under a General Permit in 2015 at least 14 working days before construction begins. Federal CWA; Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 285; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 216 Industrial Storm Water Discharge Permit Discharge of stormwater runoff from the site during facility operation 2018 SHINE intends to submit a No Exposure Certification at least 14 working days before initiation of operations in 2017. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapters 280 and 281; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 809 Approval Letters Construction by the City of Janesville of water and sanitary sewer extensions to the SHINE facility 2015 A permit is to be requested by the City of Janesville. Appendix B B-11 Agency Regulatory Authority Permit or Approval Summary of Activities Expected Timeframe of Receipt Status Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 291; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 660, 662, and/or 666 Compliance with hazardous waste notification, record keeping, and reporting requirements Generation of hazardous waste 2018 SHINE intends to notify WDNR of Storage and Treatment Conditional Exemption (NR 666, Subchapter N) in 2018 or within 90 days of low-level mixed waste generation. Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 101; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapters SPS 361 and 362 Building Plan Review Compliance with State building codes required before a local building permit can be issued for a commercial building 2015 The Building Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit the Building Plan in 2015. Wisconsin DOT Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 85; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter Trans 231 Permit for Connection to State Trunk Highway Construction of driveway connection to U.S. Route 51 2015 SHINE intends to request the permit simultaneously or before the submission of the Site Plan in 2015. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 85; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter Trans 231 Right-of-Entry Permit Construction by the City of Janesville of utility extensions across U.S. Route 51 2015 The permit is to be requested by the City of Janesville. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 114; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter Trans 56 Variance from Height Limitation Zoning Ordinances Construction of structures that exceed height limitations established for Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport 2015 SHINE does not anticipate that this variance will be needed based on the refined building and stack heights developed during the Preliminary Design. Appendix B B-12 Agency Regulatory Authority Permit or Approval Summary of Activities Expected Timeframe of Receipt Status Permits and Approvals from Local Agencies City of Janesville Community Development Department City of Janesville Ordinance 18.24.050.A Site Plan Approval (includes Building Site Permit for the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport Overlay District) Administrative approval of the site layout and plans for parking, lighting, landscaping, and similar local issues 2015 The Final Site Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit Site Plan and building elevations in 2015. City of Janesville Ordinance 15.06.070 Stormwater Plan Approval (may be included in Site Plan Approval) Administrative approval of grading and drainage plans 2015 The Final Stormwater Management Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit Stormwater Management Plan with Site Plan in 2015. City of Janesville Ordinance 15.05.080 Erosion Control Permit (may be included in Site Plan Approval) Administrative approval of erosion control plans 2015 The Final Erosion Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit the Erosion Control Plan with the Site Plan in Q2 2015. City of Janesville Ordinance 13.16 Sanitary Sewer and Water Supply Facility Approvals Administrative approval of construction, installation, and operation of connections to the municipal sewer and water supply systems 2015 The final plans are complete; construction and installation were approved in the Plumbing Plan. For operation, SHINE intends to provide baseline monitoring report to wastewater treatment plant at least 90 days before discharge in 2016. City of Janesville Ordinance 15.01.100.A Plumbing Plan Approval Installation of plumbing systems 2015 The Final Plumbing Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit the Plumbing Plan with the Building Plan in 2015. Appendix B B-13 Agency Regulatory Authority Permit or Approval Summary of Activities Expected Timeframe of Receipt Status City of Janesville Ordinance 15.04.010.A HVAC Plan Approval Installation of HVAC systems 2015 The Final HVAC Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit the HVAC Plan with the Building Plan in 2015. City of Janesville Ordinance 8.32.010 Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Permit Installation of sprinkler and alarm systems 2015 The Final Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit the Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Plan with the Building Plan in 2015. City of Janesville Ordinance 15.01.100.A Building Permit Construction of buildings 2015 SHINE intends to submit the Building Plan in 2015. City of Janesville Ordinance 15.01.190.A Occupancy Permit Occupancy of completed buildings 2018 Each building would be inspected after construction to allow occupancy. Rock County Highway Department Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 84; Rock County Utility Accommodation Policy 96.00 Permit to Construct, Maintain, and Operate Utilities within Highway Right-of-Way Construction by the City of Janesville of utility extensions across County Trunk Highway G 2015 Plans and specifications will be submitted by the City of Janesville once the Site Plan is approved, likely in 2015. Source: SHINE 2015 B.3 References 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." 10 CFR Part 30. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 30, "Rules of general applicability to domestic licensing of byproduct material." 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, "Domestic licensing of source material." 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." 10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, "Domestic licensing of special nuclear material." Appendix B B-14 14 CFR Part 77. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Aeronautics and Space, Part 77, "Safe, efficient use, and preservation of the navigable airspace." 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, "Occupational safety and health standards." 29 CFR Part 1960. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1960, "Basic program elements for federal employee occupational safety and health programs and related matters." 33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 320, "General regulatory policies." 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 800, "Protection of historic properties." 40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, "National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards." 40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112, "Oil pollution prevention." 40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, "EPA administered permit programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System." 40 CFR Part 260. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 260, "Hazardous Waste Management System: General." 49 CFR Part 107. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 107, "Hazardous materials program procedures." 59 FR 7629. Executive Order No. 12898. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." Federal Register 59(32):7629-7633. February 16, 1994. 60 FR 6381. Executive Order No. 12948. "Amendment to Executive Order No. 12898." Federal Register 60(21):6381. February 1, 1995. 62 FR 19885. Executive Order No. 13045. "Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks." Federal Register 62(78):19885-19888. April 21, 1997. 69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register 69(163):52040-52048. August 24, 2004. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §2011 et seq. Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §5801 et seq. [FAA] Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or alteration." February 1, 2012. [FAA] Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-2, "Supplemental Notice." July 1, 1998. Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq. Appendix B B-15 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §661 et seq. Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1975, as amended. 49 U.S.C. §5101 et seq. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq. Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4901 et seq. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. 29 U.S.C. §651. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C. §13101 et seq. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404. [WDHS] Wisconsin Department of Health Services. "Radiation Protection." 2014. Available at <http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/radiation> (accessed 12 August 2014). Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1271 et seq.

CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE

C-1 C. CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE This appendix, along with Appendix D, contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and external parties as part of its environmental review for the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), Medical Radioisotope Production Facility (SHINE facility). Appendix D contains the chronological listing of consultation correspondence associated with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801-1884). Appendix C contains all other correspondence. All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information, are available electronically in the NRC's Library, which is found on the Internet at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain access to the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the agency's public documents. The following list includes the ADAMS number for each document. If you need assistance in accessing or searching in ADAMS, contact the Public Document Room Staff at 1-800-397-4209. C.1 Environmental Review Correspondence Table C-1 lists the environmental review correspondence in date order, beginning with the request by SHINE to construct the SHINE facility. Table C-1. Environmental Review Correspondence Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No. March 26, 2013 Construction Permit Application, Part 1 ML13088A192 May 8, 2013 NRC Federal Register Notice (FRN) of Receipt and Availability of Part 1 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application ML13119A240 May 8, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Receipt and Availability of Part 1 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application ML13119A236 May 31, 2013 Construction Permit Application, Part 2 ML13172A361 June 24, 2014 NRC FRN of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping ML13157A350 June 24, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping ML13157A355 June 25, 2013 NRC FRN of Acceptance for Docketing Part 1 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application ML13150A389 June 25, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Acceptance for Docketing Part 1 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application ML13150A280 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Request for List of Federally Listed Species and Habitats for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13134A385 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Request for Scoping Comments on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13135A304 Appendix C C-2 Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No. July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A011 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Wisconsin Historical Society, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13135A635 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Prairie Island Indian Community, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Iowa Tribe, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Forest County Potawatomi Community, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Hannahville Indian Community, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Sac and Fox Nation, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 Appendix C C-3 Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No. July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Lower Sioux Indian Community, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Santee Sioux Nation, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Spirit Lake Tribe, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Upper Sioux Community, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 3, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Environmental Site Audit Regarding the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13168A562 July 3, 2013 Scoping Meeting Notice for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility ML13178A314 July 17, 2013 Construction Permit Process and Environmental Scoping Public Meeting Slides for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility ML13190A419 July 17, 2013 Transcript from the SHINE Scoping Meeting-Afternoon Session ML13260A280 July 17, 2013 Transcript from the SHINE Scoping Meeting-Evening Session ML13260A281 July 24, 2013 SHINE E-mail to NRC, Tour Route for the Environmental Site Audit ML13210A003 July 31, 2013 Forest County Potawatomi Community letter to NRC, Response to Request for Scoping Comments ML13224A164 August 13, 2013 Scoping Comment from Richard T. Henning ML13233A023 August 13, 2013 Scoping Comment from Al Lembrich ML13233A022 August 14, 2013 Scoping Comment from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ML13238A121 Appendix C C-4 Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No. August 15, 2013 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter to NRC, Response to the Request for a List of Federally Listed Species and Habitats for the SHINE Medical Technologies Environmental Review ML13234A020 August 30, 2013 SHINE to NRC, Draft Responses to Environmental Site Audit Needs ML13242A356, ML13242A367 September 3, 2013 Scoping Comment from Jamie Stout ML13263A012 September 11, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Request for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13231A041 September 23, 2013 Meeting Summary of the Environmental Scoping Public Meeting for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility ML13260A294 October 4, 2013 SHINE letter to NRC, Response to Requests for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13303A887 December 2, 2013 NRC FRN of Acceptance for Docketing Part 2 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application ML13316B349 December 2, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Acceptance for Docketing Part 2 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application ML13316B387 February 7, 2014 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources letter to NRC, Scoping Comments for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML14045A298 September 19, 2014 NRC letter to SHINE, Request for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Construction Permit Review ML14195A159 October 15, 2014 SHINE letter to NRC, Response to Requests for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Construction Permit Review ML14296A189 January 6, 2015 NRC letter to SHINE, Request for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Construction Permit Review ML15005A407 February 3, 2015 Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and the NRC on the Environmental Review Related to the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility ML13304B666 February 6, 2015 SHINE letter to NRC, Response to Requests for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Construction Permit Review ML15043A404 March 3, 2015 NRC letter to SHINE, Proposed Review Schedule, Notice of Hearing, Opportunity to Petition for Leave to Intervene, and Order Imposing Procedures Regarding Application for Construction Permit (TAC No. MF2307) ML15037A249 March 4, 2015 NRC FRN for the Notice of Hearing, Opportunity to Intervene, Order Imposing Procedures for the proposed SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility ML15037A108 May 8, 2015 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15105A335 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15107A465 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15107A403 Appendix C C-5 Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No. May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Wisconsin Historical Society, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15107A183 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Prairie Island Indian Community, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Forest County Potawatomi Community, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Hannahville Indian Community, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Sac and Fox Nation, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Lower Sioux Indian Community, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Santee Sioux Nation, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Spirit Lake Tribe, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Upper Sioux Community, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 14, 2015 FRN for Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15105A291 May 18, 2015 Meeting Notice for the Public Meeting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15138A271 June 9, 2015 Comment from Logan Pappenfort, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma ML15175A169 Appendix C C-6 Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No. June 10, 2015 Comment from Bill McCoy ML15188A088 June 16, 2015 Comment from R. Vann Bynum, SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. ML15182A117 June 16, 2015 SHINE letter to NRC, Response to Requests for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Construction Permit Review ML15175A131 June 17, 2015 Comment by Al Lembrich ML15188A089 June 26, 2015 Comment by Leslie Eisenberg, Wisconsin Historical Society ML15191A323 July 1, 2015 Meeting Summary for the Public Meeting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15170A262 July 2, 2015 Comment by Kenneth Westlake, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ML15201A575 July 2, 2015 Comment by Laura Bub, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ML15189A069 July 6, 2015 Comment by Lindy Nelson, U.S. Department of Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) ML15191A322 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE

D-1 D. CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE D.1 Section 7 Consultation D.1.1 Federal Agency Obligations Under ESA Section 7 As a Federal agency, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1531 et seq.; herein referred to as ESA), as part of any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency, such as the proposed agency action that this environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluates: whether to issue a construction permit under 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility). Under section 7 of the ESA, the NRC must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (referred to jointly as "the Services" and individually as "Service"), as appropriate, to ensure that the proposed agency action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. The ESA and the regulations that implement ESA section 7, 50 CFR Part 402, "Interagency cooperation-Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended," describe the consultation process that Federal agencies must follow in support of agency actions. As part of this process, the Federal agency shall either request that the Services provide a list of any listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitats that may be present in the action area or request that the Services concur with a list of species and critical habitats that the Federal agency has created (50 CFR 402.12(c)). If it is determined that any such species or critical habitats may be present, the Federal agency is to prepare a biological assessment to evaluate the potential effects of the action and determine whether the species or critical habitat are likely to be adversely affected by the action (50 CFR 402.12(a); 16 U.S.C. 1536(c)). Furthermore, biological assessments are required for any agency action that is a "major construction activity" (50 CFR 402.12(b)), which the ESA regulations define to include major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; herein referred to as NEPA) (50 CFR 402.02). Federal agencies may fulfill their obligations to consult with the Services under ESA section 7 and to prepare a biological assessment in conjunction with the interagency cooperation procedures required by other statutes, including NEPA (50 CFR 402.06(a)). In such cases, the Federal agency should include the results of the ESA section 7 consultation in the NEPA document (50 CFR 402.06(b)). Accordingly, Section D.1.2 describes the biological assessment prepared for the proposed agency action evaluated in this EIS, and Section D.1.3 describes the chronology and results of the ESA section 7 consultation. D.1.2 Biological Assessment The NRC considers this EIS to fulfill its obligation to prepare a biological assessment under ESA section 7. Accordingly, the NRC did not prepare a separate biological assessment for the proposed SHINE facility construction permit. Although the contents of a biological assessment are at the discretion of the Federal agency (50 CFR 402.12(f)), the ESA regulations suggest information that agencies may consider for inclusion. The NRC has considered this information in the following EIS sections. Appendix D D-2 Section 3.5 describes the action area and the Federally listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that have the potential to be present in the action area. This section includes information pursuant to 50 CFR 402.12(f)(1), (2), and (3). Section 4.5 provides an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility on the species and critical habitat present and the NRC's effect determinations, which are consistent with those identified in Section 3.5 of the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1998). The NRC also addresses cumulative effects and alternatives to the proposed action. This section includes information under 50 CFR 402.12(f)(4) and (5). D.1.3 Chronology of ESA Section 7 Consultation Upon receipt of SHINE's construction permit application, the NRC staff considered whether any Federally listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitats may be present in the action area (as defined at 50 CFR 402.02) for the proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning. No species under the NMFS's jurisdiction occur within the action area. Therefore, the NRC staff did not consult with the NMFS. With respect to species under the FWS's jurisdiction, the NRC staff requested information from FWS on Federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of the SHINE site and the two alternative sites, in accordance with the ESA section 7 regulations at 50 CFR 402.12(c) in a letter dated July 1, 2013. The FWS responded to the NRC staff's request in a letter dated August 15, 2013, and stated that "no Federally-listed, proposed, or candidate species would be expected within the project area. No critical habitat is present. If any construction is to take place within these two sites, there is no need for further action as required by the 1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended." In Section 3.5, the NRC staff concludes that no ESA-protected species or critical habitats occur in the action area, and Section 4.5 concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on any ESA-protected species or critical habitats. The FWS (2013) does not typically provide its concurrence with "no effect" determinations by Federal agencies. Thus, the ESA does not require further informal consultation or the initiation of formal consultation with the FWS for the proposed SHINE construction permit. Nonetheless, because this EIS constitutes the NRC's biological assessment, the NRC staff submitted a copy of the draft EIS to the FWS for its review in accordance with 50 CFR 402.12(j) in a letter dated May 13, 2015. In response, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance stated that the DOI has no comments on the draft EIS. Accordingly, the NRC has fulfilled its obligations under ESA section 7 for the review of SHINE's construction permit. Table D-1. lists the letters, e-mails, and other correspondence related to the NRC's ESA obligations with respect to its review of the SHINE construction permit application. Appendix D D-3 Table D-1. Section 7 Consultation Correspondence Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS No.(a) July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to P. Fasbender (FWS) Request for a list of Federally listed species and habitats for the SHINE Medical Technologies Environmental Review ML13134A385 August 15, 2013 P. Fasbender (FWS) to M. Wong (NRC) Response to the request for a list of Federally listed species and habitats for the SHINE Medical Technologies Environmental Review ML13234A020 May 13, 2015 D. Wrona (NRC) to P. Fasbender (FWS) and T. Melius (FWS) Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Determination that the Proposed Action Would Have No Effect on Federally Listed or Proposed Species or Critical Habitats ML15107A465 July 6, 2015 L. Nelson (DOI) to C. Bladey (NRC) DOI Comments of the Draft EIS ML15191A322 (a) These documents can be accessed through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at the following URL: http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/. D.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation The NRC must comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., herein referred to as MSA), for any actions authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under the MSA. In Section 3.5 of this EIS, the NRC staff concludes that NMFS has not designated essential fish habitat under the MSA in the Rock River and that the proposed SHINE construction permit would have no effect on essential fish habitat. Thus, the MSA does not require the NRC to consult with NMFS for the proposed SHINE construction permit. D.3 Section 106 Consultation D.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., herein referred to as NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and consult with applicable State and Federal agencies, tribal groups, and individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking before taking action. Historic properties are defined as resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The historic preservation review process (NHPA, Section 106) is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 36 CFR Part 800. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC has elected to use the NEPA process to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. Appendix D D-4 Table D-2. lists the chronology of consultations and consultation documents related to the NRC Section 106 review. The NRC staff is required to consult with the noted agencies and organizations in accordance with the statutes listed above. Table D-2. NHPA Correspondence Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS No.(a) July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to E. Brown, Wisconsin Historical Society Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13135A635 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. Nelson (ACHP) Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A011 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. Barrett, Citizen Potawatomi Nation Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to M. Wiggins, Jr., Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to S. Bearheart, St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to C. Corn, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to A. Reider, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. Rowe-Kurak, Iowa Tribe Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to H. Frank, Forest County Potawatomi Community Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to K. Meshigaud, Hannahville Indian Community Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. Greendeer, Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to G. Thurman, Sac and Fox Nation Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to D. Prescott, Lower Sioux Indian Community Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to S. Ortiz, Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 Appendix D D-5 Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS No.(a) July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. Johnson, Prairie Island Indian Community Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. Trudell, Santee Sioux Nation Response to request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. Shepherd, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. Yankton, Sr., Spirit Lake Tribe Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to K. Jensvold, Upper Sioux Community Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. Froman, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. Blackhawk, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 31, 2013 M. Cook, Forest County Potawatomi Community, to M. Wong (NRC) Response to request for scoping comments ML13224A164 May 13, 2015 D. Wrona (NRC) to Tribal Nations recipients of request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review letter Request for DSEIS comments ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 D. Wrona (NRC) to R. Nelson (ACHP) Request for DSEIS comments ML15107A403 May 13, 2015 D. Wrona (NRC) to E. Brown, Wisconsin Historical Society Request for DSEIS comments ML15107A183 June 9, 2015 L. Pappenfort, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma to C. Bladey (NRC) Letter indicating no known linkage or association with the proposed project location. ML15175A169 June 26, 2015 L. Eisenberg, Wisconsin Historical Society to C. Bladey (NRC) Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office documentation of No Historic Properties determination ML15191A323 (a) These documents can be accessed through ADAMS at http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/. D.4 References 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." Appendix D D-6 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 800, "Protection of historic properties." 50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, "Interagency cooperation-Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended." [ESA] Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. [FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. "Endangered Species Program: What We Do: Consultations: Frequently Asked Questions." July 15, 2013. Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/faq.html#8> (accessed 5 June 2014). [FWS and NMFS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. March 1998. 315 p. Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf> (accessed 8 July 2013). [MSA] Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq. [NEPA] National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. [NHPA] National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.

NUREG-2183 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility October 2015 Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility Final Report Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NUREG-2183 AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALSIN NRC PUBLICATIONSNRC Reference MaterialAs of November 1999, you may electronically access NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at NRC's Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins and information notices; inspection and investigative reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers and their attachments.NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations, and Title 10, "Energy," in the Code of Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one of these two sources.1. The Superintendent of Documents Mail Stop IDCC Washington, DC 20402-0001 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Telephone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-21042. The National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd., Alexandria, VA 22312-0002 www.ntis.gov 1-800-553-6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request as follows:Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Publications Branch Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: distribution.resource@nrc.gov Facsimile: (301) 415-2289Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted at NRC's Web site address www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs are updated periodically and may differ from the last printed version. Although references to material found on a Web site bear the date the material was accessed, the material available on the date cited may subsequently be removed from the site.Non-NRC Reference MaterialDocuments available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased from their sponsoring organization.Copies of industry codes and standards used in asubstantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at-The NRC Technical Library Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738These standards are available in the library for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from-American National Standards Institute 11 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036-8002 www.ansi.org (212) 642-4900Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical speci-views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this series are not necessarily those of the NRC.The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and adminis-trative reports and books prepared by the staff (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports resulting from international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors' decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations (NUREG-0750).DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this publication, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility Final Report

Manuscript Completed: October 2015 Date Published: October 2015

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NUREG-2183

iii COVER SHEET Responsible Agency: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The U.S. Department of Energy is a cooperating agency involved in the preparation of this environmental impact statement (EIS). Title: Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Final Report The proposed SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), facility would be located in Janesville, Wisconsin. Additional information or copies of this document are available through the following: Division of License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mail Stop O-11F1 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Phone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 6509 Fax: 301-415-2002 E-mail: Michelle.Moser@nrc.gov ABSTRACT The U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) in response to an application submitted by SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), for a construction permit for the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility. The EIS includes the analysis that evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action and considers the following three alternatives to the proposed action: (1) the no-action alternative (i.e., the construction permit is denied), (2) two alternative sites, and (3) one alternative technology. After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, the NRC staff recommends, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the issuance of the construction permit to SHINE. The NRC staff based its recommendation on the following factors: SHINE's Environmental Report; the NRC staff's consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; the NRC staff's independent environmental review; and the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ v FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. xi TABLES ................................................................................................................................. xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... xvii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................... xxi

1.0 INTRODUCTION

......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Molybdenum-99 ................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Iodine-131 ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.1.3 Xenon-133 ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Proposed Federal Action .................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action ........................................ 1-3 1.4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Review .......................... 1-4 1.5 Cooperating Agency ........................................................................................ 1-5 1.6 Consultation and Correspondence ................................................................... 1-6 1.7 Status of Compliance ....................................................................................... 1-7 1.8 References ...................................................................................................... 1-7 2.0 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION ................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Site Location and Layout .................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Construction Activities ...................................................................................... 2-4 2.3 Facility Operations ........................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.1 Proposed Technology ........................................................................ 2-7 2.3.2 Radioisotope Production Process Overview ...................................... 2-8 2.4 Power Requirements ..................................................................................... 2-11 2.5 Water Use, Treatment, and Discharges ......................................................... 2-12 2.5.1 Water Use ....................................................................................... 2-12 2.5.2 Water Treatment ............................................................................. 2-12 2.5.3 Water Discharges ............................................................................ 2-12 2.6 Cooling and Heating Dissipation Systems ...................................................... 2-13 2.6.1 Cooling Systems ............................................................................. 2-13 2.6.2 Heating Systems ............................................................................. 2-13 2.7 Storage, Treatment, and Transportation of Radioactive and Nonradioactive Waste .................................................................................... 2-13 2.7.1 Radioactive Wastes ......................................................................... 2-13 2.7.2 Nonradioactive Waste ..................................................................... 2-16 2.7.3 Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Program .................... 2-17 2.8 Facility Decommissioning ............................................................................... 2-18 Table of Contents vi 2.9 Related Actions .............................................................................................. 2-18 2.10 References .................................................................................................... 2-19 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources ...................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Land Use ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Visual Resources............................................................................... 3-8 3.2 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise ................................................................. 3-8 3.2.1 Meteorology and Climatology .......................................................... 3-10 3.2.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................ 3-12 3.2.3 Noise ............................................................................................... 3-16 3.3 Geologic Environment .................................................................................... 3-18 3.3.1 Site Geology .................................................................................... 3-18 3.3.2 Soils ................................................................................................ 3-21 3.3.3 Seismic Setting ................................................................................ 3-22 3.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 3-23 3.4.1 Surface Water ................................................................................. 3-23 3.4.2 Groundwater .................................................................................... 3-26 3.5 Ecological Resources .................................................................................... 3-29 3.5.1 Ecoregion ........................................................................................ 3-29 3.5.2 Site .................................................................................................. 3-30 3.5.3 Habitats in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site .................................... 3-31 3.5.4 Protected Species and Habitats ....................................................... 3-34 3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 3-38 3.6.1 Cultural Background ........................................................................ 3-38 3.6.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources ........................................... 3-40 3.7 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................. 3-40 3.7.1 Population Growth Rates and Projections ....................................... 3-40 3.7.2 Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................... 3-41 3.7.3 Transient Population ........................................................................ 3-42 3.7.4 Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment ............................... 3-42 3.7.5 Income and Wages .......................................................................... 3-44 3.7.6 Poverty Rates .................................................................................. 3-44 3.7.7 Housing ........................................................................................... 3-45 3.7.8 Local Employers .............................................................................. 3-45 3.7.9 Taxes .............................................................................................. 3-46 3.7.10 Education ........................................................................................ 3-47 3.7.11 Tourism, Activity Centers, and Recreation for the City of Janesville and Rock County ............................................................ 3-47 3.7.12 Public Services ................................................................................ 3-49 3.8 Human Health ................................................................................................ 3-50 3.8.1 Regulatory Radiological Requirements ............................................ 3-50 Table of Contents vii 3.8.2 Chemical Hazards ........................................................................... 3-52 3.8.3 Other Hazards ................................................................................. 3-52 3.9 Transportation Environments ......................................................................... 3-52 3.9.1 Roads .............................................................................................. 3-52 3.9.2 Airports ............................................................................................ 3-55 3.9.3 Rail .................................................................................................. 3-55 3.10 References .................................................................................................... 3-55 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AND DECOMMISSIONING .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources ...................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Land Use ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Visual Resources............................................................................... 4-4 4.2 Air Quality and Noise ....................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.1 Construction ...................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.2 Operations ....................................................................................... 4-10 4.2.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-14 4.3 Geologic Environment .................................................................................... 4-17 4.3.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-17 4.3.2 Operations ....................................................................................... 4-18 4.3.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-19 4.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 4-19 4.4.1 Surface Water ................................................................................. 4-19 4.4.2 Groundwater .................................................................................... 4-22 4.5 Ecological Resources .................................................................................... 4-25 4.5.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-25 4.5.2 Operations ....................................................................................... 4-26 4.5.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-27 4.5.4 Federally Protected Species ............................................................ 4-27 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 4-28 4.6.1 Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................... 4-28 4.6.2 Proposed Action .............................................................................. 4-28 4.6.3 Consultation .................................................................................... 4-28 4.6.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................... 4-29 4.7 Socioeconomic Impacts ................................................................................. 4-31 4.7.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-31 4.7.2 Operations ....................................................................................... 4-34 4.7.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-35 4.8 Human Health ................................................................................................ 4-36 4.8.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-36 4.8.2 Operations ....................................................................................... 4-37 4.8.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-39 Table of Contents viii 4.9 Waste Management ....................................................................................... 4-41 4.9.1 Radioactive Waste ........................................................................... 4-41 4.9.2 Nonradioactive Waste ..................................................................... 4-43 4.10 Transportation ................................................................................................ 4-43 4.10.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-43 4.10.2 Operations ....................................................................................... 4-44 4.10.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-45 4.11 Accidents ....................................................................................................... 4-46 4.11.1 Maximum Hypothetical Accident ...................................................... 4-47 4.11.2 Hazardous Chemical Accidents ....................................................... 4-49 4.12 Environmental Justice .................................................................................... 4-52 4.13 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-61 4.13.1 Land Use and Visual Resources ...................................................... 4-62 4.13.2 Air Quality and Noise ....................................................................... 4-63 4.13.3 Geologic Environment ..................................................................... 4-66 4.13.4 Water Resources ............................................................................. 4-67 4.13.5 Ecological Resources ...................................................................... 4-69 4.13.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................... 4-71 4.13.7 Socioeconomics .............................................................................. 4-71 4.13.8 Human Health ................................................................................. 4-72 4.13.9 Waste Management ........................................................................ 4-73 4.13.10 Transportation ................................................................................. 4-75 4.13.11 Environmental Justice ..................................................................... 4-76 4.13.12 Summary ......................................................................................... 4-77 4.14 References .................................................................................................... 4-79 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 No-Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Alternative Sites ............................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.1 Description of Alternative Site-Selection Process .............................. 5-2 5.2.2 Chippewa Falls Site ........................................................................... 5-6 5.2.3 Stevens Point Site ........................................................................... 5-48 5.3 Alternative Technologies ................................................................................ 5-92 5.3.1 Identification of Reasonable Alternatives ......................................... 5-92 5.3.2 Neutron Capture Alternative ............................................................ 5-93 5.3.3 Aqueous Homogenous Reactor Alternative ..................................... 5-93 5.3.4 Linear-Accelerator-Based Alternative .............................................. 5-94 5.4 Cost-Benefit Comparison ............................................................................... 5-99 5.4.1 Benefit and Costs of Alternatives ................................................... 5-103 5.4.2 Cost Benefit Conclusions ............................................................... 5-105 5.5 Alternatives Summary .................................................................................. 5-106 5.6 References .................................................................................................. 5-106 Table of Contents ix 

6.0 CONCLUSION

S .......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action ................................................ 6-1 6.2 Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................. 6-4 6.3 Resource Commitments ................................................................................... 6-5 6.3.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts .................................... 6-5 6.3.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ................................................................... 6-11 6.3.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ................. 6-12 6.4 Recommendation ........................................................................................... 6-13 6.5 References .................................................................................................... 6-13 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................... 7-1 8.0 INDEX ......................................................................................................................... 8-1 9.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ARE SENT .............................. 9-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SHINE MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .............................. A-1 APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... B-1 CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE .................................................................................. C-1 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE ..................................................... D-1

Table of Contents xi FIGURES Figure 1-1. Environmental Review Process .......................................................................... 1-6 Figure 2-1. Region Surrounding the Proposed SHINE Facility .............................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2. Proposed SHINE Facility and Surrounding Area Within a 1-mi (1.6-km) Radius ................................................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-3. Proposed SHINE Facility Conceptual Site Layout .............................................. 2-4 Figure 2-4. Conceptual View of the Proposed SHINE Facility ............................................... 2-6 Figure 2-5. Cutaway Conceptual Interior View of the SHINE Device .................................... 2-7 Figure 2-6. Conceptual Model of an Irradiation Unit.............................................................. 2-8 Figure 2-7. SHINE Radioisotope Production System Flow Diagram ..................................... 2-9 Figure 3-1. Aerial View of the Proposed SHINE Site ............................................................ 3-2 Figure 3-2. Cities and Major Roadways Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site ..................................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Proposed SHINE Site ......................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4. Visual Setting of the Proposed SHINE Site ........................................................ 3-9 Figure 3-5. Annual Average Wind Rose as Measured at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport ............................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-6. Proposed SHINE Facility Map Showing Noise Sources and Receptors ............ 3-18 Figure 3-7. Geologic Cross-Section of the Proposed SHINE Site and Vicinity .................... 3-20 Figure 3-8. Surface-Water Features in the Vicinity of the Proposed SHINE Site ................. 3-24 Figure 3-9. Existing Transportation Network Near the Proposed SHINE Facility ................ 3-53 Figure 4-1. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed SHINE Facility ............................................ 4-5 Figure 4-2. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site in Janesville ......................................................................................................... 4-55 Figure 4-3. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville.......................................................................................... 4-57 Figure 5-1. Population Centers and Transportation Features in Chippewa County, Wisconsin ........................................................................................................... 5-7 Figure 5-2. Chippewa Falls Site............................................................................................ 5-8 Figure 5-3. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site .................. 5-32 Figure 5-4. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site ........... 5-35 Figure 5-5. Population Centers and Transportation Features in Portage County, Wisconsin ......................................................................................................... 5-49 Figure 5-6. Stevens Point Site ............................................................................................ 5-50 Figure 5-7. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site .................... 5-77 Figure 5-8. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site ............. 5-78

Table of Contents xiii TABLES Table ES-1. Summary of NRC Conclusions on the Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, and Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE Facility ................................................................................................................. xix Table 2-1. Estimated Construction Material Requirements .................................................. 2-5 Table 2-2. Gaseous Radioactive Effluents ........................................................................ 2-14 Table 2-3. Summary of Major Chemical Inventory and Quantity at the Proposed SHINE Facility .................................................................................................. 2-17 Table 3-1. Summary of Land Use and Land Cover Within the Proposed SHINE Site and Vicinity ......................................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2. Crop Production Estimates for the Proposed SHINE Site and Within Rock County, Wisconsin ............................................................................................. 3-6 Table 3-3. Land Use in the City of Janesville....................................................................... 3-7 Table 3-4. Annual and Seasonal Precipitation and Temperature Data for the City of Janesville, Wisconsin ....................................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-5. National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................ 3-13 Table 3-6. Regional Air Emissions Inventory ..................................................................... 3-14 Table 3-7. Sound Levels and Human Response ............................................................... 3-16 Table 3-8. Wildlife Observed On or Near the Proposed Site .............................................. 3-30 Table 3-9. Common Fish Species in the Rock River and Tributaries Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed Site .............................................................................. 3-34 Table 3-10. Federally and State-Listed Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Proposed SHINE Site ....................................................................................... 3-36 Table 3-11. Resident Population for Rock County (1970-2050) .......................................... 3-41 Table 3-12. Race and Ethnicity for the City of Janesville and Rock County, Wisconsin, in 2010 ............................................................................................................. 3-41 Table 3-13. Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment Rates in the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin ....................................... 3-43 Table 3-14. Employment by Industry in Rock County for 2012 ............................................ 3-44 Table 3-15. Median Family Income and Per Capita Income for City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin ......................................................... 3-44 Table 3-16. People Living Below U.S. Census Poverty Thresholds for the City of Janesville, Rock County, and State of Wisconsin ............................................. 3-45 Table 3-17. Housing Unit Characteristics for the City of Janesville and Rock County .......... 3-45 Table 3-18. Ten Largest Employers in the City of Janesville (2014) .................................... 3-46 Table 3-19. Ten Largest Employers in Rock County (2014) ................................................ 3-46 Table 3-20. State-Owned Natural Areas in Rock County ..................................................... 3-48 Table 3-21. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site ......... 3-54 Table 3-22. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic Counts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site-Number of Vehicles .......................................... 3-55 Table 4-1. Acres of Land Required for Construction of the Proposed SHINE Facility .......... 4-3 Table 4-2. Equipment Used During Construction ................................................................ 4-6 Table of Contents xiv Table 4-3. Annual Air Emissions During Construction ......................................................... 4-7 Table 4-4. Fuel Combustion Sources ................................................................................ 4-11 Table 4-5. Fuel Combustion Emissions During Operations ............................................... 4-11 Table 4-6. SHINE Air Dispersion Modeling Results ........................................................... 4-12 Table 4-7. Vehicle Emissions During Operation ................................................................ 4-13 Table 4-8. Diesel Equipment Used During Decommissioning ............................................ 4-14 Table 4-9. Air Emissions During Decommissioning ........................................................... 4-16 Table 4-10. Water Requirements for SHINE Facil .................................... 4-23 Table 4-11. Water Requirements for SHINE ....................................... 4-24 Table 4-12. Comparison of SHINE Work Force Estimates by Occupation with Employment by Occupation in ROI ................................................................... 4-32 Table 4-13. SHINE Hazardous Chemical Source Terms and Concentrations...................... 4-50 Table 4-14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site in Janesville ......................................................................................................... 4-56 Table 4-15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville.......................................................................................... 4-58 Table 4-16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis .................................................. 4-61 Table 4-17. Cumulative Air Emission Effects Summary During SHINE Operation ............... 4-65 Table 4-18. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of the Proposed Project .................................................................................... 4-77 Table 5-1. Proposed SHINE Site-Selection Scoring Criteria ................................................ 5-6 Table 5-2. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the Chippewa Falls Site ..................................................................................................................... 5-9 Table 5-3. Federally and State-Protected Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Chippewa Falls Site .................................................................................... 5-20 Table 5-4. Annual Average Daily Traffic CountsVicinity of Chippewa Falls Site ............. 5-28 Table 5-5. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic CountsVicinity of Chippewa Falls SiteNumber of Vehicles ................................................... 5-28 Table 5-6. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site .................. 5-33 Table 5-7. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site ........... 5-34 Table 5-8. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions Within a 5-mi (8-km) Radius of the Chippewa Falls Site....................... 5-38 Table 5-9. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the Stevens Point Site ....... 5-51 Table 5-10. Vegetation on the Stevens Point Site ............................................................... 5-62 Table 5-11. Federally and State-Protected Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Stevens Point Site ...................................................................................... 5-63 Table 5-12. Annual Average Daily Traffic CountsVicinity of Stevens Point Site ............... 5-71 Table 5-13. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic CountsVicinity of the Stevens Point SiteNumber of Vehicles ................................................ 5-72 Table 5-14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site .................... 5-76 Table 5-15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site ............. 5-78 Table of Contents xv Table 5-16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Within a 5-mi (8-km) ROI of the Stevens Point Site ................................................................ 5-82 Table 5-17. Costs and Benefits of Constructing, Operating, and Decommissioning the Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville, Wisconsin, Site ............................ 5-100 Table 5-18. Comparison of Impacts for the Proposed SHINE Facility, Proposed Alternative Sites, and No-Action ..................................................................... 5-104 Table 5-19. Comparison of Technologies at the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville .... 5-105 Table 6-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from Construction, Operations, and Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville Site ............ 6-2 Table 6-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts .................................................... 6-5 Table 7-1. List of Preparers ................................................................................................. 7-1 Table 9-1. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of This Environmental Impact Statement Are Sent ......................................................... 9-1 Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Scoping Comment Period .............. A-2 Table A-2. Issue Categories ................................................................................................ A-2 Table A-3. Individuals Providing Comments During the Draft EIS Comment Period .......... A-18 Table A-4. Issue Categories .............................................................................................. A-19 Table B-1. Potentially Applicable Federal Statutes, Regulations, and Orders ...................... B-2 Table B-2. Potentially Applicable Wisconsin State Requirements ........................................ B-6 Table B-3. City of Janesville and Rock County, Wisconsin, Ordinances and Plans ............. B-8 Table B-4. Permits and Approvals Required for Construction and Operation ....................... B-9 Table C-1. Environmental Review Correspondence............................................................. C-1 Table D-1. Section 7 Consultation Correspondence ............................................................ D-3 Table D-2. NHPA Correspondence ...................................................................................... D-4

xvii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND By letter dated March 26, 2013, SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), submitted Part 1 of a two-part application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a construction permit for the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) in Janesville, Wisconsin. To issue a permit, the NRC is required to consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., herein referred to as NEPA). The NRC's environmental protection regulations that implement NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51 describe several types of actions that would require an environmental impact statement (EIS). The regulation at 10 CFR 51.20 does not specifically identify construction permits and operating licenses for production and utilization facilities as an action that would require an EIS. However, for the SHINE environmental review, the NRC staff determined that an EIS was appropriate to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC staff made this determination because of the potential for significant environmental impacts and the unique considerations of a first-of-a-kind application for a medical radioisotope production facility with a unique application of technologies, as well as to allow public involvement in the environmental review process. Upon acceptance of Part 1 of SHINE's application, the NRC staff began the environmental review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (78 FR 39343) to prepare an EIS and to conduct scoping activities. In preparation of this EIS, the NRC staff performed the following: conducted public scoping meetings on July 17, 2013, in Janesville, Wisconsin; conducted a site audit at the proposed SHINE site and alternative sites from July 30, 2013, to August 1, 2013; conducted public meetings on the draft EIS on June 10, 2015, in Janesville, Wisconsin; reviewed SHINE's Environmental Report; consulted with Federal, State, and local agencies; conducted a review of the guidance in Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors; and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria"; and considered public comments received. PROPOSED ACTION The proposed Federal action is for the NRC to decide whether to issue a construction permit under 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE facility, which would include up to eight utilization facilities and a production facility. If the NRC were to issue a construction permit, SHINE could build the proposed facility on a 91-acre (37-hectare) site in Rock County, Executive Summary xviii which is located about 4 miles (6 kilometers) south of the city center of Janesville, Wisconsin. The SHINE facility would produce, package, and ship medical radioisotopes, specifically molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. The U.S. Department of Energy is a cooperating agency on this EIS. If the NRC issues the required permits and licenses, the proposed Federal action for the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration is to decide whether to provide cost-sharing financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate the commercial production of medical radioisotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium. The funding would help accelerate activities, such as construction, purchase of equipment, and initial operation using a subcritical fission process. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose and need of this proposed Federal action is to provide a medical radioisotope production option that could help meet the need for a domestic source of molybdenum-99. The determination of need and the decision to produce radioisotopes are at the discretion of applicants or other medical radioisotope production decisionmakers. This definition of purpose and need reflects the NRC's recognition that, unless there are findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or findings in the environmental analysis under NEPA that would lead the NRC to reject a construction permit application, the agency does not have a role in the planning decisions as to whether a particular radioisotope production facility should be constructed and operated. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AND DECOMMISSIONING The EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. The environmental impacts from the proposed action are designated as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The following definitions of these three significance levels, as presented in the final interim staff guidance to NUREG-1537, apply: SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. In assessing radiological impacts, the NRC has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the agency's regulations are considered SMALL. MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource. LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. Table ES-1 summarizes the NRC staff's findings on the level of impacts on environmental resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. Executive Summary xix Table ES-1. Summary of NRC Conclusions on the Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, and Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE Facility Resource Area Impacts Land Use and Visual Resources SMALL Air Quality and Noise SMALL Geologic Environment SMALL Water Resources SMALL Ecological Resources SMALL Historic and Cultural Resources SMALL Socioeconomic Impacts SMALL Human Health SMALL Waste Management SMALL Transportation SMALL to MODERATE Accidents SMALL Environmental Justice See note below.(a) Cumulative Impacts Land Use and Visual Resources SMALL Air Quality and Noise SMALL Geologic Environment SMALL Water Resources SMALL Ecological Resources MODERATE Historic and Cultural Resources SMALL Socioeconomics Impacts SMALL Human Health SMALL Waste Management SMALL Transportation SMALL to MODERATE Environmental Justice See note below.(a) (a) There would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations and subsistence consumption from the proposed action and from cumulative impacts. ALTERNATIVES The NRC staff considered the environmental impacts associated with the following alternatives to constructing the SHINE facility at the Janesville site: the no-action alternative; construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site (Alternative Site No. 1); construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site (Alternative Site No. 2); and construction, operations, and decommissioning of a linear-accelerator-based facility at the SHINE site (alternative technology). The NRC staff evaluated each alternative using the same resource areas that were used in evaluating impacts from the proposed action. The NRC staff determined that the no-action alternative would result in SMALL impacts to all resource areas. However, the no-action alternative does not fulfill the purpose and need of the project. The environmentally preferred Executive Summary xx alternatives are the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility at the Janesville site. The impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternative technology would be SMALL for all resource areas with the exception of traffic, which would incur SMALL to MODERATE impacts. The NRC staff determined that the construction, operations, and decommissioning of building the SHINE facility at the alternative sites would likely result in greater impacts than the proposed action. RECOMMENDATION After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, the NRC staff recommends, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the issuance of the construction permit to SHINE. The NRC staff based its recommendation on the following factors: SHINE's Environmental Report; the NRC staff's consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; the NRC staff's independent environmental review; and the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received. xxi ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS C degree(s) Celsius F degree(s) Fahrenheit ac acre(s) ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level AERMOD American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable APE area of potential effect AQCR air quality control region BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act bgs below ground surface BIA U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics BMP best management practice B.P. before present Bq becquerels bu bushel(s) CAA Clean Air Act Ci curie CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CH4 methane cm centimeter CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2eq carbon dioxide equivalent CRMP cultural resource management plan CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel(s) dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale Abbreviations and Acronyms xxii DBA design-basis accident DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOL U.S. Department of Labor DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EA environmental assessment ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online (air data search tool) EIA Energy Information Administration EIS environmental impact statement EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ER Environmental Report ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ESA Endangered Species Act ES&H Environment, Health, and Safety (Manager) FAA U.S. Federal Aviation Administration FEMA U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA U.S. Federal Highway Administration FR Federal Register ft foot (feet) ft2 square foot (feet) FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GAI Golder Associates, Inc. gal gallon(s) GHG greenhouse gas GM General Motors gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute GTCC greater than Class C GWP global warming potential ha hectare(s) HAP hazardous air pollutant HEPA high-efficiency particulate air HEU highly enriched uranium hp horsepower hr hour(s) Abbreviations and Acronyms xxiii HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency in. inch IOM Institute of Medicine JBWI Rockford, Illinois-Janesville-Beloit, Wisconsin, Interstate K kindergarten km kilometer(s) kph kilometer(s) per hour km2 square kilometer(s) L liter(s) LDN day-night sound intensity level Lpd liter(s) per day m meter(s) m2 square meter(s) m3 cubic meter(s) m3/day cubic meter(s) per day m3/min cubic meter(s) per minute mi3/s cubic mile(s) per second mg/L milligram(s) per liter mg/m3 milligram(s) per cubic meter mgd million gallon(s) per day m/s meter(s) per second MAR material at risk MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mgd million gallons per day MHA maximum hypothetical accident mi mile min minute mph mile(s) per hour mi2 square mile(s) µg microgram µm microns µg/m3 microgram per cubic meter MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity MOA memorandum of agreement Abbreviations and Acronyms xxiv MOI maximum offsite individual mrem milliroentgen equivalent man MSL mean sea level mSv millisievert MT metric ton(s) NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC noise abatement criteria NCDC National Climatic Data Center NCES National Center for Education Statistics NEA Nuclear Energy Agency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS U.S. National Park Service NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NUREG NRC technical report designation (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PAC protective action criterion/criteria PGA peak ground acceleration PM particulate matter ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PSAR preliminary safety analysis report PSD prevention of significant deterioration RCA radiation-controlled area RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROI region of influence RM river mile Abbreviations and Acronyms xxv SER safety evaluation report SHINE SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIL significant impact level SNM Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging SO2 sulfur dioxide SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure SSC species of special concern TDS total dissolved solids TEEL Temporary Emergency Exposure Limit TIF Tax Increment Finance TMDL total maximum daily load TNM traffic noise model TPY tons per year TSP total suspended particles TSV target solution vessel µg microgram(s) µm micron(s) U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code USCB U.S. Census Bureau USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDOI U.S. Department of Interior USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program USGS U.S. Geological Service VOC volatile organic compound(s) WAC Wisconsin Administrative Code WDOA Wisconsin Department of Administration WDATCP Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources WDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation WDPI Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction WDR Wisconsin Department of Revenue WDWD Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development Abbreviations and Acronyms xxvi WGNHS Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey WHS Wisconsin Historical Society WI Wisconsin WPDES Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System WTP Wastewater Treatment Plant yd3 cubic yard(s) Y-12 Y-12 National Security Complex 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated March 26, 2013, SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), submitted Part 1 of a two-part application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a construction permit under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) in Janesville, Wisconsin (SHINE 2013). The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) authorizes the NRC to issue construction permits for production and utilization facilities. To issue a construction permit, the NRC is required to consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., herein referred to as NEPA). The NRC's environmental protection regulations that implement NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51 describe several types of actions that would require an environmental impact statement (EIS). Construction permits and operating licenses for production and subcritical utilization facilities are not specifically identified in 10 CFR 51.20 as an action that would require an EIS. Such activities may require an environmental assessment (EA) or an EIS, depending on their potential for significant impacts that may affect the quality of the human environment (NRC 2012). An EA is used to determine whether the impacts from the proposed action may be significant and whether a finding of no significant impact can be made. If, based on the EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action could result in significant impacts to the human environment, the agency should prepare an EIS. In some cases, the NRC may decide to environment or the proposed action involves a matter that the Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, has determined should be covered by an EIS. For the SHINE environmental review, the NRC staff determined that an EIS was appropriate to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC staff made this determination because of the potential for significant environmental impacts and the unique considerations of a first-of-a-kind application for a medical radioisotope production facility with a unique application of technologies, as well as to allow public involvement in the environmental review process. 1.1 Background Nuclear medicine practitioners frequently use a variety of radioisotopes to diagnose and treat illnesses in patients. Out of the many radioisotopes in use, three are relevant for this EIS-molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. 1.1.1 Molybdenum-99 Molybdenum-99 is the radioisotope currently in highest demand (NRC 2012) for medical use. Molybdenum-99 decays with a 66-hour half-life to technetium-99m, which in turn decays with a 6-hour half-life to technetium-99. Technetium-99m is the most commonly used medical radioisotope in the world. It is used in about 20 to 25 million medical diagnostic procedures annually, or about 80 percent of all diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures (IAEA 2013). Uses for technetium-99m include the following (SHINE 2015): bone scans, lung perfusion imaging, kidney scans and functional imaging, Introduction 1-2 liver scans, sentinel lymph node localization, cardiac perfusion imaging, brain perfusion imaging, gall bladder function imaging, blood pool imaging, thyroid and salivary gland imaging, and Meckel's scans. Molybdenum-99 is commonly produced through the neutron activation of naturally occurring molybdenum or as a by-product of uranium-235 fission. No U.S. domestic producers of molybdenum-99 exist. Almost the entire U.S. supply of molybdenum-99, as well as about 85 percent of the world's supply, is produced at the National Research Universal reactor in Chalk River, Ontario, Canada, or at the High Flux Reactor in Petten, the Netherlands (National Research Council 2009). The only other international producers are located in South Africa, Australia, Belgium, Poland, Czech Republic, and France. Serious domestic and international shortages over the last decade resulted from planned and unplanned maintenance shutdowns at these facilities (National Research Council 2009). In addition to issues of production reliability, global demand for the radioisotope is increasing, and transporting the radioisotope across international borders is becoming more difficult (National Research Council 2009). 1.1.2 Iodine-131 Iodine-131 is produced for medical use through irradiation of tellurium-130 or as a by-product of uranium-235 fission. Iodine-131 has a half-life of about 8 days. Uses of iodine-131 include the following: (1) radiation therapy and (2) radioactive labeling for diagnostic pharmaceuticals (SHINE 2015). Three companies-DRAXIMAGE, Covidien, and MDS Nordion-supply iodine-131 for the U.S. market (Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) 2011). As with molybdenum-99, reactor shutdowns have caused recent shortages in iodine-131. For example, in November 2013, the National Research Universal reactor shutdown led to a global shortage of a variety of medical isotopes (NEA 2011; Bloomberg 2013). 1.1.3 Xenon-133 Xenon-133 is produced as a by-product of uranium-235 fission. Its half-life is about 5 days. Uses of xenon-133 include the following: (1) lung imaging, (2) diagnostic evaluation of pulmonary function, and (3) assessment of cerebral blood flow (SHINE 2015). The domestic supply of xenon-133 also has been susceptible to shortages because of production and availability issues (Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNM) 2013). 1.2 Proposed Federal Action The proposed Federal action is for the NRC to decide whether to issue a construction permit under 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE facility, which would include up to eight utilization facilities and a production facility. If the NRC were to issue a construction Introduction 1-3 A curie (Ci) is a unit of measurement describing the radioactive disintegration rate of a substance; 1 Ci is 3.700x1010 disintegrations per second (Institute of Medicine (IOM) 1995). The term "6-day Ci" comes from producers to determine the number of curies present in a shipment 6 days after it leaves the production facility (National Research Council 2009). permit, SHINE could build the proposed facility on a 91-acre (37-hectare) site in Rock County, which is located about 4 mi (6 km) south of the city center of Janesville, Wisconsin. The issuance of a construction permit is a separate licensing action from the issuance of an operating license. If the NRC issues a construction permit, then SHINE must submit a separate application for an operating license, pursuant to the NRC's requirements, and must obtain NRC approval before it can operate the SHINE facility. If the NRC were to issue an operating license, SHINE could operate the proposed SHINE facility and produce radioisotopes, including molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133 (SHINE 2015). To conduct an efficient and effective environmental review, this EIS covers the potential impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning. If SHINE were to submit an application for an operating license, the NRC staff would prepare a supplement to this EIS in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(b). As described in Section 1.6, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a cooperating agency on this EIS. If the NRC issues the required permits and licenses, the proposed Federal action for the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is to decide whether to provide additional cost-sharing financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate the commercial production of medical radioisotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium. The funding would help accelerate activities such as construction, purchase of equipment, and initial operation using a subcritical fission process. Funding of these activities is a different action from the lease and takeback of uranium by DOE/NNSA. If SHINE were to request that NNSA provide it with low-enriched uranium or take back waste for which SHINE has no other disposal path, such activities would require a review under NEPA before DOE/NNSA could make any decision about these activities. 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action The purpose of and need for this proposed Federal action is to provide a medical radioisotope production option that could help meet the need for a domestic source of molybdenum-99. For the past 2 decades, the United States has relied on imported medical radioisotopes, such as molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. Molybdenum-99, for example, is used to perform about 50,000 medical procedures daily in the United States. Global shortages of medical radioisotopes in 2009 and 2010 have highlighted the need for prompt action to ensure a reliable domestic supply. Demand in the United States for molybdenum-99 is approximately 5,000 6-day curies (Ci) (2x1014 6-day becquerels (Bq)) per week. This demand is expected to increase about 0.5 percent per year (OECD 2014). In recent years, U.S. policy has aimed to ensure a reliable supply of medical radioisotopes while minimizing the use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes through, among other things, supporting commercial projects that produce medical radioisotopes domestically without the use of highly enriched uranium (NNSA 2011; White House 2012). In response to these shortages, and pursuant to the January 2013 enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013, Title XXXI, Subtitle F, known as the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065 et seq.), DOE/NNSA has entered into cooperative agreements with domestic commercial firms. These agreements enable DOE/NNSA to engage in cost-sharing activities to accelerate domestic endeavors to demonstrate and produce a reliable supply of molybdenum-99 using technologies that do not Introduction 1-4 rely on the use of highly enriched uranium, in accordance with Section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352) (NNSA 2011). The proposed action for the NRC is to decide whether to issue a construction permit, which would allow SHINE to construct a facility that uses low-enriched uranium to produce molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. If the construction permit is granted, SHINE would then have to apply for an operating license. The NRC would conduct a separate review to decide on issuing an operating license. If the facility is licensed to operate, SHINE expects to produce up to 8,200 6-day Ci (3.0x1014 6-day Bq) of molybdenum-99 per week (SHINE 2015). 1.4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Review The NRC's process to review applications for construction permits consists of two separate, parallel reviews. The safety review evaluates the applicant's ability to meet the NRC regulatory safety requirements. The NRC staff documents the findings of the safety review in a Safety Evaluation Report. The environmental review, governed by the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51, evaluates the environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed action. This final EIS presents the results of this evaluation. The NRC considers the findings in both the EIS and the Safety Evaluation Report in its decision to grant or deny the issuance of a construction permit. To guide its assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed action or alternative actions, the NRC established a standard of significance for impacts using the Council on Environmental Quality terminology for "significantly" (40 CFR 1508.27). Because the significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, both "context" and "intensity," as defined in CEQ regulation 40 CFR 1508.27, were considered (see text box). Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE, as defined below. SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource. LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. In March 2013, SHINE submitted its Environmental Report (SHINE 2013) with Part 1 of its application for a construction permit. After reviewing Part 1 of the application for sufficiency, on July 1, 2013, the NRC staff published a Notice of Acceptance for Docketing in the Federal Register (78 FR 39342) and a separate Federal Register notice of its intent to prepare an EIS and conduct a scoping process (78 FR 39343). The July 1, 2013, scoping notice began the 60-day scoping period. Significance indicates the importance of likely environmental impacts and is determined by considering two variables: context and intensity. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects will occur. Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, in whatever context it occurs. The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 directs DOE to improve the reliability of a domestic supply of molybdenum-99 by carrying out a technology-neutral program to support non-Federal entities in the United States in developing capabilities to produce molybdenum-99 without the use of highly enriched uranium. Introduction 1-5 On July 17, 2013, the NRC held two public scoping meetings in Janesville, Wisconsin. The NRC's report entitled, "Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility," presents the comments received during the scoping process (NRC 2015a). In July and August 2013, the NRC staff conducted a site audit at the proposed and alternative SHINE facility sites to verify information in SHINE's Environmental Report. During the site audit, the NRC staff met with SHINE personnel; reviewed specific documentation; toured the proposed and alternative sites; and met with interested Federal, State, and local agencies. Figure 1-1 shows the major milestones in the public review of an EIS. After the scoping period and site audit, the NRC staff compiled its findings in a draft EIS (NRC 2015b). The public comment period for the draft EIS was from May 22, 2015, through July 6, 2015 (80 FR 29701). The draft EIS was available for public comment for 45 days, which is the minimum required by 10 CFR 51.73. During this time, the NRC staff hosted two public meetings (NRC 2015c) and collected public comments (see Appendix A.2 for comments received and NRC responses). Based on the information gathered, the NRC staff amended the draft EIS findings as necessary and then published this final EIS. 1.5 Cooperating Agency NEPA lays the groundwork for coordination between the lead agency preparing an EIS and other Federal agencies that may have special expertise on an environmental issue or that have jurisdiction by law. These other agencies, referred to as "cooperating agencies," are responsible for assisting the lead agency through early participation in the NEPA process, including scoping. The cooperating agencies provide technical input to the environmental analysis and provide staff support, as needed, to the lead agency. The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 directs DOE and the NRC to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that environmental reviews for facilities to produce medical radioisotopes are complementary and not duplicative. The NRC makes license decisions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and DOE makes funding decisions under the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352). The NRC is required to conduct an environmental review under NEPA to decide whether to grant SHINE a construction permit. DOE is required to conduct an environmental review under NEPA for providing financial support to SHINE. The NRC and DOE decided to develop a Memorandum of Agreement to make the most effective and efficient use of Federal resources in reviewing SHINE's proposal. On December 1, 2014, and February 3, 2015, the NRC and DOE signed a Memorandum of Agreement on the review of the SHINE application (DOE and NRC 2015). The goal of this agreement is to develop one EIS that serves the NRC licensing process and the DOE funding process. Although both agencies must meet NEPA requirements, they also must meet mission requirements. As a cooperating agency, DOE/NNSA plans to adopt the final EIS in accordance with the DOE/NEPA implementing procedures in 10 CFR 1021.103. The Memorandum of Agreement designates the NRC as the lead Federal agency and DOE as a cooperating agency in developing an EIS for the proposed SHINE facility. Under Federal law, each agency has jurisdiction related to parts of the proposed project as major Federal actions that could significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Introduction 1-6 Figure 1-1. Environmental Review Process 1.6 Consultation and Correspondence The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) require Federal agencies to consult with applicable State and Federal agencies and groups before taking actions that may affect endangered species, fisheries, and historic and archaeological resources. In addition to correspondence, as part of formal consultation requirements, the NRC staff contacted Federal, State, regional, local, and tribal agencies with environmental expertise in the areas that the proposed project could potentially affect. Agencies contacted during the formal consultation processes and the SHINE environmental review process included the following: NRC staff reviews application Staff conducts site environmental audit NRC issues draft EIS Application submitted to NRC *Scoping process *Draft EIS process NRC issues final EIS NRC makes decision on whether to issue a construction permit or license *Opportunities for public involvement Introduction 1-7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, Iowa Tribe, Forest County Potawatomi Community, Hannahville Indian Community, Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, Sac and Fox Nation, Lower Sioux Indian Community, Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Prairie Island Indian Community, Santee Sioux Nation, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Spirit Lake Tribe, Upper Sioux Community, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office. Chapter 9 provides a list of those who received a copy of this EIS. Appendix C contains a chronological list of all correspondence sent and received during the environmental review. 1.7 Status of Compliance SHINE is responsible for complying with applicable NRC regulations and other Federal, State, and local requirements. Appendix B to this EIS includes a list of the permits and licenses that Federal, State, and local authorities must issue to SHINE before construction or operation of the proposed facility. 1.8 References 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." Introduction 1-8 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions." 10 CFR Part 1021. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 1021, "National Environmental Policy Act implementing procedures." 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1508, "Terminology and index." 78 FR 39342. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. [Notice; Acceptance for Docketing]." Federal Register 78(126):39342-39343. July 1, 2013. 78 FR 39343. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. [Intent to prepare environmental impact statement and conduct scoping process; public meeting]." Federal Register 78(126):39343-39344. July 1, 2013. 80 FR 29701. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability." Federal Register 80(99):29701-29702. May 22, 2015. American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 42 U.S.C. §2065 et seq. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §2011 et seq. [Bloomberg] Bloomberg News. 2013. Global Medical Isotope Shortage Follows S. Africa Plant Leak. November 15, 2013. Available at <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/global-medical-isotope-shortage-follows-south-africa-plant-leak.html> (accessed 21 February 2014). [DOE and NRC]. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. "Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Department of Energy-National Nuclear Security Administration and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, on the Environmental Review Related to the Issuance of Authorizations To Construct and Operate SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc., Facility." ADAMS No. ML13304B666. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. Energy Policy Act of 2005. 42 U.S.C. §16352. [IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 2013. Coordinated Research Projects (CRP) on Production of Mo-99 from LEU or Neutron Activation. Available at <http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/Technical_Areas/RRS/mo99.html> (accessed 13 June 2013). [IOM] Institute of Medicine. 1995. Isotopes for Medicine and the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. February 10, 1995. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq. [NEA] Nuclear Energy Agency. 2011. The Supply of Medical Radioisotopes-The Path to Reliability. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at <http://www.oecd-nea.org/med-radio/reports/med-radio-reliability.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2013). [NNSA] National Nuclear Security Administration. 2011. NNSA Works to Minimize the Use of HEU in Medical Isotope Production. NNSA Fact Sheet 20100125. November 1, 2011. Available at <http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/factsheets/factsheet20100125> (accessed 14 June 2013). Introduction 1-9 National Research Council. 2009. Medical Isotope Production Without Highly Enriched Uranium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12569> (accessed 13 June 2013). [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. October 17, 2012. ADAMS Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015a. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility. ADAMS No. ML15062A111. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015b. Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Draft Report for Comment. NUREG-2183. Rockville, MD. May 2015. ADAMS No. ML15127A241. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015c. Summary of the Public Meeting to Discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility. July 7, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15170A262. [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-Nuclear Energy Agency. 2014. The Supply of Medical Radioisotopes-Medical Isotope Supply in the Future: Production Capacity and Demand Forecast for the 99Mo/99mTc Market, 2015-2020. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at <http://www.oecd-nea.org/med-radio/reports/sen-hlgmr2014-2.pdf> (accessed 26 February 2015). [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. March 26, 2013. ADAMS No. ML14052A349. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SNM] Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2013. Xenon-133 Shortage Information. Available at <http://interactive.snm.org/index.cfm?PageID=11637> (accessed 14 June 2013). White House. 2012. Fact Sheet: Encouraging Reliable Supplies of Molybdenum-99 Produced without Highly Enriched Uranium. Office of the Press Secretary. June 7, 2012. Available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/07/fact-sheet-encouraging-reliable-supplies-molybdenum-99-produced-without-> (accessed 14 June 2013).

2-1 2.0 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION The proposed Federal action for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is to decide whether to issue a construction permit that would allow SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), to construct the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) that would produce, package, and ship medical radioisotopes, specifically molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. This facility would employ a new medical radioisotope production technology that uses a nonreactor-based subcritical fission process. The proposed Federal action for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is to decide whether, if the NRC grants a permit(s) and license(s), to provide cost-sharing financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate the establishment of the commercial production of medical radioisotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU). The funding would help to accelerate activities such as construction, purchase of equipment, and initial operation using a subcritical fission process if the NRC were to give SHINE a construction permit and operating license. 2.1 Site Location and Layout SHINE would construct and operate the proposed facility on land annexed by the City of Janesville, Wisconsin, which is located approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) south of the city center of Janesville, 13 mi (21 km) north of the Wisconsin-Illinois border, and 63 mi (101 km) west of Lake Michigan. The proposed site encompasses approximately 91 acres (ac) (37 hectares (ha)) of undeveloped land that is currently bordered by U.S. Highway 51 and the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport to the west and cultivated crop lands to the north, south, and east (Figures 2-1 and 2-2) (SHINE 2015a). The SHINE facility would comprise five main buildings with associated support structures (e.g., storage sheds, storage tanks, and water tanks) and other engineered features (e.g., stormwater swales and parking lots) (Figure 2-3) (SHINE 2013, 2015a). The five main buildings in which SHINE would conduct the majority of its operations are: (1) Production Facility Building, (2) Support Facility Building, (3) Waste Staging and Shipping Building, (4) Diesel Generator Building, and (5) Administration Building. The five main buildings would be concentrated in the central portion of the SHINE site and would collectively cover approximately 91,000 square feet (ft2) (about 8,500 square meters (m2)). The largest of the proposed buildings would be the Production Facility Building, which would extend approximately 284 ft (87 m) in length and 194 ft (59 m) in width and would have an estimated height of approximately 58 ft (18 m) above grade (SHINE 2014a). The tallest exhaust vent stack would be slightly higher, extending approximately 66 ft (20 m) above grade (SHINE 2014a). Other features associated with the proposed SHINE facility include support structures, such as storage sheds, storage tanks, and water tanks, and engineered features, such as a new paved entrance road, parking lots, an engineered stormwater swale, berms, ditches, culverts, fences, and a rolling gate. Site improvements to accommodate the five main buildings, support structures, and additional engineered features would result in a total estimated facility footprint Proposed Federal Action 2-2 of approximately 350,000 ft2 (about 32,500 m2) (SHINE 2013, 2014a). The new road would extend east from a proposed main entrance along U.S. Highway 51 and would provide commuter and commercial vehicle access to the site. The nearest major intersection to the proposed site is located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) north where U.S. Highway 51 connects with State Trunk Highway 11 (SHINE 2015a). Figure 2-1. Region Surrounding the Proposed SHINE Facility Source: SHINE 2015a Proposed Federal Action 2-3 Figure 2-2. Proposed SHINE Facility and Surrounding Area Within a 1-mi (1.6-km) Radius Source: SHINE 2015a Proposed Federal Action 2-4 Figure 2-3. Proposed SHINE Facility Conceptual Site Layout Source: SHINE 2013, 2015a 2.2 Construction Activities The construction period for the proposed SHINE facility would extend for 18 months and would require a peak construction workforce of approximately 451 workers (SHINE 2014a). Construction activities would include earthmoving, excavation, pile driving, facility build-out, installation of roads and parking areas, and delivery of construction-related materials and components. Materials needed to construct the SHINE facility would include concrete, structural steel, miscellaneous steel, steel liner, asphalt, stone granular material, and roofing materials (SHINE 2015a). Table 2-1 presents the estimated amounts needed for each of these materials. Commercial trucks would be used for shipping construction materials to the project site (SHINE 2013, 2014a). Rather than operating an onsite batch plant, ready-mix concrete supplied by commercial vendors would be delivered to the site. SHINE estimates that the facility would require, on average, approximately 420 truck deliveries and 9 offsite waste shipments each month during construction (SHINE 2014a). Proposed Federal Action 2-5 Table 2-1. Estimated Construction Material Requirements Material Amount Concrete 27,700 yd3(a) (21,178 m3(a)) Structural Steel 140 tons (127 MT(a)) Miscellaneous Steel 30 tons (27 MT) Steel Liner 100 tons (91 MT) Asphalt 2,200 yd3 (1,682 m3) Stone Granular Material 16,000 yd3 (12,233 m3) Roofing 150 tons (136 MT) (a) yd3 = cubic yard(s), m3 = cubic meter(s), and MT = metric ton(s). Source: SHINE 2015a Although most building foundations would be excavated to a depth of 5 ft (1.5 m) below grade, portions of the Production Facility Building would require excavation to a depth of approximately 40 ft (12 m). Areas of the site would also be excavated to support installation of sanitary sewer and natural gas pipelines, an underground electrical distribution line, a municipal water line, and an underground diesel storage tank. In addition, drainage ditches and swale areas would be excavated to manage stormwater runoff. SHINE estimates that approximately 278,000 yd3 (213,000 m3) of material would be excavated to support construction activities (SHINE 2015a). All excavated material would be used on site or disposed of off site (SHINE 2013). SHINE projects that construction equipment necessary to support these activities would consume approximately 295,000 gallons (gal) (1,117,000 liters (L)) of diesel fuel (SHINE 2013). Overall, construction activities would disturb approximately 41 ac (17 ha) of the proposed SHINE site. Of this total, SHINE projects that approximately 15 ac (6 ha) would be temporarily disturbed by construction activities, and approximately 26 ac (11 ha) would be permanently converted to industrial use (SHINE 2014a). Figure 2-4 presents a conceptual illustration of the completed SHINE facility. Before full commercial operation, SHINE may conduct some preoperational testing activities. During this time, the SHINE facility equipment would undergo a thorough commissioning phase, which would involve a series of test operations designed to ensure that the facility is functioning as designed (SHINE 2014, 2015a). For the purposes of this environmental analysis, the NRC staff included the activities and impacts of preoperational activities as part of the construction phase in the impacts assessment in Chapter 4. Proposed Federal Action 2-6 Figure 2-4. Conceptual View of the Proposed SHINE Facility Source: Modified from SHINE 2014b, 2015 2.3 Facility Operations The proposed SHINE facility would commence full operations upon completion of construction and preoperational startup activities. This environmental impact statement (EIS) considers SHINE's activities over its proposed 30-year operating period (SHINE 2014a). During operations, SHINE anticipates obtaining LEU metal or oxide for use as fuel (target material) from the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12 facility) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (SHINE 2015a). For the purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff assumed that the Y-12 facility would obtain the necessary agreements and approvals to provide fuel (target material) to SHINE. The fuel would be transported 650 mi (1,046 km) by truck from Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, Wisconsin. SHINE would temporarily store LEU metal or oxide in the target solution preparation area. SHINE would produce and ship several batches of molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131 per week, with production schedules normally staggered to accommodate customer requirements. Operational activities would require an average of 150 workers and a monthly average of 36 inbound truck deliveries and 39 outbound medical radioisotope product shipments. Facility operations would also require an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year, and 1 nonradioactive (i.e., domestic and/or industrial) waste shipment per month (SHINE 2013, 2014a, 2015a, 2015b). Proposed Federal Action 2-7 2.3.1 Proposed Technology The SHINE process would involve a new nonreactor-based technology to manufacture medical radioisotopes using a subcritical fission process (SHINE 2015a). The main components designed and developed by SHINE to support this approach are (1) a neutron driver assembly in which a deuterium ion source would be accelerated into a tritium gas target chamber to generate neutrons and (2) a subcritical operating assembly in which these neutrons would bombard a target solution to produce radioisotopes. See Section 2.3.2 below for additional details. A light-water pool would surround the target solution vessel to provide shielding and to act as a neutron reflector. Figure 2-5 shows a conceptual cutaway view of these components. An individual irradiation unit would be comprised of the neutron driver, subcritical operating assembly, light-water pool, and surrounding biological shielding; the SHINE facility would operate up to eight of these irradiation units in concert to meet radioisotope production design objectives (SHINE 2015a). The irradiation units would each interface with associated cooling, off-gas, and tritium recycle support systems. Figure 2-6 depicts a conceptual model of an irradiation unit showing the ion accelerator configured above the subcritical operating assembly. Figure 2-5. Cutaway Conceptual Interior View of the SHINE Device Source: Pitas et al. 2013 Proposed Federal Action 2-8 Figure 2-6. Conceptual Model of an Irradiation Unit Source: Pitas et al. 2013 2.3.2 Radioisotope Production Process Overview The SHINE production process would use an accelerator and neutron multiplier to produce neutrons that would enter a tank containing a target solution with the fissile uranium-235 isotope. As these neutrons collide with the uranium-235, the uranium splits and forms other radioisotopes, including molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131. For descriptive purposes of this EIS, SHINE's overall process can be divided into four primary stages: (1) neutron production, (2) radioisotope production through uranium fission, (3) radioisotope extraction and purification, and (4) packaging and distribution. Most of these activities, other than during product distribution, would take place within a radiologically controlled area. This area includes the irradiation facility and radioisotope production facility, both of which are collocated within a single building, the Production Facility Building, on the SHINE site, as described in the SHINE Environmental Report (ER) (SHINE 2015a). As illustrated in Figure 2-7, several sub-processes would occur within each of these primary activities. The following sections present an overview of the key factors associated with each of these processes. Proposed Federal Action 2-9 Figure 2-7. SHINE Radioisotope Production System Flow Diagram Source: Modified from SHINE 2013 Proposed Federal Action 2-10 Low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel means fuel in which the weight percent of U-235 in the uranium is less than 20 percent. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel means fuel in which the weight percent of U-235 in the uranium is 20 percent or greater (10 CFR 50.2). The United States encourages the use of LEU or other non-HEU-based technologies to produce medical radioisotopes because of the additional proliferation concerns associated with HEU (White House 2012). 2.3.2.1 Neutron Production The first stage in the SHINE radioisotope production process is the production of neutrons, which induce the fission of uranium, resulting in the formation radioisotopes. During the irradiation stage, a neutron driver affixed above a subcritical operating assembly would accelerate deuterium ions into a chamber filled with tritium gas. This chamber would be centered within the subcritical operating assembly in a vessel containing LEU target solution in the form of uranyl sulfate. The resulting ion beam would strike the tritium gas and produce helium nuclei and neutrons. These additional neutrons would pass through a neutron multiplier, which would produce additional neutrons. The neutrons then pass into the LEU target solution, causing the uranium-235 in the solution to fission (split) and produce byproduct materials, including molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131 (SHINE 2015a). The target solution vessel would be surrounded by a light-water pool. This pool would be used to control the temperature of the target solution vessel, reflect neutrons back into the vessel, and absorb radiation and heat resulting from the fission process (SHINE 2015a). 2.3.2.2 Radioisotope Production Though Uranium Fission The next stage in the SHINE radioisotope production process would involve irradiating an aqueous LEU target solution with neutrons using one or more of the irradiation units, as described in Section 2.3.1. During the radioisotope production stage, SHINE proposes to maintain the target solution in each irradiation unit at a subcritical level (i.e., a level at which the uranium-235 fission and the consequent neutron production in the target solution vessel would not be self-sustaining). Molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131 production would occur within the target solution from fission during the irradiation cycle. An off-gas system would be used during this stage to handle and contain radiolytic and fission product gases released from the target solution. At the end of the irradiation cycle in each irradiation unit, the target solution would be removed from the target solution vessel and transferred through piping to one of three hot cells (shielded nuclear radiation confinement chambers) located within the Production Facility Building in which the molybdenum-99 would be selectively extracted and purified (SHINE 2013, 2015a). 2.3.2.3 Extraction and Purification Extraction and purification would occur within the hot cell area. Molybdenum-99 extraction would occur as a batch process in which the irradiated uranyl sulfate target solution would be passed through an adsorption column to extract the isotopes. The extracted isotopes would then undergo dissolution and evaporation processes to yield a crude molybdenum-99 product. The purification process would remove impurities through small-scale additions of reagents and through precipitation, filtration, and boiling. LEU remaining in the target solution would be recycled and would undergo cleanup for use as the target solution for subsequent cycles because only a small amount of uranium-235 is used up during each production run. Preparation and cleanup of the target solution, radioisotope extraction and purification, and any tanks containing target solution generate radioactive off-gases that a radioactive gas treatment system captures. Radioactive waste materials removed from the target solution would be stored temporarily pending offsite disposal. Proposed Federal Action 2-11 Similarly, captured deuterium and tritium would be returned for reuse in the neutron generation process (SHINE 2015a). Section 2.7 discusses radioactive effluents and wastes and transportation of these materials. In addition, Table 19.2.5-1 in the SHINE ER (SHINE 2015a) provides estimates of the type and quantity of radioactive wastes associated with the proposed SHINE facility. 2.3.2.4 Packaging and Distribution Following extraction and purification, the separated radioisotopes would be packaged and distributed. Because radioactive decay reduces the amount of the radioisotopes over time, the packaged material would be shipped to customers as soon as possible. The molybdenum-99 product would be packaged in stainless steel bottles (SHINE 2014a). The iodine-131 product would be packaged in solution vials (SHINE 2013). The xenon-133 product would be packaged in gas cylinders (SHINE 2013). These time-sensitive packages would use U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved containers for radioactive material (SHINE 2015a). SHINE intends to ship these radioisotopes to regional customers by air from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and by truck; both methods would use an exclusive use carrier (SHINE 2013). As discussed in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) 173.403, exclusive use means that sole use of the transport vehicle (i.e., airplane and truck) will be for shipment of the radioactive material and that personnel trained in handling radioactive material must follow special procedures for loading and unloading the material. At full operational capacity, the SHINE facility could produce up to 8,200 6-day curies (Ci 6-day) per week of the medical radioisotope molybdenum-99 and 2,000 Ci per week each of iodine-131 and xenon-133 (SHINE 2013, 2015a). To meet this production schedule, each irradiation unit would need to operate continuously for about 5.5 days with radioisotope production functions operating closer to 7 days per week (SHINE 2013, 2015a). 2.4 Power Requirements Wisconsin Power and Light Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of Alliant Energy) would supply electrical power to the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). Each irradiation unit is projected to use 62.8 kilowatts (SHINE 2013). Overall, the proposed SHINE facility would require a total connected capacity of approximately 2,900 kilovolt-amperes and annually consume approximately 17.5 million kilowatt-hours-an amount approximately equal to the annual electrical power consumption of 2,000 Wisconsin households (SHINE 2013; EIA 2009). SHINE would equip the facility with an uninterruptible electrical power supply system to power safety-related systems and equipment for safe shutdown of the facility in the event of a loss of offsite power. This system would use two independent 250-volt direct-current battery system trains along with the associated chargers, inverters, and distribution systems. SHINE would also maintain and test a standby diesel generator to provide longer term backup power to selected equipment. SHINE would use approximately 1,860 gal (7,000 L) of diesel fuel annually to maintain and test this standby diesel generator, as well as a diesel engine-driven fire pump (SHINE 2013). The diesel fuel oil for this equipment would be stored on site in an approximately 30,000-gal (114,000-L) underground storage tank (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would use pipeline-derived natural gas to supply a boiler and gas-fired heaters (See Section 2.6.2). SHINE estimates that total annual natural gas consumption would be 62,000 million British thermal units (SHINE 2013). Proposed Federal Action 2-12 2.5 Water Use, Treatment, and Discharges 2.5.1 Water Use The proposed SHINE facility would obtain water during construction and operations from the Janesville Water Utility (SHINE 2015a). To support this requirement, the City of Janesville is planning to construct a water main and sanitary sewer main along U.S. Highway 51 near the northwestern boundary of the proposed SHINE site (SHINE 2015a). During construction, water would primarily be needed for drinking (potable) and sanitary systems, and for supporting dust suppression activities (SHINE 2013, 2015a). During operations, this water would also be used for drinking and sanitary systems and for facility heating and cooling, fire suppression, and industrial purposes. During operations, SHINE would use most of its water for cooling and as process water in medical radioisotope production. A water-based fire protection system would be used throughout the proposed SHINE facility. An onsite, dedicated water tank would support the planned automatic fire suppression system and would provide an estimated flow of 390 gal per minute (1,480 L per minute). Section 4.4 discusses specific water requirements associated with the proposed action. 2.5.2 Water Treatment The SHINE facility would use three separate water treatment processes: a demineralization process, a cooling water treatment process, and a facility heating water treatment process (SHINE 2015a). Demineralization, also known as ion exchange, refers to the exchange of ions between a solid substance and an aqueous solution (makeup water). The demineralization treatment process would treat water to control the amount of chemicals in the water needed for the molydenum-99 purification process. Most of the water from the facility demineralized water system would be used for the primary closed-loop cooling system and the light-water pool system. During the cooling water treatment process, water would be treated with chemicals to reduce corrosion and scaling before its introduction to the closed-loop cooling water system. In addition, chemicals will be periodically added to maintain water chemistry to keep the system properly functioning. The types of chemicals added to this water could include biocides, corrosion inhibitors, and scale inhibitors. During the heating water treatment process, feedwater for the boiler used for building heating would be separately treated through demineralization or the addition of chemicals, or both, to reduce corrosion and scaling in the boiler (SHINE 2015a). 2.5.3 Water Discharges All wastewater generated outside the radiologically controlled area would be discharged directly to the City of Janesville sanitary sewer system and would be sent to the Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant in accordance with Janesville City Ordinance 13.16 (City of Janesville 2013; SHINE 2013, 2015a). All industrial or process wastewater generated in the radiologically controlled area would either be evaporated or solidified and disposed of in accordance with SHINE's waste management plan and applicable laws and regulations. The SHINE closed-loop chilled water system would require approximately 10,000 gal (38,000 L) of water that would be flushed once per year and discharged to the Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant in accordance with Janesville City Ordinance 13.16 (SHINE 2013). Proposed Federal Action 2-13 2.6 Cooling and Heating Dissipation Systems 2.6.1 Cooling Systems The SHINE cooling systems would remove unwanted heat from the target solution vessel and other heat-sensitive processes. Cooling systems would also control building ambient air temperature in association with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) needs. The irradiation units would have both primary and secondary cooling systems. The primary cooling system would include the primary closed-loop cooling system and the light-water pool system. The primary closed-loop cooling system would remove heat from the target solution vessel by actively circulating water along the exterior surfaces of the vessel. The light-water pool system would actively cool the neutron multiplier and tritium target chamber through forced convection and would passively cool the irradiation units. The secondary cooling system is a closed-loop system that would provide cooling to all of the process areas within the radiological controlled area and would transfer heat to the facility's chilled water supply and distribution system. The secondary cooling system would remove heat from the primary cooling system through a heat exchanger. The facility's chilled water supply and distribution system would then ultimately dissipate the heat to the environment (SHINE 2015a). 2.6.2 Heating Systems SHINE would use one natural-gas-fired boiler in the Production Facility Building to provide heating water to the HVAC handlers. Based on the rated capacity of the boiler, SHINE projects annual natural gas consumption at 7.67x107 standard cubic feet (2.17x106 standard cubic meters) (SHINE 2015a). Additionally, natural-gas-fired heaters would heat the Diesel Generator Building, the Waste Staging and Shipping Building, the Support Facility Building, and the Administration Building, for a total of four natural-gas-fired heaters. 2.7 Storage, Treatment, and Transportation of Radioactive and Nonradioactive Waste Construction, operations, and decommissioning would result in the accumulation of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes. SHINE does not anticipate any long-term storage of radioactive or nonradioactive materials, such as medical radioisotope products, target solution, reagents, or resulting wastes (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would treat and temporarily store the solid radioactive and nonradioactive waste generated as part of the radioisotope production process within the facility until it could ship the waste off site for disposal (SHINE 2015a). Subpart K and Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20 (NRC) and 49 CFR Part 172 (DOT) include regulations to protect public health and safety during transportation of radioactive fuel, radioactive wastes, and medical radioisotopes. The additional detailed information below describes the generation, storage, waste management activities, waste minimization and pollution prevention measures, and transportation of radioactive and nonradioactive waste. 2.7.1 Radioactive Wastes Operations of the SHINE facility would generate liquid, solid, and gaseous radioactive waste during the following activities: neutron generator operation (i.e., the neutron driver that would be periodically replaced); Proposed Federal Action 2-14 target solution preparation (i.e., used uranium metal transport containers, protective equipment used by facility workers, and spent filtration media); the target solution vessel waste gas removal system (i.e., spent filtration media); molybdenum-99 recovery system operation (i.e., spent filtration media and spent solutions); target solution cleanup (i.e., spent filtration media, spent solvent, and spent production solutions); radioisotope production and purification processes (i.e., laboratory glassware and liquid wastes); liquid radioactive waste volume reduction (i.e., evaporation and solidification process); and maintenance activities (SHINE 2015a). 2.7.1.1 Gaseous Waste Radioactive effluents from the radioisotope production process include both particulates and gas. The gaseous radioactive effluents would be routed through two separate, but connected, ventilation systems: the target solution vessel off-gas system and the process vessel vent system (SHINE 2015a). The facility ventilation system divides the operating areas into zones, each of which has a specific hazard and appropriate protection features (SHINE 2015a). This design protects the workers and members of the public by minimizing the potential spread of radioactive contamination within the facility and by controlling the amount of radioactive effluents released into the environment. SHINE would use high-efficiency particulate filters and carbon bed filters to treat gaseous radioactive effluents to reduce their radioactivity before they are released through a vent stack in the Production Facility Building (SHINE 2015a). SHINE expects the gaseous radioactive effluents released into the environment to contain measurable quantities of noble gases (i.e., xenon and krypton), radioactive iodine, and tritium. Table 2-2 lists the quantity of radionuclides that SHINE estimates the facility would release annually. Section 4.9 describes the monitoring of gaseous effluents and radioactive waste, NRC and other radiation protection requirements, and SHINE's waste management process to ensure occupational and public health. Table 2-2. Gaseous Radioactive Effluents Effluent Rate(a) krypton-85 (Kr-85) < 120 Ci/yr(b) iodine-131 (I-131) < 1.5 Ci/yr xenon-133 (Xe-133) < 17,000 Ci/yr tritium (H-3) < 4,400 Ci/yr (a) The rate is based on 50 weeks of operation. (b) Ci/yr = curie(s) per year. Source: SHINE 2015a Proposed Federal Action 2-15 2.7.1.2 Liquid and Solid Waste The NRC classifies low-level waste in 10 CFR 61.55 as Class A, Class B, Class C, or greater than Class C (GTCC) waste, depending on the types and concentrations of radionuclides in the waste. Class A wastes generally contain short-lived radionuclides at relatively low concentrations, whereas the half-lives and concentrations of radionuclides in the Class B and C wastes are progressively higher. Because of the higher half-lives and concentrations of radionuclides in Class B wastes, these wastes must meet more rigorous requirements with regard to their form to ensure stability after disposal (e.g., by adding chemical stabilizing agents, such as cement, to the waste, or by placing the waste in a disposal container or structure that provides stability after disposal). Class C wastes must meet the more rigorous requirements of Class B, and they require additional measures at the disposal facility to protect against inadvertent intrusion (e.g., by increasing the thickness and hardness of the cover over the waste disposal cell). GTCC wastes contain radionuclides at concentrations that are higher than that allowed for Class C wastes and that are not generally acceptable for near-surface disposal methods. Operation of the SHINE facility would generate radioactive waste ranging from NRC Class A waste to GTCC wastes (see Table 19.2.5-1 in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a)). SHINE would accumulate and temporarily store liquid wastes to allow for various activities such as radioactive decay, pH adjustment, and volume reduction using an evaporative process. In addition, SHINE would disassemble neutron generators to reduce the volume of low-level waste sent for disposal. SHINE would solidify some liquid wastes before disposal on site. For example, it would solidify evaporator bottoms and spent ion-exchange column media from the target solution cleanup system. Waste from proprietary processes may be solidified in a hot cell using Portland cement before shipment and disposal (SHINE 2015a). After SHINE treats, solidifies, and packages liquid radioactive waste, the waste would be temporarily stored on site only long enough for radioactive decay before offsite disposal shipment and for efficient frequency of disposal shipments (SHINE 2015a). Class A waste would be shipped approximately yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site. No liquid radioactive effluents would be released into the environment. After temporary storage, radioactive waste would be transported by truck to one of the following licensed low-level radioactive waste facilities for further treatment, long-term storage, or final disposal (SHINE 2015a): (1) EnergySolutions, Clive, Utah (1,450 mi) (2,220 km); (2) Waste Control Specialists, Andrews, Texas (1,305 mi) (2,088 km); or (3) Diversified Scientific Services, Inc., Kingston, Tennessee (660 mi) (1,056 km). When transporting waste, SHINE must adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 71 (NRC), the State of Wisconsin's Administrative Code, and 49 CFR Parts 172 and 173 (DOT) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure safety on the public roadways. The waste generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be one of three DOT packaging classifications: LSA, Type A, or Type B packages. An LSA package contains low levels of radioactive material. A Type A package contains higher radioactivity levels than those in an LSA package and meets additional integrity and shielding requirements. A Type B package contains a greater quantity of radioactive material than that of a Type A package and meets additional integrity and shielding Proposed Federal Action 2-16 requirements (49 CFR Part 173). The NRC staff notes that the lettering system for package types is not related to the lettering system for waste classification. A provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) states that DOE would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE) does not have access to a disposal path. For example, if a disposal pathway for GTCC waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its disposal. 2.7.2 Nonradioactive Waste The proposed SHINE facility would generate nonradioactive waste as part of construction, routine operations, maintenance, cleaning, and decommissioning activities. Liquid Waste Nonradioactive liquid waste would be generated during construction. For example, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, and grease might be necessary to assemble various pieces of equipment and systems. During operations, nonradioactive liquid waste would include hazardous waste, such as chemicals. Table 2-3 lists the expected inventory and quantity of chemicals that would be used during operation of the proposed SHINE facility. Some chemicals would be in liquid form and would be controlled and confined in containers, tanks, pipes, and hot cells. SHINE would release small amounts of nonradioactive chemicals into the city sewer system as a result of routine facility maintenance activities and routine laboratory analytical procedures using chemicals. SHINE would have administrative controls in place to ensure that its nonradioactive effluents meet the requirements pertaining to the types, quantity, and concentrations specified as acceptable for processing by the City of Janesville wastewater treatment facility (SHINE 2015a). Additionally, sanitary wastewater from the proposed SHINE facility would be sent to the City of Janesville wastewater treatment facility for treatment and disposal. Section 2.5 of this document contains more information on the liquid nonradioactive waste discharges from the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE does not intend to treat or permanently store hazardous wastes on site (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would dispose of hazardous wastes generated at the facility at a licensed hazardous waste disposal site. Because SHINE will not store or treat hazardous wastes on site, it will not require a hazardous waste treatment or storage permit from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, which has the permitting authority for hazardous wastes under Wisconsin Administrative Code 660. Solid Waste During construction, operations, and decommissioning, SHINE expects to generate the following nonradioactive solid wastes: wood from crates, packaging from receiving activities, used personal protective equipment, broken mechanical parts, metal shavings, piping, Proposed Federal Action 2-17 wires, batteries (alkaline and lithium), air filters, expired lights and fixtures, paper, hoses, empty plastic containers, and expired ink cartridges. SHINE would temporarily collect and store nonradioactive solid wastes on site and then transport nonhazardous solid wastes off site to either a landfill, storage facility, or recycling facility (SHINE 2015a). For example, scrap metal, batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment and bulbs, used oil, and antifreeze would be collected and stored temporarily and then recycled or recovered at an offsite permitted recycling or recovery facility, as appropriate. 2.7.3 Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Program SHINE's radioactive and nonradioactive waste management program is based on a pollution-prevention and waste-minimization framework. The program includes the following: waste minimization and recycling; employee training and education on general environmental activities and hazards associated with the facility, operations, and the pollution prevention program; and waste minimization requirements, goals, and accomplishments; employee training and education on specific environmental requirements and issues; designation of employees responsible for pollution prevention and waste minimization; recognition of employees for efforts to improve environmental conditions; and requirements for employees to consider pollution prevention and waste minimization in day-to-day activities and engineering (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Section 4.9 discusses the impacts associated with waste management activities at the proposed SHINE facility. Table 2-3. Summary of Major(a) Chemical Inventory and Quantity at the Proposed SHINE Facility Chemical Approximate Bounding Inventory (lb) Chemical Grouping nitric acid 17,600 Group 4-Acids, Organic/Mineral sulfuric acid 8,100 Group 4-Acids, Organic/Mineral calcium hydroxide 4,800 Group 5-Bases caustic (NaOH) 1,500 Group 5-Bases n-dodecane 1,600 Group 2-Flammable Liquids nitrogen 20,000 N/A Portland cement 20,000 N/A uranyl sulfate 3,100 N/A Proposed Federal Action 2-18 Chemical Approximate Bounding Inventory (lb) Chemical Grouping (a) In excess of 1,000 lb. Source: SHINE 2015a 2.8 Facility Decommissioning The SHINE facility would be decommissioned upon completion of its useful life. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, a licensed production or utilization facility that permanently ceases operations shall submit a decommissioning report. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.33(k) requires that a report indicates how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the facility. SHINE anticipates decommissioning of the facility to begin following a 30-year operating period (SHINE 2014a). SHINE estimates that the decommissioning period would extend for 6 months and would require a peak workforce of approximately 261 workers (SHINE 2014a). Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, because they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Decommissioning could include the removal of all nuclear facilities on site and the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license. Decommissioning of the SHINE facility would generate radioactive waste ranging from NRC Class A waste to GTCC waste (see Table 19.2.5-1 in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a)). Estimates of the types and quantity of radioactive waste that would be disposed of during decommissioning are not known at this time and would depend on the effectiveness of the radiological controls implemented during operation of the facility. However, the types of radioactive waste would be consistent with those listed in Table 19.2.5-1 in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would be required to conduct decommissioning activities in accordance with applicable NRC requirements and any additional Federal, State, and local requirements. For example, any radioactive equipment and materials will be disposed of according to local and Federal laws and regulations. After decommissioning activities are completed, the proposed site could remain industrial or could be converted back to agricultural land or open space. SHINE estimates that approximately 72 truck deliveries and 191 offsite waste shipments would, on average, be required each month during decommissioning (SHINE 2014a). Demolition and site-grading equipment supporting decommissioning activities are projected to consume a total of approximately 172,000 gal (650,000 L) of diesel fuel over this 6-month period (SHINE 2013). Table 19.2.5-1 in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a) provides estimates of the type and quantity of radioactive wastes associated with the proposed SHINE facility. 2.9 Related Actions In February 2011, DOE/NNSA issued a final sitewide EIS at the Y-12 National Security Complex (DOE 2011), which examined the potential impacts of the reasonable alternatives for ongoing and foreseeable future operations at the Y-12 National Security Complex. Included in the sitewide EIS was an evaluation of the mission (including operations and transportation impacts) associated with the supply of LEU for both domestic and foreign customers (e.g., Section 2.1.2, "National Security Programs," and Section 5.4, "Transportation and Traffic"). DOE/NNSA published a Record of Decision on July 4, 2011, which, among other things, selected the option Proposed Federal Action 2-19 to continue ongoing operations, including the supply of LEU to foreign and domestic customers. This sitewide EIS and Record of Decision may be viewed as relevant to the SHINE EIS because the Y-12 facility would supply the LEU used at the SHINE facility. 2.10 References 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." 10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, "Licensing requirements for land disposal of radioactive waste." 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and transportation of radioactive material." 49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, "Hazardous material table, special provisions, hazardous material communications, emergency response information, training requirement, and security plans." 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, "Shippers-general requirements for shipments and packaging." American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 42 U.S.C. §2065(c)(3)(A)(ii). City of Janesville. 2013. City Ordinance Book. Chapter 13, "Water and Sewers." Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us> (accessed 12 December 2013). [DOE] Department of Energy. 2011. Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Y-12 National Security Complex. DOE/EIS-0387. Washington, DC. Available at <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/EIS-0387-FEIS-01-2011.pdf> (accessed 12 February 2015). [EIA] Energy Information Administration. 2009. Household Energy Use in Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/state_briefs/pdf/wi.pdf> (accessed 17 November 2014). [IOM] Institute of Medicine. 1995. Isotopes for Medicine and the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 144 p. Available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4818.html> (accessed 25 September 2013). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. National Research Council. 2009. Medical Isotope Production without Highly Enriched Uranium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 220 p. Available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12569.html> (accessed 25 September 2013). Pitas KP, Piefer GR, Bynum RV, Van Abel EN, Driscoll J, Mackie TR, Radel RF. 2013. SHINE: Technology and Progress. Presented at Mo-99 2013 Topical Meeting on Molybdenum-99 Technological Development, April 1-4, 2013, Chicago, IL. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. Proposed Federal Action 2-20 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014a. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014b. "The Mo-99 Advantage." Presented at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Regulatory Information Conference, March 11, 2014, Bethesda, MD. Available at <http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/conference-symposia/ric/past/2014/docs/abstracts/pieferg-t9-hv.pdf> (accessed 6 November 2014). [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404. White House. 2012. Fact Sheet: Encouraging Reliable Supplies of Molybdenum-99 Produced without Highly Enriched Uranium. Office of the Press Secretary. June 7, 2012. Available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/07/fact-sheet-encouraging-reliable-supplies-molybdenum-99-produced-without-> (accessed 14 June 2013). 3-1 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The site proposed by SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), is located in Rock County, Wisconsin, south of the city center of the City of Janesville, Wisconsin. The first section of this chapter describes the location of the proposed SHINE site (proposed site), along with a description of the land use and visual resources, air quality and noise, the geologic environment, water resources, ecological resources, historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, human health, and transportation at and near the proposed site. Unless specified otherwise, the description of the environment includes the area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site, which is also referred to as the vicinity. This geographic range is in accordance with the Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors (NRC 2012). The following description of the affected environment is based on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's independent review of SHINE's Environmental Report (ER) (SHINE 2015a); SHINE's responses to the NRC staff's requests for additional information to clarify information in the Environmental Report (SHINE 2013, 2014, 2015b) or for information that did not appear in that report; the NRC staff's environmental site visit and audit (NRC 2013a); applicable information provided in public scoping comments (NRC 2015); comments and input provided by other Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local agencies; and the NRC staff's independent research of the environs surrounding the proposed SHINE site. 3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources This subsection describes the land use and visual resources at the proposed site and in the vicinity of the proposed site. The NRC staff assessed land use and land cover using the National Land Cover Database (USGS 2006). The NRC staff used the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDOI-BLM), Visual Resource Management System, to rate the visual resources at the proposed site; this system rates the visual appeal and the sensitivity of changes to an area (BLM 1984). 3.1.1 Land Use 3.1.1.1 Site The proposed site includes 91 acres (ac) (37 hectares (ha)) of land located about 4 mi (6 km) south of the city center of the City of Janesville (Figure 3-1). The proposed site is zoned as light industrial (City of Janesville 2012). Based on a review of the National Land Cover Database, 99.8 percent of the proposed site is cultivated agricultural land, and 0.2 percent is developed open space (USGS 2006; SHINE 2015a). U.S. Highway 51 borders the western boundary of the proposed site. The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport is located immediately to the west of U.S. Highway 51. Agricultural land surrounds the remaining portions of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). 3.1.1.2 Vicinity Table 3-1 lists the major land uses and land covers within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site (USGS 2006; SHINE 2015a). The list includes lands with cultivated crops (50 percent), pastures or hay (12 percent), and low-intensity development (12 percent). Two sand and gravel Affected Environment 3-2 mining operations and one crushed stone mining operation occur within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site (Find the Data 2014). The city center of Janesville is approximately 4.0 mi (6.4 km) directly north of the proposed site. The northern limits of the City of Beloit, Wisconsin, are about 3.7 mi (6.0 km) south of the proposed site. The City of Janesville and the City of Beloit are major population centers (more than 25,000 residents) within the 5-mi (8-km) vicinity of the proposed site, with 63,480 residents in the City of Janesville and 36,820 residents in the City of Beloit (Rock County 2013). Figure 3-1. Aerial View of the Proposed SHINE Site Source: SHINE 2015a The major transportation corridors in the vicinity include Interstates 39 and 90, U.S. Highway 14, U.S. Highway 51, and State Trunk Highway 11 (Figure 3-2). Chicago and Northwestern Railroad and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad own the major rail lines or rail systems in Rock County. The only public airport in Rock County is the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport in the City of Janesville. The airport is directly across U.S. Highway 51 from the proposed site. No major transportation waterways occur within the vicinity of the proposed site. Affected Environment 3-3 Table 3-1. Summary of Land Use and Land Cover Within the Proposed SHINE Site and Vicinity NLCD 2006 Land Cover Class SHINE Site Vicinity ac ha percent ac ha percent Open Water 796 322 2 Developed, Open Space 0.18 0.07 0.2 3,043 1,231 6 Developed, Low Intensity 5,858 2,371 12 Developed, Medium Intensity 1,968 796 4 Developed, High Intensity 992 401 2 Barren 43 17 <1 Deciduous Forest 3,298 1,335 7 Evergreen Forest 68 28 <1 Mixed Forest 1 0 <1 Shrub/Scrub 505 204 1 Grassland 1,049 425 2 Pasture/Hay 5,896 2,386 12 Cultivated Crops 91.09 36.86 99.8 25,236 10,213 50 Woody Wetlands 722 292 1 Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 787 318 2 Total 91.27 36.93 100.0 50,262 20,339 100 Key: ac = acre, ha = hectare. Sources: USGS 2006; SHINE 2015a 3.1.1.3 Special Land Uses The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) manages two parcels of land within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site. One site is a 112.0-ac (45.3-ha) parcel of land located 1.9 mi (3.0 km) southwest of the proposed site. This site does not have a designated use (WDNR 2013a). Rock River Prairie is a 37.0-ac (15.0-ha) State Natural Area located 3.5 mi (5.6 km) from the proposed site (WDNR 2013a). No military reservations, Federally designated wild and scenic rivers, national parks, national forests, Federally designated coastal zone areas, or Federal lands held in trust for an American Indian tribe occur within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a, WCMP 2007). 3.1.1.4 Agricultural Resources and Facilities Soils that may qualify as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance are located on the proposed site and in the vicinity (Figure 3-3). Prime farmland is defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) as "land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary [of Agriculture]." Farmland of statewide importance includes soils, other than those determined as prime farmland, with similar characteristics as prime farmland locally within the State. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with State and local agencies, defines and delineates the soils to consider as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance (Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 657). However, otherwise qualifying "farmland" soils do not include those on land already in, or committed to, urban development or water storage, as defined in 7 CFR 658.2. Affected Environment 3-4 Figure 3-2. Cities and Major Roadways Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site Source: SHINE 2015a Affected Environment 3-5 Figure 3-3. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Proposed SHINE Site Source: Modified from SHINE 2015a and NRCS 2013 Affected Environment 3-6 Warsaw silt loam is the prime farmland soil type in Wisconsin, and Lorenzo loam is the soil type of statewide importance, as further described in Section 3.3. About 41,900 ac (16,900 ha) of land with soils classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance are within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff notes that acres of land with soils that may qualify as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance exceed the number of acres of agricultural land because land with qualifying soil types classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide significance are employed for other purposes, such as development or light industrial uses. Principal agricultural products grown in the vicinity include corn, oats, winter wheat, soybeans, and corn silage (USDA 2013). Based on the average annual production (bushels) per acre harvested in Rock County, the NRC staff estimated the potential relative value of 91 ac (37 ha) of farmland acquired for the proposed site to be about 12,800 bushels (bu) of corn or 4,000 bu of soybeans annually (Table 3-2). Other agricultural resources in the vicinity of the proposed site include farms that raise dairy, beef, and other livestock (SHINE 2015a). MacFarlane Pheasants, Inc., which is about 0.9 mi. (1.4 km) north of the proposed site, specializes in raising a variety of game birds, including pheasants and Hungarian partridge (MacFarlane Pheasants 2012). 3.1.1.5 Land Use Plans The City of Janesville Comprehensive Plan characterizes current and future land use plans in the city (Vandewalle & Associates 2009). Table 3-3 summarizes the total percentage of land in the 2007 city limits that was classified in each land use category. The proposed SHINE site is part of a larger development project to create an industrial park in Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District No. 35 (City of Janesville 2012). The City of Janesville created the initial 226-ac (91-ha) parcel of TIF District No. 35 when the city approved the TIF District No. 35 Project Plan in August 2011, after the purchase of an initial parcel of 226 ac (91 ha) in 2004 (City of Janesville 2012). In February 2012, the City of Janesville amended the project plan to expand the district boundary to the southwest by 84 ac (34 ha) to include the proposed SHINE site. When the City of Janesville incorporated the initial TIF District No. 35 parcel, its zoning was changed from agricultural to M-1 (light industrial) with consideration given to subdividing the larger parcel into 16 lots ranging from 10.99 to 18.86 ac (4.45 to 7.60 ha) (City of Janesville 2011a, 2012). As of September 2015, this land has not been improved or industrially developed and the land cover remains cultivated crops. Table 3-2. Crop Production Estimates for the Proposed SHINE Site and Within Rock County, Wisconsin Planted Harvested Production Yield Year ac ha ac ha bu bu/ac Corn 2003 152,000 61,300 141,000 57,000 19,571,000 139 2004 155,000 62,700 141,000 57,000 23,124,000 164 2005 166,000 67,200 150,000 60,700 22,200,000 148 2006 152,000 61,500 141,000 57,000 22,419,000 159 2007 174,000 70,400 165,000 66,800 25,740,000 156 2008 161,000 65,200 152,000 61,500 22,192,000 146 2009 162,000 65,600 153,000 62,000 25,245,000 165 2010 159,000 64,100 142,000 57,500 24,680,000 174 2011 162,000 65,600 157,000 63,600 25,350,000 162 2012 166,000 67,200 146,000 59,100 15,000,000 103 Affected Environment 3-7 Planted Harvested Production Yield 10-year Average Rock County, WI 161,000 65,100 149,000 60,200 22,552,000 152 Site Estimate(a) 91 37 84 34 12,800 152 Soybeans 2003 101,700 41,200 101,400 41,000 2,535,000 25 2004 87,600 35,500 86,900 35,200 3,737,000 43 2005 88,600 35,900 87,400 35,400 4,020,000 46 2006 89,200 36,100 89,000 36,000 4,539,000 51 2007 71,900 29,100 71,700 29,000 3,370,000 47 2008 81,100 32,800 81,000 32,800 2,957,000 37 2009 80,000 32,400 79,900 32,300 3,875,000 49 2010 86,000 34,800 85,500 34,600 4,822,000 56 2011 80,100 32,400 79,900 32,300 4,272,000 54 2012 82,500 33,400 82,200 33,300 3,087,000 38 10-year Average Rock County, WI 84,900 34,300 84,500 34,200 3,786,000 45 Site Estimate(a) 91 37 91 37 4,000 45 (a) NRC staff extrapolated site production and yield estimates of corn and soybeans based on the size of the site and actual Rock County production and yields. Note: Estimated values in the table are rounded. Key: ac = acres, ha = hectares, and bu = bushels. Source: USDA 2013 Table 3-3. Land Use in the City of Janesville Land Use Category Percent Residential-Single Family Urban 24 Residential-Two-Family/Townhouse 2 Residential-Multifamily 2 Commercial 4 Office 1 Light Industrial 4 Heavy Industrial 4 Community Facilities 11 Parks and Open Space 11 Extraction 2 Vacant 16 Agricultural 0 Surface Water 2 Right-of-Way 17 Total 100 Source: Vandewalle & Associates 2009 The City of Janesville's future land use plan for the proposed site and for the land east of U.S. Highway 51 includes developing it for light industrial uses (Vandewalle & Associates 2009; City of Janesville 2012). Affected Environment 3-8 3.1.2 Visual Resources The visual setting of the area that would be affected by the proposed SHINE facility includes agricultural and light industrial viewsheds. The viewshed to the north and east of the proposed site is mainly flat or has slightly rolling cultivated fields (Figure 3-4). The viewshed to the south is similar, with mostly agricultural fields, although two large warehouses account for some light development. The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, which includes the airport control tower, runways, and several large warehouses and hangers, dominates a light industrial development landscape in the viewshed to the west. The proposed site would be within the viewshed of patrons visiting the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, which supports about 50,000 flight operations annually (Rock County 2009), and of people visiting Airport Park, located northwest of the proposed site across U.S. Highway 51. Trees and other vegetation that border the residential neighborhoods located north and northwest of the proposed site would obstruct the view of the proposed SHINE facility from these neighborhoods. The NRC staff rated the visual resources and scenic quality of the existing site using the USDOI-BLM Visual Resource Management System (BLM 1984). The scenic quality classification is the rating of the visual appeal of the land designated for the proposed site. This rating is based on an evaluation of seven key factors-landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications. Scenic quality is classified as A, B, or C, with A as the highest quality visual rating. The NRC staff gave the proposed site a C rating, with low scenic quality because of the uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, absence of water, mute colors, cultural modifications to adjacent scenery, commonality within the physiographic province, and lack of notable features. The NRC staff also analyzed the sensitivity level, which is a measurement of public concern for scenic quality, using six different indicators-types of users, amount of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, special areas, and other factors. The sensitivity level of public concern for scenic quality is assigned as high, moderate, or low. The NRC staff assigned the proposed site a low sensitivity level because it is located in an area with low scenic values, typical users have low sensitivity to changes in the area's visual quality, the amount of viewer use is low, public interest in changes to the visual quality of the proposed site is low, and the location has no special natural and wilderness areas. 3.2 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise The quality of air in a region depends on the types and quantities of pollutants that enter the atmosphere and the meteorological conditions that tend to alter the pollutants. Air pollutant concentrations result from complex interactions between the physical and dynamic properties of the atmosphere, land, and ocean. The local terrain, the presence of large bodies of water, and other surface features may influence meteorological conditions and may subsequently influence air quality. Air pollutant concentrations are sensitive to winds, temperature, humidity, and precipitation. Similarly, the locations and types of noise emitters primarily determine the noise levels in a region. However, meteorological conditions, terrain, and ground-surface types also may influence noise propagation and noise levels at a given location. This section discusses existing air quality and noise levels near the proposed site and the meteorology and terrain characteristics that may affect them. Affected Environment 3-9 Figure 3-4. Visual Setting of the Proposed SHINE Site Source: SHINE 2015a View of the Proposed SHINE Site from U.S. Highway 51 Looking Northeast View of the Proposed SHINE Site from U.S. Highway 51 Looking East View of the Proposed SHINE Site from Eastern Site Boundary Looking West Affected Environment 3-10 3.2.1 Meteorology and Climatology The proposed site is located in Wisconsin South Central Climate Division 8 near the boundary of the Wisconsin Western Uplands and the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands physiographic provinces (NCDC undated). Climate in this area is characterized by high humidity, warm summers, and snowy winters. Lake Michigan and Lake Superior have a moderating effect on Wisconsin's climate; however, the proposed site is about 60 mi (96 km) west of Lake Michigan, a location that is typically not affected by lake-effect snows. The nearest National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) station is the Afton Station located about 2.6 mi (4.2 km) from the proposed site. To characterize the region's climate, the NRC staff used climatological data collected at the Afton site. Data from the Afton Station indicate that the annual average precipitation for the past 30 years is about 35.0 in. (88.9 cm), of which 12.6 in. (32.0 cm) or about 36 percent of the total falls in summer. The average annual snowfall is about 35 in. (88.9 cm) (NCDC 2010). The minimum average seasonal temperatures during the past 30 years range from 13.8 °F (-10.0 °C) in winter to 59.3 °F (15.0 °C) in summer, and the maximum average seasonal temperatures range from 30.80 °F (-0.66 °C) in winter to 81.6 °F (27.0 °C) in summer (NCDC 2010). Table 3-4 summarizes the annual and seasonal precipitation and temperature data. Table 3-4. Annual and Seasonal Precipitation and Temperature Data for the City of Janesville, Wisconsin Description Time Period Annual Winter (Dec.-Feb.) Spring (Mar.-May) Summer (June-Aug.) Fall (Sep.-Nov.) Average precipitation (in.) 35.2 4.7 9.2 12.6 8.7 Number of days with 0.1-in. precipitation or more 67.8 14.1 18.7 19.6 15.4 Average snowfall (in.) 34.9 28.4 4.7 0.0 1.8 Number of days with 0.1-in. precipitation or more 21.8 17.2 3.2 0.0 1.4 Average temperature (°F) 47.5 22.3 47.1 70.4 49.8 Maximum temperature (°F) 57.8 30.8 57.7 81.6 60.7 Minimum temperature (°F) 37.3 13.8 36.6 59.3 39.0 Note: These are Rock County normals from 1981-2010 for Afton Station 205301. Source: NCDC 2010 Monthly average wind speeds range from 6.6 miles per hour (mph) (10.6 kilometers per hour (kph)) in August to 10.1 mph (16.3 kph) in April. Annual mean wind speed is 8.4 mph (13.5 kph). Prevailing wind directions are from the south-southwest every month except from December through February when prevailing winds are from the northwest (NCDC 2012). The wind rose diagram shown in Figure 3-5 illustrates the frequency of winds blowing from different directions and at different speeds on an annual average basis. The NCDC records identify the following extreme weather events in Rock County from 1996 to 2013: thunderstorms, lightning, hail, strong winds, funnel clouds, tornadoes, heavy rain, floods, and flash floods (NCDC 2013). Over the 17-year period of record, extreme events occurred on Affected Environment 3-11 158 days with deaths or injuries on 6 of those days and property damage on 87 of those days. The strongest tornado in the area, classified as an F21 with wind speeds of 113 to 157 mph (181 to 253 kph) occurred in 1998. Six other tornadoes of lesser intensity also occurred in Rock County from 1996 to 2013. Figure 3-5. Annual Average Wind Rose as Measured at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport Source: SHINE 2015a based on information from NCDC 2011. 1 There are five tornado classifications: F0 to F5. F0 tornadoes cause the least damage, and F5 tornadoes are the most dangerous and cause the most damage. Estimated wind speeds for an F2 tornado are 113 to 157 mph (181 to 253 kph) and cause moderate damage. Affected Environment 3-12 3.2.2 Air Quality In accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (CAA), EPA established National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR Part 50) for six pollutants (often referred to as criteria pollutants) to protect the environment and public health. These pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter includes PM less than 10 micrometers (µm) and PM less than 2.5 µm, which are particles with equivalent aerodynamic diameters less than or equal to 10 and 2.5 µm, respectively. Other air pollutants of concern include greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide and methane, and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as identified in Section 112 of the CAA. The State of Wisconsin regulates emissions of hazardous air contaminants that include the chemicals on the HAPs list and other chemicals (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 445, "Control of Hazardous Pollutants") and has adopted ambient air quality standards within State regulations (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 404, "Ambient Air Quality"). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) limit the concentrations of the six criteria pollutants established to protect human health and welfare. Table 3-5 shows the current NAAQS. Areas in which pollutant concentrations exceed these standards are designated nonattainment areas, because air quality levels do not meet the required standards. Attainment areas are areas in which recent monitoring data demonstrate that concentrations are lower than the NAAQS. If monitoring has been insufficient to determine whether an area meets the standards, the area is designated as an unclassifiable area. The CAA requires development of regulatory plans for nonattainment areas to reduce pollution levels until the area meets the NAAQS within a specified timeframe. State agencies typically complete these plans, which are called State Implementation Plans. After air quality has improved in an area to the point that monitoring data meet the NAAQS, the area is designated as a maintenance area. Air quality designations are generally made at the county level, but designations may also be made for smaller localized areas. For the purpose of planning and maintaining ambient air quality with respect to the NAAQS, EPA has created Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs). AQCRs are intrastate or interstate areas that share a common airshed (40 CFR Part 81). The proposed site is in the Rockford, Illinois-Janesville/Beloit, Wisconsin, Interstate (JBWI) AQCR comprising Boone, De Kalb, Ogle, Stephenson, and Winnebago Counties in Illinois and Rock County, Wisconsin (40 CFR 81.71). The proposed SHINE site is located in Rock County, which is designated as an attainment/unclassifiable area for all criteria pollutants (EPA 2013). The nonattainment areas nearest to the proposed site are the following: (1) McHenry County, Illinois, which is about 19 mi (30 km) south of the proposed site and is part of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin marginal nonattainment areas for the 8-hour ozone 2008 standard (EPA 2013), and (2) Kenosha County, Wisconsin, which is about 38 mi (61 km) east of the proposed site and is part of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin nonattainment area for ozone (EPA 2013). McHenry County and Waukesha County are also designated maintenance areas for PM less than 2.5 µm and the 8-hour ozone 1997 standard, respectively (EPA 2013). However, these nonattainmment and maintenance areas are not within the JBWI AQCR. The region of influence for purposes of the air quality analysis is defined as Rock County. The General Conformity Rule, established under Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA, ensures that Federal actions conform to State Implementation Plans. The Federal agency must conduct a conformity Affected Environment 3-13 analysis if the proposed action is in a designated nonattainment or maintenance area with respect to NAAQS and would result in the generation of air emissions that would exceed conformity threshold levels of pollutants (de minimis thresholds). Because the proposed SHINE facility would be located in a designated attainment/unclassifiable area, a conformity analysis is not required. Table 3-5. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Criteria Pollutant Primary or Secondary Averaging Time Level Description Carbon Monoxide (CO) primary 8 hours 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year 1 hour 35 ppm Lead (Pb) primary and secondary Rolling 3-month average 0.15 µm3(a) Not to be exceeded Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) primary 1 hour 100 ppb 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years primary and secondary Annual 53 ppb(b) Annual mean Ozone (O3) primary and secondary 8 hours 0.075 ppm(c) Annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years Particulate Matter (PM) PM2.5 primary Annual 12 µg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years secondary Annual 15 µg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years primary and secondary 24 hours 35 µg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years PM10 primary and secondary 24 hours 150 µg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) primary 1 hour 75 ppb(d) 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years secondary 3 hours 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year (a) The final rule was signed on October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3) as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except in areas designated non-attainment for the 1978 standard. The 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. (b) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 parts per million (ppm), equal to 53 parts per billion (ppb), shown here for clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard. (c) The final rule was signed on March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have continued obligations under that standard ("antibacksliding"). The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1. (d) The final rule was signed on June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked in this rulemaking. However, these standards remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except in areas designated as nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standard are approved. Source: EPA 2012a Affected Environment 3-14 Table 3-6 shows annual emission rates of criteria pollutants, carbon dioxide, and HAPs for the JBWI AQCR and for Rock County. These emission rates include both stationary and mobile sources (vehicular traffic). Section 3.9 presents data and assumptions regarding the amount of vehicular traffic. Gaseous chemicals that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases (GHGs). The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These pollutants are emitted from natural processes and human activities. As further discussed in Section 3.2.2.1, the GHG Tailoring Rule combines these and other GHGs into a single, representative "pollutant" called carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). Toxic air pollutants, also known as HAPs, are pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects, birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. Under the CAA, the EPA regulates a list of 187 HAPs. Examples of HAPs include benzene, which is found in gasoline; perchloroethylene, which is emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, which many industries use as a solvent and paint stripper. Table 3-6. Regional Air Emissions Inventory Description CO NOx Hydro-carbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 HAPs Quantity Emitted (TPY) in JBWI AQCR 122,608 23,781 30,872 1,337 50,268 12,208 4,789,168 11,521 Quantity Emitted (TPY) in Rock County 32,369 6,026 10,848 99 8,877 2,788 1,131,140 2,182 Key: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrous oxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter of 10 µm or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 µm or less; CO2 = carbon dioxide; HAP = hazardous air pollutants; TPY = tons per year; JBWI = Rockford, Illinois-Janesville-Beloit, Wisconsin, Interstate; and AQCR = air quality control region. Source: EPA 2014a EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule to improve and protect visibility in national parks and wilderness areas from haze that many diverse sources across a broad region may cause (40 CFR 51.308-51.309). Specifically, 40 CFR Part 81, Subpart D, lists mandatory Class I Federal Areas where visibility is an important value. The Regional Haze Rule requires states to develop State Implementation Plans to reduce visibility impairment at Class I Federal Areas. The nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, which is about 295 mi (475 km) from the proposed site (EPA 2012b). The nearest Class I area to the proposed SHINE facility is Rainbow Lake, Wisconsin, which is located approximately 250 mi (401 km) from the site.2 3.2.2.1 Federal New Source Requirements New facilities that emit air pollutants, such as the proposed site, could be subject to Federal requirements, depending on the location and the type and amount of emitted air pollution. The following discussions summarize these requirements. As described in Section 4.2, emission rates from the proposed site are expected to be below the thresholds triggering any of these requirements. The WDNR has regulatory jurisdiction over construction- and operation-related activities, and SHINE may be required to obtain air permits in accordance with Wisconsin 2 Rainbow Lake is a Mandatory Federal Class I area in which visibility is not an important air quality-related value. Affected Environment 3-15 Administrative Code NR 405, "Prevention of Significant Deterioration"; NR 406, "Construction Permits"; and NR 407, "Operation Permits." Prevention of Significant Deterioration Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) is a Federal permitting program that applies to sources classified as major sources (as defined in 40 CFR 52.21) under the PSD program and located in attainment areas. The purpose of the program is to prevent degradation of air quality in areas where air quality is good. New or modified sources of criteria pollutants that exceed de minimis emission rates are subject to the program. The PSD program establishes mandatory Class I areas in which air quality is most pristine and visibility is an important value, such as those near national parks and wilderness areas. For purposes of this air quality analysis, the 250 tons per year (TPY) of any criteria pollutant threshold (40 CFR 52.21) will be considered in determining the significance of air quality impacts for operations. Title V of the Clean Air Act Title V of the CAA requires a Federally enforceable operating permit program that applies to large, new, and existing sources of air pollution. Any facility with the potential to emit 100 TPY or more of any criteria pollutant, 10 TPY of any HAP, or 25 TPY of all HAPs combined is required to obtain a valid Title V permit and is considered a major air source. For purposes of this air quality analysis, the 100 TPY of any criteria pollutant threshold for a Title V operation permit will be considered in determining the significance of air quality impacts for operation. Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued a final rule for mandatory GHG reporting from large GHG emission sources in the United States (74 FR 56260). The purpose of the GHG Tailoring Rule is to collect and use comprehensive and accurate data on carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to inform future policy decisions. In general, the threshold for reporting is 25,000 metric tons or more carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) emissions per year, excluding mobile-source emissions. CO2eq is a metric used to compare the emissions of GHG based on their global warming potential (GWP). GWP is a measure used to compare how much heat a GHG traps in the atmosphere. GWP is the total energy that a gas absorbs over a period of time compared to carbon dioxide. CO2eq is obtained by multiplying the amount of the GHG by the associated GWP. For example, the GWP of methane is estimated to be 21; therefore, 1 ton of methane emission is equivalent to 21 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. On May 13, 2010, the EPA issued the GHG Tailoring Rule. This rule set the thresholds for a phase-in approach to regulating GHG emissions under the PSD and Title V permitting programs (75 FR 31514). Beginning on January 2, 2011,3 operating permits issued to major sources of GHG under the PSD or Title V Federal permit programs must contain provisions requiring the use of best available control technology to limit the emissions of GHGs, if those sources would be subject to PSD or Title V permitting requirements because of their non-GHG pollutant emission potentials and if their estimated GHG emissions are at least 75,000 TPY of CO2eq. 3 On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD or Title V permit but could continue to require PSD and Title V permits, which are otherwise required based on emissions of conventional pollutants. In July 2014, the EPA issued a memorandum in response to the Supreme Court's decision and acknowledged that, although the decision is pending judicial action, the EPA will no longer require PSD or Title V permits for GHG-emitting sources that are not sources subject to PSD or Title V permits based on emissions of conventional pollutants (e.g., nitrogen oxides and, carbon monoxide) (EPA 2014b). Affected Environment 3-16 3.2.3 Noise Noise is often defined as unwanted sound. Sound is created when a source vibrates in air, creating pressure pulses that move through the air or another medium away from the source in waves. When these pressure waves reach a receiver like the human ear, the receiver interprets these waves as sounds. The human ear interprets more forceful vibrations (higher pressures in the sound waves) as louder or more intense sounds. Sound intensity is measured in logarithmic units called decibels (dB). A dB is the ratio of the measured sound pressure level to a reference level equal to a normal person's threshold of hearing. Because of the way the dB is defined mathematically and because of the way human ears respond to sound intensities, comparing the "noisiness" of two sounds based on their dB values is not straightforward. Most people barely notice a difference of 3 dB or less. Another characteristic of sound is frequency or pitch. Noise may be composed of many frequencies, but the human ear does not hear very low or very high frequencies as well as it hears frequencies around 1 to 5 kilohertz. To represent noise as closely as possible to the noise levels people experience, sounds are measured using a frequency-weighting scheme known as the A-scale. Sound levels measured on this A-scale are given in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). Several different terms are commonly used to describe sounds that vary in intensity over time. The equivalent sound intensity level (Leq) represents the average sound intensity level over a specified interval, often 1 hour. The day-night sound intensity level (LDN) is a single value calculated from an hourly equivalent sound intensity level over a 24-hour period, with the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. This addition accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise. Table 3-7 compares common sound levels and ranks the sounds in terms of their effects on hearing. For example, a whisper is normally 30 dBA and is considered very quiet. An air-conditioning unit located 6.1 m (20.0 ft) away is considered an intrusive noise at 60 dBA. Noise levels can become annoying at 80 dBA and very annoying at 90 dBA. To the human ear, each increase of 10 dBA sounds twice as loud (EPA 1981). Table 3-7. Sound Levels and Human Response Noise Level (dBA) Common Sounds Effect 10 Just audible Negligible(a) 30 Soft whisper (4.6 m (15 ft)) Very quiet 50 Light automobile traffic (30.5 m (100 ft)) Quiet 60 Air-conditioning unit (6.1 m (20 ft)) Intrusive 70 Noisy restaurant or freeway traffic Telephone use difficult 80 Alarm clock (0.6 m (2 ft)) Annoying 90 Heavy truck (15.2 m (49.9 ft)) or city traffic Very annoying hearing damage (8 hours) 100 Garbage truck Very annoying(a) 110 Pile drivers Strained vocal effort(a) 120 Jet takeoff (61 m (200 ft)) or automobile horn (0.9 m (3 ft)) Maximum vocal effort 140 Carrier deck jet operation Painfully loud (a) This effect is extrapolated. Key: dBA = decibels A-weighted, and m = meters. Source: EPA 1981 Affected Environment 3-17 3.2.3.1 Noise Regulations There are no regulatory limits on noise levels in the area of the proposed action, but several Federal regulations establish noise guidelines to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and from other adverse physiological, psychological, and social effects associated with noise. Under the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration established workplace standards for noise. The minimum requirement states that constant noise exposure must not exceed 90 dBA over an 8-hr period. The highest allowable sound level to which workers can be exposed is 115 dBA. Exposure to this level must not exceed 15 min within an 8-hr period. If noise levels exceed these standards, employers are required to provide hearing protection equipment that reduces sound levels to acceptable limits (29 CFR 1910.95). The EPA recommends day-night average sound levels of 55 dBA as guidelines or goals for outdoors in residential areas (EPA 1974). However, these levels are not standards. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates noise levels in the vicinity of airports. FAA regulations regarding airport noise compatibility planning (14 CFR Part 150) define the requirements and procedures for public-use airports, such as the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, which is located across the road from the proposed site. The FAA regulation at 14 CFR 150.21 requires a noise exposure map for each airport that identifies incompatible land use and an LDN 65 dBA contour line. The Federal Highway Administration rules in 23 CFR Part 772 regulate highway traffic and construction noise. The rules identify noise abatement criteria (NAC) that define when noise abatement must be considered in highway projects near different land use areas. For example, the noise abatement criterion for residential land use areas is 67 dBA. Although NAC are not noise limits, they do identify levels most people consider an annoyance. Several Wisconsin laws regulate noise associated with different sources and environments, including certain vehicles (such as snowmobiles, boats, and trucks), occupational settings, airports, highways, and wind farms (State of Wisconsin undated). Wisconsin's implementation of the Federal Highway Administration's highway noise rules is contained in Wisconsin Administrative Code Trans 405, "Siting Noise Barriers." Rock County ordinances prohibit nuisance noise and require noise prevention in land divisions and other development activities, but the ordinances do not specify numerical noise limits (Rock County undated a). 3.2.3.2 Existing Noise Levels The region of influence for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the proposed SHINE facility. Existing noise sources near the proposed site include vehicular traffic on U.S. Highway 51 and airplane traffic associated with the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors are a residence and an adjacent park located on West Knilans Road about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from the center of the proposed site. Figure 3-6 shows the proposed site, airport, and nearest receptors. Affected Environment 3-18 Figure 3-6. Proposed SHINE Facility Map Showing Noise Sources and Receptors Source: Modified from SHINE 2015a According to the noise exposure map for the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, the nearest noise receptors experience 55-65 dBA LDN noise levels. The proposed site would produce noise levels less than 55 dBA (SHINE 2013). SHINE's noise modeling for highway traffic noise from U.S. Highway 51 shows that the NAC for residential land uses (67 dBA) is exceeded at distances up to 80 ft (24 m) from the edge of the highway (SHINE 2013). 3.3 Geologic Environment 3.3.1 Site Geology The proposed site is located near the boundary of the Wisconsin Western Uplands and the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands physiographic provinces. The till plains section of the Central Lowland physiographic province of the United States encompasses these provinces. This province occupies the middle of the long stable North American continent. Tectonic activity has little effect on this location (USGS 2003; SHINE 2013, 2015a). Current site topography is flat to gently rolling. Deposits of glacial outwash and glacial till immediately underlay the site. These unconsolidated materials rest atop a bedrock surface, as further described later in this section (SHINE 2015a). Affected Environment 3-19 Site topography slopes gently toward the southwest in the direction of the Rock River, which is located about 2.5 mi (4.0 km) to the west. The change in ground surface elevation across the proposed main facility site is about 7.0 ft (2.1 m) between the southeast and northwest portions of the site. Elevations across the entire site range from about 804 ft (245 m) above mean sea level (MSL) at the southwest corner of the property adjacent to U.S. Highway 51 to 828 ft (252 m) MSL in the northeast corner. A small terraced knoll protrudes into the center of the otherwise gently sloping topography of the proposed site from the northeast (Figure 3-7) (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Physical features and the surficial geology at the proposed site and across the southeastern Wisconsin region are the product of successive glacial advances, retreats, and related depositional and erosional processes during the Pleistocene age or "Ice Age" (Fullerton et al. 2003; SHINE 2015a). The Pleistocene age is defined as the period of geologic time that began about 2.6 million years ago and ended about 11,700 years ago (USGS 2010). Both the Illinoian and younger Wisconsin glaciations affected southeastern Wisconsin and parts of Rock County as lobes of ice comprising the massive Laurentide Ice Sheet moved south and southwest out of central Canada and across the region. Portions of south-central Wisconsin, including southern Rock County and the proposed site, were last glaciated between about 128,000 and 310,000 years ago during the Illinoian Glaciation. At that time, ice covered the eastern half of Wisconsin and extended south into Southern Illinois and east into Indiana and Ohio (Fullerton et al. 2003). The latest glacial advance (the Wisconsin Glaciation) began 100,000 years ago and reached its peak about 30,000 years ago. At its peak, ice reached into Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa and encompassed much of northern and eastern Wisconsin. Although this latest glacial advance did not extend as far south and west as the proposed site, the Jonestown end moraine, which is located about 20 mi (32 km) to the north of the proposed site, marks its terminus. However, by 11,000 years ago, all ice had retreated from the State (SHINE 2015a; Fullerton et al. 2003; WGNHS 2011a). These glacial movements deposited glacial till, basal moraine, and end moraine. Till is a heterogeneous mixture of materials-clay, silt, sand, granules, pebbles, cobbles, and boulders-that glacial ice directly deposits. Ground moraine is a sheet or layer of till that often forms a gently rolling or undulating plain of low relief. End moraine, a thickened layer of till deposited at the margin of glacial ice, characteristically exists as belts of till or as concentric or overlapping ridges of till (Fullerton et al. 2003). Glacial streams flowing from the edges of the ice deposited sand and gravel outwash (SHINE 2015a; WGNHS 2011b). Alluvial processes, including flowing water, wind, and erosion, have subsequently reworked the deposited materials. The surficial geology of Rock County consists of the Wisconsin-age Johnstown moraine to the north. This moraine formed at the margins of the Green Bay ice lobe. The remainder of the county contains Illinoian-age ground moraine deposits that southward-flowing glacial outwash stream deposits and lake deposits have dissected in places. The stream valleys now contain late Wisconsin-age and possibly Holocene-age glaciofluvial outwash deposits (SHINE 2015a; Fullerton et al. 2003). The surficial geologic unit at the proposed site is mapped as glaciofluvial outwash composed of sand and gravel. Figure 3-7 is a generalized geologic section that shows the glacial terrain and the surficial and bedrock strata in the vicinity of the proposed site. Affected Environment 3-20 Figure 3-7. Geologic Cross-Section of the Proposed SHINE Site and Vicinity Source: Adapted from Zaporozec 1982 SHINE and its contractors conducted geotechnical investigations at the proposed site. These investigations revealed predominantly coarse, poorly graded (i.e., well-sorted) sandy sediment and soils to a depth of 221 ft (67 m) below ground surface (bgs) with occasional gravel layers (GAI 2012a). Testing of 15 boring samples further revealed that the density of the sand increases with depth and is generally compact. At a depth of 180- to 185-ft (55- to 56-m) bgs, a layer of hard clayey silt was encountered in the three deepest borings with a thickness of 10 to 18 ft (3.0 to 5.5 m). Sand or silty sand underlay this hardened layer to the total borehole depth of 221-ft (67-m) bgs (GAI 2012a). Based on drilling conducted as part of the site geotechnical investigations, the depth to bedrock is greater than 221-ft (67.4-m) bgs. Glacial action gouged, and then glacial and postglacial sediments filled, the uppermost bedrock surface beneath the proposed site. Figure 3-7 shows the expression of the ancestral Rock River Valley in the dissected bedrock surface. Beneath the mantle of Pleistocene- and Holocene-age sediments, the uppermost bedrock unit is the Platteville-Galena Formation of Ordovician age, which comprises limestone and dolomite. In descending order, sandstones of the St. Peter Formation and the carbonates of the Prairie du Chien Group, where present, underlay the Platteville-Galena Formation. These eroded units rest upon a thick sequence of Cambrian-age sedimentary rock that consists primarily of sandstone in the upper part. These Cambrian-age rocks are up to 1,000-ft (300-m) thick and extend to Precambrian-age basement rock (SHINE 2015a; WGNHS 2011b). Sedimentary bedrock underlying the proposed site formed from materials deposited in a shallow marine environment over millions of years in a structural feature known as the Michigan Basin. The proposed site lies on the western margin of the Michigan Basin and on the southeastern edge of another feature-the Wisconsin Arch. The Wisconsin Arch and the Kankakee Arch to the south of the proposed site are northwest- to southeast-striking tectonic features believed to be related to crustal adjustment during and following the development and filling of the Michigan Proposed SHINE Site Affected Environment 3-21 Basin more than 300 million years ago. This deformation led to the regional faulting and folding of subsurface strata in some areas. Despite this activity, the orientation of sedimentary strata beneath the proposed site indicates little deformation during the last 500 million years (SHINE 2015a). Still, several geologic faults mapped regionally in association with the Wisconsin and Kankakee Arches are located as close as 2 mi (3 km) to the proposed site. One of the most prominent faults is the Waukesha fault located about 20 mi (32 km) to the east and northeast of the proposed site. This northeast-striking fault runs for up to 133 mi (214 km) in the subsurface. Closer to the proposed site, the Janesville fault (or the Evansville fault) is located about 6 mi (10 km) north of the City of Janesville. This 19-mi-long (31-km-long) east-striking fault exhibits an estimated 70 ft (21 m) of displacement. A smaller unnamed fault of orientation similar to the Janesville fault has been traced for about 1.6 mi (2.6 km). It is located less than 2 mi (3 km) north of the City of Janesville. None of these faults are expressed at the surface, and no reported evidence exists of Pleistocene or post-Pleistocene activity on any regional faults (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Further, the NRC staff's review of the USGS's latest release of the Quaternary Fault and Fold Database found no record of Quaternary faults or folds within a 300-mi (480-km) radius of the proposed site (USGS 2012). However, liquefaction features in the Wabash Valley in southern Indiana and Illinois, located about 170 mi (274-km) south of the proposed site, indicate the presence of active faulting in the Holocene and late Pleistocene period (SHINE 2013; Crone and Wheeler 2000). Therefore, SHINE considered these faults capable because the characteristics in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 are exhibited (SHINE 2015a). Section 3.3.3 further describes the seismic setting, including earthquake risk, at the proposed site. Geologic resources, encompassing rock and mineral (fuel and nonfuel) resources, in the vicinity of the proposed site, are primarily related to the area's extensive sand and gravel deposits. Rock County features widespread nonmetallic mining, including construction sand and gravel and crushed stone operations (USGS 2013a). Two sand and gravel mining operations and one crushed stone mining operation are within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site (Find the Data 2014). 3.3.2 Soils Based on SHINE's geotechnical investigation (Section 3.3.1), the proposed site generally consists of stratified sand and gravel that underlay well-drained loamy soils (GAI 2012a). The USDA NRCS soil unit mapping identifies the majority of the proposed site (90 percent) as Warsaw silt loam with 2- to 6-percent slopes, and as Warsaw silt loam with 0- to 2-percent slopes (Figure 3-3). These soil mapping units comprise well-drained silt loams and sandy clay loams found on outwash plains and stream terraces that developed from calcareous sand and gravelly outwash. The profiles of these soils grade to a gravelly coarse sand or sand at depths greater than about 36 in. (91 cm). The depth to the water table in these soils is generally 60 to 80 in. (150 to 200 cm), and water rarely ponds on these soils. The only building site limitation for these soils is that shallow excavations tend to be very unstable because of high sand and gravelly content (NRCS 2013). The soils are further classified as slightly to moderately erodible (NRCS 2013; SHINE 2015a). Given the recent agricultural history of the proposed site, the soils have a well-developed organic soil horizon in the upper 12- to 24-in. (30- to 60-cm) soil profile, which promotes soil tilth while reducing erosion. Section 3.1.1.4 notes that these Warsaw silt loam soils are prime farmland soils when they are not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013; 7 CFR 657.5(a)). Affected Environment 3-22 The remaining south-central portion of the proposed site comprises eroded Lorenzo loam with 6- to 12-percent slopes. These soils are also well drained and grade from a loam in the upper part to a gravelly to very gravelly clay loam below a depth of about 15 in. (38 cm). They occupy outwash plains and knobs that developed from loamy outwash over sandy and gravelly parent materials. Because of slope factors and dense soil horizons, this soil is classified as somewhat to very limited for building site development. This soil unit is also prone to slumping in shallow excavations (NRCS 2013). These soils are farmland of statewide importance when they are not committed to developed uses (Section 3.1.1.4) (7 CFR 657.5(c)). Borings that SHINE obtained during the geotechnical investigation did not identify the presence of highly plastic clays indicative of expansive or high shrink/swell potential soils (GAI 2012a; SHINE 2015a). 3.3.3 Seismic Setting Southeastern Wisconsin lies within the central portion of the stable North American craton. Historically, the seismicity of the region encompassing the proposed site is characterized by relatively infrequent small to moderate earthquakes typical of much of the central and eastern United States (SHINE 2013; USGS 2013b). Across the stable continental region of the United States, most locations can go years without an earthquake strong enough for people to feel. In the central and eastern United States, people can feel earthquakes over a very wide area. For example, people can feel a magnitude 4.0 earthquake at locations as far as 60 mi (100 km) from its source, and the earthquake can occasionally cause damage near its source. People can usually feel a magnitude 5.5 earthquake as far as 300 mi (500 km) from its source, and the earthquake often causes damage near its epicenter and sometimes as far away as 25 mi (40 km) (USGS 2013b). The USGS's seismic hazard estimates indicate the proposed site is located within one of the lower earthquake hazard areas in the conterminous United States. Earthquake sources in Southern Illinois are the primary controllers of hazard in the region (Petersen et al. 2011; SHINE 2015a). Since 1973, six earthquakes within a radius of 200 mi (322 km) of the proposed site have been recorded with a magnitude equal to, or greater than, 2.5. Two of these events occurred in 2013 and one in 2012 at magnitudes of 3.2, 2.6, and 3.0, respectively. The closest earthquake was a magnitude 2.6 earthquake in June 2013, with its epicenter near the City of Campton Hills, Illinois, about 51 mi (82 km) southeast of the proposed site (USGS 2013c). The largest earthquake was a magnitude 4.2 event in June 2004, centered near the City of Ottawa, Illinois, about 80 mi (130 km) south of the proposed site (SHINE 2013; USGS 2013c, 2013f). This notable earthquake was widely felt across northern Illinois, southern Wisconsin, and western Indiana. Across southeast Wisconsin, it produced shaking in the range of II to III on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale, but no serious damage was reported (USGS 2013d). Although people can feel shaking in this range, this level is unlikely to produce any damage to structures (USGS 2013e). Historically, larger earthquakes have occurred in adjoining regions with effects felt across southern Wisconsin. The largest of these earthquakes occurred on May 26, 1909, with an estimated magnitude of 5.1. The epicenter of this earthquake was near Aurora, Illinois, about 85 mi (137 km) southeast of the proposed site (SHINE 2013; USGS 2013d). The earthquake produced MMI VII shaking at its epicenter with many reports of fallen and damaged chimneys. This event is estimated to have produced MMI V shaking across the area of the proposed site (SHINE 2013; USGS 2013f). MMI V shaking can overturn objects and cause minor damage to personal property (USGS 2013e). Affected Environment 3-23 Using USGS national seismic hazard model data, SHINE performed a site-specific analysis to assess the potential maximum earthquake magnitude that may affect the proposed site and its immediate surroundings. SHINE determined that an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.8 can reasonably be regarded as the maximum considered earthquake to occur in the region (i.e., within about 200 mi (322 km) of the proposed site). This earthquake estimate encompasses events producing maximum earthquake response accelerations ranging from 0.119 to 0.206 gravity (i.e., the force of acceleration relative to that of Earth's gravity). This value represents shaking from an earthquake with a 2-percent probability of exceedance in the next 50 years (i.e., an earthquake with a 2,475-year return period). The NRC staff will further evaluate the potential maximum earthquake in the Safety Evaluation Report related to the SHINE construction permit application. Using the same earthquake return period, SHINE also estimated the probabilistic peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the proposed site reflective of sites with soft rock or very stiff soil. SHINE's calculated PGA was about 0.05 gravity (SHINE 2013). This calculated PGA is consistent with PGA estimates published in the USGS's 2008 national seismic hazard maps (Petersen et al. 2011). These data indicate a low to very low earthquake shaking hazard at the proposed site (SHINE 2013, 2015a). 3.4 Water Resources 3.4.1 Surface Water 3.4.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology The major surface-water feature in the vicinity of the proposed site is the Rock River, located about 1.9 mi (3.1 km) west of the proposed site at its closest point (Figure 3-8). No named tributaries originate on or border the proposed site. However, as shown in Figure 3-8, the headwaters of an unnamed tributary to the Rock River are located about 1.6 mi (2.6 km) southwest of the proposed site and west of U.S. Highway 51. The local watershed that contributes drainage to, and receives drainage from, the proposed site encompasses about 1,377 ac (557 ha) (Figure 3-8). USGS-delineated hydrologic unit (watershed) boundaries are depicted in the figure. U.S. Highway 51 roughly bisects the proposed site and local watershed. Drainage across the proposed site and vicinity is predominantly to the south and southwest across the proposed site toward the unnamed tributary to the Rock River located south of the proposed site. Culverts under U.S. Highway 51 convey runoff and drainage from the east side ditch to the west side, including two culvert locations (three culvert pipes) adjacent to the proposed site. These include a 30-in. (76-cm) culvert located along the northwest boundary of the proposed site with U.S. Highway 51 and a pair of 24-in. (61-cm) culverts located near the southwest corner of the proposed site and U.S. Highway 51. Drainage across the proposed site toward the unnamed tributary flows through these culverts and then passes through the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, through culverts under West Airport Road, through the Glen Erin Golf Course, and through a box culvert under West Happy Hollow Road. Beyond West Happy Hollow Road, the receiving tributary passes through the wooded Rock River floodplain before discharging to Rock River (SHINE 2015a). Affected Environment 3-24 Figure 3-8. Surface-Water Features in the Vicinity of the Proposed SHINE Site Source: Adapted from SHINE 2015a Affected Environment 3-25 Rock River originates in the Horicon Marsh in Dodge County, Wisconsin, where the east, south, and west branches of Rock River join. In Horicon, at the south edge of the marsh, the river flows southerly for about 76 mi (122 km) to Fort Atkinson, which roughly marks the southern end of the Upper Rock River Basin and the beginning of the Lower Rock River Basin. From Fort Atkinson, Rock River flows in a generally southwest direction through Lake Koshkonong and then generally south through Rock County and to the west of the proposed site. Rock River flows across a total of about 62 mi (100 km) in the Lower Rock River Basin before entering Illinois south of the City of Beloit. It ultimately discharges to the Mississippi River downstream of Rock Island, Illinois (Sinclair 1996; Rock County 2009; WDNR 2012a). Many small dams regulate the flow of Rock River. Originally constructed for hydropower facilities, these low dams do not form deep impoundments. The Indianford Dam, which impounds Lake Koshkonong, is located about 21 mi (34 km) upstream of the point where drainage from the Janesville site enters Rock River through the unnamed tributary. Closer to, and to the north of, the proposed site, the Centerway Dam is located near downtown in the City of Janesville and upstream of the Monterey Dam. The lower Monterey Dam is located about 6.5 mi (10.5 km) upstream of the proposed site drainage confluence and about 2 river miles (RM) (3.2 km) downstream of the Centerway Dam. The first downstream dam on Rock River is the Blackhawk Dam (Beloit Dam), which is located about 8.4 RM (13.5 km) downstream of the proposed site (SHINE 2013, 2015a). The nearest USGS gaging station on Rock River is the Afton gage station (Station 05430500). This gage station is located slightly southwest of the proposed site and upstream from the point at which site drainage (through the unnamed tributary) ultimately enters Rock River, as previously described. The mean annual discharge measured at the Afton gage for water years 1914 to 2012 is 2,015 cubic feet per second (cfs) (57 cubic meters per second (m3/s)). The 90-percent exceedance flow, which is generally indicative of drought conditions, is 499 cfs (14 m3/s). For water year 2012, the mean discharge was 1,927 cfs (55 m3/s). The drainage area of Rock River upstream of the Afton gage encompasses 3,340 square miles (mi2) (8,650 square kilometers (km2)) (USGS 2013g). No stream flow data are available for the unnamed tributary to Rock River that receives site runoff. Peak flows and flooding on streams in Rock County typically occur either in late winter or early spring, from March to April, and often in June, as a result of early summer thunderstorms. Floods on Rock River at Afton also generally occur from March to April with few floods from November to January (SHINE 2015a). No floodplains are delineated on or near the proposed site (FEMA 2008; SHINE 2015a; Rock County 2009). The flood insurance rate map for the proposed site and vicinity identifies mapped areas as Zone X, the zone for areas outside the 500-year flood elevation. In addition, the proposed site is not located in an area identified as prone to seasonally high water tables or hydric soil conditions (Rock County 2009). However, floodplains are mapped in association with the unnamed tributary to Rock River south of the proposed site (FEMA 2008; Rock County 2009). Rock River flood levels near the proposed site are well below the lowest ground elevations at the proposed site. Because river flood levels are also sufficiently below the proposed site, the river flood levels have no backwater influence on the unnamed tributary flood-water levels (GAI 2012a; SHINE 2015a). 3.4.1.2 Surface Water Quality and Use The State of Wisconsin has established water quality standards, numeric criteria, and associated designated use categories for all waters of the State, including wetlands. These Affected Environment 3-26 standards and use designations are the basis for regulatory, permitting, or funding activities that have an impact on water quality. The main stem of the Rock River is regulated in accordance with its use for waste assimilation, recreation, fish and aquatic life, irrigation, stock and wildlife watering, and hydropower (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 104, "Uses and Designated Standards"). Its designated use is for recreation and for fish and aquatic life. Governing water quality standards include limitations on pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and various chemical constituents and toxic substances, in accordance with Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102, "Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters." Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) requires states to identify all "impaired" waters for which effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water quality standards. The Section 303(d) list includes those water quality limited segments that require development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to ensure future compliance with water quality standards. TMDLs have been established for several segments of Rock River. Most notably the 12.4-mi (20-km) segment of Rock River, between the City of Janesville's Wastewater Treatment Plant at RM 183.45 and RM 171 at the Illinois State line, is listed as impaired because total suspended solids and total phosphorous contribute to degraded aquatic habitat and low dissolved oxygen, respectively (WDNR 2013b). The unnamed tributary south of the proposed site (Figure 3-8) discharges to this impaired segment of the river. SHINE collected baseline surface-water quality data for this unnamed tributary from a location where it flows beneath the U.S. Highway 51 bridge near West Happy Hollow Road (SHINE 2015a). The water quality is reflective of the surficial groundwater that provides baseflow to the streams and that indicates some evidence of agricultural runoff based on fecal coliform and nitrate concentrations. The NRC staff visually surveyed this monitoring location during the environmental site audit in July 2013, and it observed that the tributary was a shallow and somewhat braided channel with continuous flow. In addition to the uses noted earlier in this section, surface-water use in Rock County is primarily limited to use in thermoelectric power generation (Buchwald 2011). Public and community water systems in Rock County use groundwater instead of surface water (Section 3.4.2) (Buchwald 2011; Rock County 2009; SHINE 2015a). 3.4.2 Groundwater 3.4.2.1 Site Description and Hydrogeology Groundwater beneath the proposed site occurs in unconsolidated and consolidated water-bearing deposits (aquifers). The USGS has broadly classified and grouped the distinct geologic units comprising these aquifers into the surficial aquifer system and the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system (Olcott 1992). Neither of these systems contains sole-source aquifers. The geologic units comprising these systems are described in Section 3.3 and are summarized here. The surficial aquifer system is the most widespread system across Wisconsin and bordering States. Across Rock County, it predominantly comprises Pleistocene-age glacial sediments and younger alluvial sediments that lie atop the bedrock surface (Olcott 1992; SHINE 2015a). At the proposed site, and as shown in Figure 3-7, the local surficial aquifer comprises glacial outwash, a mixture of poorly graded sand and of sand and gravel (GAI 2012b; SHINE 2015a; Zaporozec 1982). The results of geotechnical borings at the proposed site in 2011 (Section 3.3) reveal that sandy sediments extend to a depth of at least 221-ft (67-m) bgs, except for an Affected Environment 3-27 intervening 10.0- to 18.0-ft-thick (3.0- to 5.5-m-thick) layer of hard clayey silt at a depth of 180- to 185-ft (55- to 56-m) bgs. As part of the geotechnical and hydrologic/hydrogeologic studies at the Janesville site, SHINE drilled 4 of the 14 boreholes to use as groundwater monitoring wells. The wells were constructed of 2-in. (5-cm) diameter polyvinyl chloride pipe and completed to depths ranging from 60.0 to 71.5 ft (18.0 to 22.0 m). All the borings completed on the proposed site encountered the water table at depths ranging from about 754-ft (230 m) MSL to 766-ft (233 m) MSL, or from about 50- to 65-ft (15- to 20-m) bgs, with about 3 ft (1 m) of seasonal variation (GAI 2012a, 2012b; SHINE 2015a). Subsequently, SHINE conducted water table and groundwater quality monitoring monthly from October 2011 to September 2012 (SHINE 2015a). SHINE measured water levels and the hydraulic gradient and determined that the direction of groundwater flow beneath the proposed site was southwest (GAI 2012a; SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff found these results consistent with expectations for a surficial aquifer in which the water table is normally a reflection of the overlying topography; the groundwater flow is predominantly in the direction of surface-water drainages that may receive baseflow from groundwater discharge. To assess the hydraulic conductivity and other characteristics of the surficial aquifer, SHINE selected three of the wells for slug testing. SHINE's analyses yielded an average conductivity (permeability) of 0.0045 ft per second (0.14 cm per second) (GAI 2012a; SHINE 2015a). Estimates of the advective travel time for any potential groundwater contamination were also made for various modeling scenarios. Based on the completion of a 1-year groundwater monitoring data set, SHINE estimated that the expected westerly travel time to the Rock River is 9 years. The estimate of the expected travel time south to the unnamed tributary to the Rock River is 26 years (SHINE 2015a). As a water source, the surficial aquifer in Rock County has demonstrated yields of 5,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (18.9 cubic meters per minute (m3/min)), with a resulting drawdown of less than 7.0 ft (2.1 m) over a 24-hour period of pumping (Olcott 1968; SHINE 2015a). More typical yields from wells completed in outwash deposits are about 500 gpm (1.9 m3/min). In contrast, wells completed in glacial till might yield 1 to 10 gpm (0.004 to 0.04 m3/min) of groundwater to wells. The surficial aquifer is recharged locally from precipitation, with groundwater generally moving downgradient to discharge points (Olcott 1992). The City of Janesville has estimated that the average groundwater recharge rate for Rock County is 6.3 in. per year (16 cm per year) (City of Janesville 2010). Beneath Rock County, the Platteville-Galena Formations (dolomite), St. Peter Formation (sandstone), Prairie du Chen Group dolomites, and deeper Cambrian sandstone formations represent the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system (Section 3.3.1 and Figure 3-7) (Olcott 1992; SHINE 2015a). These units may act as a single aquifer or as independent aquifers, based on the separation of the units by less permeable members (Olcott 1992; SHINE 2015a). Although the rocks of the Platteville-Galena are considered confining units, particularly where they are overlain by younger sedimentary rocks, they represent a local aquifer in outcrop areas across Wisconsin suitable for domestic water supply (Olcott 1968, 1992). Similarly, the rocks of the St. Peter Formation and Prairie du Chen Group comprise the St. Peter-Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer-also known as the sandstone aquifer in Rock County. In general, recharge to these aquifer strata occurs where the strata outcrop at the surface and also from the overlying glacial sediments (Olcott 1992). In most areas, the confining units of this aquifer system are leaky and allow vertical downward movement of groundwater within the system (Olcott 1992). In particular, the Prairie du Chien Affected Environment 3-28 Group and St. Peter Formation outcrop in the major river valleys over much of the western part of Rock County, whereas bedrock east of the Rock River and ridgetops to the west represent the Platteville-Galena (Olcott 1968). On a regional basis, the direction of groundwater flow in the uppermost portion of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system is generally south to southeast toward the Illinois Basin and/or toward regional discharge areas, such as Rock River. The exception is where large pumping centers, such as those in eastern Wisconsin, affect flow (Olcott 1992). Well yields vary considerably from the individual aquifers that comprise the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system (Olcott 1992). However, Olcott (1968) observed that wells completed in the sandstones can yield 1,000 gpm (3.8 m3/min) or more. 3.4.2.2 Groundwater Quality and Use Groundwater across Rock County is characterized as good and is suitable for most uses. Its chemical quality is the result of its movement through the surficial sediments and underlying bedrock, which are high in calcium-magnesium carbonate. As a result, the water is primarily of the calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type in both the surficial and bedrock aquifers. Groundwater is also very hard because of high concentrations of calcium and magnesium, and it is slightly alkaline (Zaporozec 1982). For the surficial aquifer, the mean concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) is reported as 351 milligrams per liter (mg/L) with mean TDS concentrations from the Platteville-Galena unit and St. Peter sandstones of 416 and 349 mg/L, respectively (Zaporozec 1982). Groundwater results from onsite monitoring wells revealed TDS concentrations ranging from 340 to 462 mg/L (SHINE 2015a). The State of Wisconsin regulates groundwater quality and administers groundwater protection programs in accordance with Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 140, "Groundwater Quality." Rock County obtains nearly all its potable water from groundwater. This includes water for municipal supply and for residential and other private uses, including agricultural and industrial uses (Rock County 2009). The City of Janesville Water Utility uses eight high-capacity wells as its public supply and has established a wellhead protection plan (SHINE 2015a). Four of these are shallow wells that produce from glacial outwash deposits. The wells are completed to depths ranging from 100 to 215 ft (30 to 66 m) with pump capacities ranging from 2,500 to 4,200 gpm (9.5 to 15.9 m3/min). The remaining three are much deeper wells that withdraw from the sandstone aquifer in the St. Peter Formation. These wells are completed to depths ranging from 1,142 to 1,169 ft (348 to 356 m) deep with pump capacities ranging from 2,400 to 2,600 gpm (9.1 to 9.8 m3/min) (City of Janesville 2010, 2013b; WDNR 2013c). The Janesville Water Utility controls high levels of nitrate in some shallow groundwater by blending water from the shallow and deep wells before distribution (City of Janesville 2010, 2013b). The City of Janesville also maintains two covered storage reservoirs with 14 million gallons (53,000 cubic meters (m3)) of storage capacity. In total, the City of Janesville's groundwater supply system has a capacity of about 32 million gallons per day (mgd) (121,100 cubic meters per day (m3/d)) and demand is about 10 mgd (37,900 m3/d) (City of Janesville 2013a). The City of Janesville projects the groundwater demand to increase 50 percent by 2030, with a similar increase countywide (City of Janesville 2010). The USGS has characterized the hydrogeology of the Rock River Basin, including groundwater flow in the basin, as part of developing a groundwater modeling tool for evaluating the effects of water management programs (Juckem 2009). The groundwater flow model for the Rock River Basin identified 30 high-capacity public wells and 190 irrigation, industrial, and community wells within Rock County. The model does not account for smaller private wells that are responsible for about 20 percent of all the county's groundwater use (City of Janesville 2010). Affected Environment 3-29 As part of developing the groundwater flow model, USGS compiled groundwater production data from across the Rock River Basin. Groundwater withdrawals by municipal systems averaged about 84.8 mgd (321,000 m3/d) for the period from 1997 to 2006, which account for 75 percent of the total groundwater withdrawn from high-capacity wells. The municipal water systems of Janesville (13.2 mgd (50,000 m3/d)) and Beloit (6.6 mgd (25,000 m3/d)) were in the top five of such systems, with Madison at the top of the list (32.5 mgd (123,000 m3/day)). Withdrawals for irrigation and industrial or commercial purposes averaged 27 mgd (102,000 m3/d) (Juckem 2009). The deeper sandstone aquifers (part of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system) to the east of the Rock River Basin historically have been in a state of overdraft (aquifer drawdown) because of the influence of large, municipal groundwater withdrawals (Avery 2005; Grannemann et al. 2000). However, because of the presence of a hydrogeologic divide and an extensive regional geologic confining unit, groundwater within central and western Rock County is little affected by these influences. The vast majority of groundwater within the county, whether it is within the surficial or Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer systems, cycles and flows within the county and eventually discharges to the Rock River or other streams. It is not lost to, and is not appreciably influenced by, activities in other groundwater basins (Juckem 2009). The nearest active drinking water well is a private well (State Well No. MF461), which is located about 0.75 mi (1.20 km) northwest of the proposed site. The well has a diameter of 5.0 in. (12.7 cm) and was completed to a depth of 82 ft (25 m) (SHINE 2015a; WDNR 2013d; WDATCP 2013). During the environmental site audit, the NRC staff noted the presence of an additional well just south of the southwestern site boundary (SHINE 2015a). According to the well's completion report, it was drilled in 1974 to service a helicopter port. The well was completed to a depth of 90 ft (27 m) in sand and gravel, with a static water level at 60 ft (18 m) (WDATCP 2013). The well is currently used to supply an indoor sink and to wash down equipment (SHINE 2013). 3.5 Ecological Resources 3.5.1 Ecoregion The proposed site is located within the Southeast Glacial Plains ecoregion, which includes 7,725 square miles (mi2) (20,007 square kilometers (km2)) in southeastern Wisconsin. This ecoregion primarily consists of glacial till plains and moraines or areas with accumulated soil and rocks left behind from a moving glacier during the Wisconsin Ice Age. The Southeast Glacial Plains has the highest aquatic productivity for plants, insects, other invertebrates, and fish of any ecological landscape in Wisconsin. The main ecological features within the ecoregion include lakes, marshes, fens, sedge meadows, wet prairies, tamarack swamps, and floodplain forests (WDNR 2013e). The primary undeveloped land cover that provides habitat within the ecoregion includes agricultural cropland (58 percent), followed by wetlands (12 percent) and forests (11 percent). Common forest types include maple-basswood, oak, lowland hardwoods, and conifer swamps. Most forested areas are located in riparian areas along rivers, such as Rock River, or within rugged topography that inhibits agricultural activities. The amount and connectivity of forests and native grasslands have decreased since the 1800s because of agricultural activities and, to some extent, commercial, residential, and other development, thereby leaving few large undisturbed tracts of forest. Wetlands have also declined over time because of hydrologic modifications (e.g., ditching, diking, and tiling), grazing, infestations of invasive plants, and excessive inputs of sediment- and nutrient-laden runoff from croplands (WDNR 2013e). Affected Environment 3-30 3.5.2 Site The proposed site consists of 91 ac (37 ha) of agricultural lands and 0.2 ac (0.1 ha) of developed open space, such as grassy areas. The proposed site has been continuously disturbed from agricultural activities during the past several decades. Because of these agricultural activities, plant communities located on the proposed site are primarily limited to cultivated crops, including corn (Zea mays), soybean (Glycine max), and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum), and to weedy species, including fescue (Festuca spp.), green foxtail (Setaria viridis), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), and common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Because of the clearing and tilling associated with agricultural activities, the proposed site has no forests, wetlands, grasslands, or prairies. In addition, no water bodies, aquatic habitats, or riparian zones exist within the boundaries of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). The proposed site provides habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other wildlife tolerant of open or plowed fields and cultivated grasses or other crops. To characterize the types of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that use the proposed site, SHINE conducted quarterly field reconnaissance survey studies from October 2011 to September 2012 (SHINE 2013, 2015a). During each survey, SHINE and its contractors walked through the entire site. SHINE also looked for road kills, tracks, scat, nests, and other lines of evidence to determine what mammals occur on or near the proposed site. SHINE conducted additional birding surveys by driving along the periphery of the proposed site at sunrise, stopping every 0.5 mi (0.8 km), and recording all birds seen or heard during a 3-minute survey period at each stop. SHINE and its contractors conducted birding studies on two separate dates during each of the four seasons. As part of the birding and aquatic surveys, SHINE documented incidental observations of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. SHINE and its contractors observed 58 bird species, 9 mammal species, and 7 reptile and amphibian species during the 2011-2012 surveys on and near the proposed site (Table 3-8). Because of the mobility and range of the wildlife described in the table, wildlife observed on agricultural fields near the proposed site also likely use the proposed site as they travel to forage, rest, breed, or seek refuge from predators. The species listed in Table 3-8 are representative of species tolerant of human-altered landscapes, such as agricultural fields. Wildlife that requires trees, native plants, shrubs, or uncultivated grasses would not use the proposed site because of the lack of forested areas, wetlands, and native grasslands. Table 3-8. Wildlife Observed On or Near the Proposed Site Scientific Name Common Name On Site 5-mi (8-km) Radius Birds Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird x x Branta canadensis Canadian goose x x Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk x x Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal x Carduelis tristis American goldfinch x Carpodacus mexicanus house finch x Charadrius vociferus killdeer x x Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow x x Eremophila alpestris horned lark x x Passer domesticus house sparrow x Affected Environment 3-31 Scientific Name Common Name On Site 5-mi (8-km) Radius Quiscalus quiscula common grackle x Spizella pusilla field sparrow x x Sturnus vulgaris European starling x Turdus migratorius American robin x Mammals Canis latrans coyote x Didelphis virginiana opossum x Marmota monax groundhog x x Mephitis mephitis striped skunk x Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer x x Procyon lotor raccoon x x Sciurus carolinensis grey squirrel x Spermophilus tridecemlineatus thirteen-lined ground squirrel x Sylvilagus floridanus eastern cottontail x x Reptiles and Amphibians Bufo americanus American toad x Rana catesbiana bullfrog x Rana clanitans green frog x Rana pipiens northern leopard frog x Pseudacris crucifer spring peeper x Chelydra serpentina common snapping turtle x Thamnophis sirtalis eastern garter snake x Source: SHINE 2015a 3.5.3 Habitats in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site Within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site, most of the area (62 percent) is used for agricultural purposes. Vegetation and wildlife within agricultural fields surrounding the proposed site are likely to be similar to those found at the proposed site. The next sections describe other types of habitats-forests, grasslands, wetlands, and aquatic-within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site. 3.5.3.1 Forested Habitats Forests cover 7 percent of the area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Typical forests in the vicinity consist of maple-basswood, lowland hardwoods, and oaks (WDNR 2002). Forested habitats primarily occur in riparian areas adjacent to the Rock River and its associated tributaries (SHINE 2015a). Historically, forests covered a larger portion of the area; however, many of the forests have been converted into agricultural fields (WDNR 2013e). Remaining forested tracts, especially in riparian areas, provide important habitat for wildlife and birds. Many neotropical migrating birds use forested riparian habitats along the Rock River for resting, foraging, and providing refuge from predators. The WDNR (2014b) identified the following two forest communities of special interest within 6 mi (10 km) of the proposed site: (1) Southern Dry-Mesic Forest. This is an upland forest community that commonly includes white oak (Quercus alba), brasswood (Tilia spp.), sugar and red maples Affected Environment 3-32 (Acer spp.), white ash (Fraxinus Americana), shagbark hickory (Carya ovate), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Red oaks (Q. rubra) are commonly the most abundant tree species within southern dry-mesic forests. (2) Southern Mesic Forest. This is an upland forest that commonly includes sugar maples and basswood as the most abundant tree taxa. Other common trees found in southern mesic forests include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), walnut (Juglans spp.), red oak, red maple, white ash, and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra). 3.5.3.2 Grassland Habitats Grasslands cover about 2 percent of the area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Native grasslands include a variety of habitats, including sedge meadows, prairies, and savannas (Sample and Mossman 1997). Before the arrival of European settlers, native grasslands, such as prairies, covered about 50 percent of southern Wisconsin. Agricultural activities converted the majority of native grasslands into cultivated crops. The remaining areas of native grasslands are usually small and disconnected from other patches of native grasslands (Sample and Mossman 1997). These small patches provide lower quality habitat than larger connected tracts of grasslands. Predation, for example, is usually higher along the edge of a patch of prairie than at the center of a large continuous patch of prairie, which is likely due to the fact that prey are more visible and have fewer places to hide from predators along the edge of a patch. The NRC staff notes that cultivated grasses, such as corn and wheat, are sometimes considered grasslands. Because native grasses are relatively rare in the area and native grasses provide a substantially higher quality habitat than cultivated grasses, the NRC staff classified cultivated crops as agricultural lands in this environmental impact statement (EIS). The WDNR (2014b) identified the following four grassland communities of special interest within 6 mi (10 km) of the proposed site: (1) Dry Prairie. This is a dry grassland community that usually occurs on steep south- or west-facing slopes or at the summits of river bluffs with sandstone or dolomite bedrock near the surface. Dominant grasses include short- to medium-sized prairie grasses, such as little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), side-oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta), and prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis). The Rock River Prairie is about 3 mi (5 km) southwest of the proposed site. The WDNR owns the 37-ac (14-ha) prairie, and the area was designated a State Natural Area in 1999. The prairie supports over 50 native prairie species, including several rare and threatened plants. Typical plant species include pasque flower (Anemone patens), cream wild indigo (Baptisia bracteata), rock sandwort (Arenaria spp.), prairie gentian (Gentiana puberulenta), little bluestem, and side-oats grama with prairie dropseed (WDNR 2013a). (2) Dry-Mesic Prairie. This is a rare grassland community that was common in parts of southern Wisconsin. Most dry-mesic prairie has been converted to agricultural lands or forested areas because of the lack of wildfires to control woody vegetation. Dominant grasses include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) and Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans). (3) Mesic Prairie. This is an extremely rare grassland community that was historically common. Dominant grasses include the tall grass, big bluestem, little bluestem, Indian grass, needle grass, prairie dropseed, and switch grass (Panicum virgatum). Affected Environment 3-33 (4) Wet Prairie. This is a variable tall grassland community that may include many wetland-like characteristics. Dominant grasses may include Canada bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), cordgrass (Spartina spp.), marsh wild timothy (Muhlenbergia glomerata), lake sedge (Carex spp.), water sedge (Carex aquatilis), and woolly sedge (Carex spp.). Native grasslands provide an important habitat for wildlife and birds. For example, many birds require grassland habitats for courtship, nesting, foraging, rearing young, roosting, or resting. In Wisconsin, 105 bird species regularly or occasionally use Wisconsin grasslands for at least one of these activities during the breeding season. This represents 45 percent of the 233 confirmed breeding species in the State (Sample and Mossman 1997). 3.5.3.3 Wetlands Woody wetlands and emergent herbaceous wetlands cover about 3 percent of the area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Wetlands provide an important, high-value habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic resources. Migrating birds often use wetland sites for feeding and resting (WDNR 2014c). Areas of open water provide an important nursery ground for many developing amphibians (e.g., frogs and salamanders), reptiles (e.g., turtles), and fish (WDNR 2014c). 3.5.3.4 Aquatic Habitats As described in Section 3.4, water drains off the proposed site to the south and west toward the Rock River and its tributaries. The closest aquatic resources within this drainage area include an unnamed tributary to the Rock River, which is about 1.6 mi (2.6 km) south of the proposed site, and the Rock River, which is about 1.9 mi (3.1 km) south and west of the proposed site. The unnamed tributary is about 3.0- to 4.0-ft (0.9- to 1.2-m) wide at the ordinary high water mark and has a depth of up to about 1.0 ft (0.3 m) (SHINE 2015a). For a description of the Rock River, see Section 3.4. Aquatic features near the proposed site are part of the Lower Rock River watershed, which drains an area of 1,857 mi2 (4,810 km2) (USDA 2007). SHINE and its contractors conducted fish surveys in the unnamed tributary in October 2011, January 2012, April 2012, and July 2012. Sampling equipment included a seine for fish and a kick net for macroinvertebrates (SHINE 2013, 2015a). SHINE conducted macroinvertebrate surveys in the unnamed tributary in October 2011 and April 2012 using a kick net (SHINE 2013, 2015a). In addition, the NRC staff reviewed a fish database compiled by the USGS and the WDNR, which includes the results of various fish surveys in Wisconsin since the 1960s (USGS and WDNR 2014). The NRC staff searched the database to determine fish occurrence data from the Rock River and its tributaries within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site. SHINE observed two species-brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans) and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) while conducting fish surveys in the unnamed tributary. The low species diversity is likely because of the small size of the unnamed tributary, the intermittent flow of water, and limited survey methods (e.g., seining). During its review of the USGS and WDNR fish database, the NRC staff identified 23 fish species captured from 1980 to 2013 in various surveys in the Rock River and its tributaries within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site. Table 3-9 summarizes all fish species identified in SHINE's fish surveys and in the USGS and WDNR fish database. SHINE collected a total of 12 distinct macroinvertebrate taxa in fall 2011 and 9 distinct taxa in spring 2012. The most common taxon was the amphipod Gammarus, which comprised 79 percent of the fall collection and 94 percent of the spring collection. All other taxa comprised 5 percent or less of each collection (SHINE 2015a). Affected Environment 3-34 Table 3-9. Common Fish Species in the Rock River and Tributaries Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed Site Scientific Name Common Name Rock River and Tributaries(a) Unnamed Tributary(b) Aplodinotus grunniens freshwater drum x Carassius auratus auratus goldfish x Catostomus commersonii white sucker x Culaea inconstans brook stickleback x x Cyprinella spiloptera spotfin shiner x Cyprinus carpio common carp x Esox Lucius northern pike x Hypentelium nigricans northern hogsucker x Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish x Ictiobus cyprinellus bigmouth buffalo x Labidesthes sicculus brook silverside x Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish x Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed x Lepomis macrochirus bluegill x Micropterus dolomieu smallmouth bass x Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass x Moxostoma macrolepidotum shortnose redhorse x Notropis atherinoides emerald shiner x Perca flavescens yellow perch x Percina caprodes logperch x Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie x Sander canadensis sauger x Sander vitreus walleye x Umbra limi central mudminnow x (a) Occurrence recorded in the USGS and WDNR Fish Mapper Database (USGS and WDNR 2014). (b) Occurrence observed during SHINE field studies of the unnamed tributary (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Source: SHINE 2013, 2015a; USGS and WDNR 2014 3.5.4 Protected Species and Habitats The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jointly administer the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The FWS manages the protection of, and recovery effort for, listed terrestrial and freshwater species, and NMFS manages the protection of and recovery effort for listed marine and anadromous species. In Wisconsin, the WDNR lists species as State-threatened or endangered under Wisconsin's Endangered Species Law (Section 29.604 of Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter 29, "Wild Animals and Plants"). This section discusses these species and species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). Affected Environment 3-35 3.5.4.1 Endangered Species Act Action Area The implementing regulations for section 7(a)(2) of the ESA define "action area" as all areas affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area effectively bounds the analysis of ESA-protected species and habitats because only species that occur within the action area may be affected by the Federal action. For the purposes of the ESA analysis in this EIS, the NRC staff considers the action area to be to include the lands within the 91-ac (37-ha) proposed site and the adjacent offsite area in which construction of the sewer line would occur. The NRC staff expects all direct and indirect effects of the proposed action to be contained within these areas. The NRC staff recognizes that while the action area is stationary, Federally listed species can move in and out of the action area. For instance, a flowering plant known to occur near, but outside, of the action area could appear within the action area over time if its seeds are carried into the action area by wind, water, or animals. Thus, in its analysis, the NRC staff considers not only those species known to occur directly within the action area, but those species that may passively or actively move into the action area. The staff then considers whether the life history of each species makes the species likely to move into the action area where it could be affected by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. Overview of Protected Species Table 3-10 describes the Federally listed species that have the potential to exist within the action area, within a 1.0-mi (1.6-km) radius of the proposed site, and within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the proposed site. The NRC staff compiled this table from the FWS's online database (FWS 2014), correspondence from the FWS (2013), and the SHINE ER (SHINE 2015a). As described in Section 3.5.2, SHINE conducted ecological surveys in the action area and did not observe any Federally protected species on the proposed site or in nearby adjacent areas (SHINE 2015a). Based on the surveys described in Section 3.5.3, the NRC staff did not identify any Federally listed species that could exist in the action area. The NRC staff did not identify any candidate species or proposed or designated critical habitats within the action area. In response to the NRC staff's request for endangered and threatened species that the proposed action could affect, the FWS (2013) stated that no Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species would be expected within the project area. Additionally, no critical habitat is present (FWS 2013). For these reasons, the FWS (2013) concluded that if construction took place at the proposed site, no further action with Wisconsin's FWS Field Office would be necessary under the ESA. Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species are unlikely to occur within the action area. The Rock River does not contain marine or anadromous fish species. Therefore, no Federally listed species or habitats under NMFS's jurisdiction occur within the action area. 3.5.4.2 State-listed Species Table 3-10 describes the State-listed species that have the potential to exist within a 1.0-mi (1.6-km) radius of the proposed site and within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the proposed site. The NRC staff compiled this table from the Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program's online database (WDNR 2014d), correspondence from the WDNR (2014a), and the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a). As described in Section 3.5.2, SHINE conducted ecological surveys in the action area and did not observe any State-protected species on the proposed site or in Affected Environment 3-36 nearby adjacent areas (SHINE 2015a). Based on the surveys described in Section 3.5.3, the NRC staff did not identify any State-listed species that could exist in the action area. For State-listed species, the WDNR (2014a) stated that the proposed site provides unsuitable habitat for all the State-threatened or -endangered species or for State species of special concern that may exist within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the proposed site. Because WDNR determined that no State-listed species have the potential to exist within the proposed SHINE site, this EIS does not discuss State-listed species in any further detail. Table 3-10. Federally and State-Listed Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Proposed SHINE Site Potential Occurrence Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) State Rank(b) Action Area 1-mi Radius 6-mi Radius Fish Anguilla rostrate American eel SSC S2 x Erimystax x-punctatus gravel chub E S1 x Lythrurus umbratilis redfin shiner T S2 x Moxostoma valenciennesi greater redhorse T S3 x Notropis nubilus Ozark minnow T S2 x Mussels Alasmidonta marginata elktoe SSC S3 x Cyclonaias turberculata purple wartyback E S2 x Quadrula metanevra monkey face T S2 x Venustaconcha ellipsiformis ellipse T S3 x Villosa iris rainbow shell E S1 x Plants Agastache nepetoides yellow giant hyssop T S3 x Artemisia dracunculus dragon wormwood SSC S2 x x Asclepias lanuginosa woolly milkweed T S1 x Asclepias purpurascens purple milkweed E S3 x Besseya bullii kitten tails T S3 x Cacalia tuberosa prairie Indian-plantain T S3 x Calylophus serrulatus yellow evening primrose SSC S2 x Camassia scilloides wild hyacinth E S2 x Cirsium hillii hill's thistle T S3 x Cypripedium candidum small white lady's-slipper T S3 x Echinacea pallida pale purple coneflower T S3 x Euphorbia commutata wood spurge SSC SH x Hypericum sphaerocarpum round-fruited St. John's-wort T S1,S2 x Lespedeza leptostachya prairie bush-clover T E S2 x Affected Environment 3-37 Potential Occurrence Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) State Rank(b) Action Area 1-mi Radius 6-mi Radius Melica nitens three-flowered melic grass SSC S1 x Myosotis laxa small forget-me-not SSC S2 x Nothocalais cuspidata prairie false-dandelion SSC S2 x Nuphar advena yellow water lily SSC S1 x Penstemon hirsutus hairy beardtongue SSC S1 x x Platanus occidentalis sycamore SSC S2 x Polygala incarnata pink milkwort E S1 x Polytaenia nuttallii prairie parsley T S2 x Prenanthes aspera rough rattlesnake-root E S1 x Ruellia humilis hairy wild-petunia E S2 x Scutellaria parvula var. parvula small skullcap E S1 x x Silene nivea snowy campion T S3 x x Thaspium trifoliatum var. flavum purple meadow-parsnip SSC S2 x Reptiles Emydoidea blandingii blanding's turtle T S3, S4 x (a) T = threatened, E = endangered, and SSC = species of special concern. (b) S1 = critically imperiled in Wisconsin because of extreme rarity, S2 = imperiled in Wisconsin because of rarity, S3 = rare or uncommon in Wisconsin, S4 = secure in Wisconsin with many occurrences, and SH = of historical occurrence in Wisconsin. Sources: SHINE 2015a; WDNR 2014a, 2014d 3.5.4.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The FWS administers the MBTA (16 U.S.C.703-712), which prohibits anyone from taking native migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The MBTA definition of a "take" differs from that of the ESA and is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or any attempt to carry out these activities" (50 CFR 10.12). Unlike a "take" under the ESA (50 CFR 17.3), a "take" under the MBTA does not include habitat alteration or destruction that results in death or injury to listed species by impairing behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The MBTA protects a total of 1,007 migratory bird species (75 FR 9282). Most of the bird species in Wisconsin, except for resident game birds and feral species, are protected under the MBTA (WDNR 2014e). Near the proposed site, migratory birds rely on riparian, forested, grassland, and wetland habitats as important areas for foraging, resting, and avoiding predators and for breeding for some species. Although these habitats exist in the vicinity of the proposed site, none of them exists on the proposed site. For this reason, the proposed site likely provides a low-quality habitat for migratory birds. Affected Environment 3-38 3.5.4.4 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The National Marine Fisheries Service has not designated any essential fish habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), within affected water bodies in the vicinity of the proposed site (NMFS 2014). Because no habitats are designated, no EFH would be affected by the proposed action. Therefore, this section does not discuss species with essential fish habitat. 3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and cultural resources at the proposed site in the City of Janesville, Wisconsin, and in the surrounding area, including Rock County and the State of Wisconsin. The discussion is based on a review of the Phase I archaeological survey conducted within the proposed site; a search of the Archaeological Sites Inventory, Architecture and History Inventory, and Burial Sites Inventory; and a review of the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) and other background information for historic and cultural resources within or near the proposed site. Cultural resource reports and site files are available to the public at the WHS in Madison, Wisconsin. 3.6.1 Cultural Background Human occupation in Wisconsin is generally characterized according to the following chronological sequence (WHS 2013): (1) Paleo-Indian Period (12,000-10,000 before present (B.P.)), (2) Archaic Period (10,000-3,000 B.P.), (3) Woodland Period (3,000-1,100 B.P.), (4) Mississippian Period (1,100-400 B.P. (ca. A.D. 900-1600)), and (5) Protohistoric/Historic Period (400 B.P.-present (ca. A.D.1600-present)). 3.6.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period (12,000-10,000 B.P.) The earliest evidence of people living in Wisconsin dates to the Paleo-Indian Period. Paleo-Indian sites, generally found upland or on river terraces, are characterized by specific types of projectile points (e.g., fluted Clovis and Folsom points) and stone tools, such as gravers, scrapers, or large blades. These artifacts often occur in association with mastodon remains, suggesting a reliance on megafauna (e.g., mammoth, ground sloth, and saber-tooth tiger) for subsistence, along with plants, small game, birds, and amphibians. Social organization consisted of small, highly nomadic bands of hunter-gathers, leaving Paleo-Indian sites with little detailed archaeological information. In southeastern Wisconsin, the Shaefer and Hebior Mammoth sites are examples of the butchering practices of Paleo-Indian tribes and evidence of some of the earliest human occupation in North America (Fagan 2005; Neusius and Gross 2007). 3.6.1.2 Archaic Period (10,000-3,000 B.P.) The Archaic Period is generally distinguished from the preceding Paleo-Indian Period by changes in the environment, technology, and population. The warmer and dryer part of the Early Archaic Period allowed groups to exploit more diverse resources, and, as a result, their tool kit also became more diversified. Technological changes included the manufacturing of notched projectile points, which were smaller than Paleo-Indian points, likely reflecting a Affected Environment 3-39 reliance on smaller game (Neusius and Gross 2007). Groups became sedentary when the climate became wetter and warmer as the Archaic Period progressed, and ceremonialism (e.g., mounds and effigies) is evident in the archaeological record during this time. Even though the Archaic Period is one of the longest occupation periods in Wisconsin, few Archaic Period sites are found in the archaeological record. 3.6.1.3 Woodland Period (3,000-1,100 B.P.) The Woodland Period is marked by an increase in more permanent settlements; changes in burial practices; increased cultivation of plants, such as sunflowers and cucurbits (e.g., squashes, gourds, and melons); and a rise in the manufacture and use of pottery (Fagan 2005). The bow and arrow were also introduced to Wisconsin during this period (WHS 2013). During the Middle Woodland Period, the large and complex Hopewell Culture emerged in the United States, including in southern Wisconsin. This culture is characterized by settlement in villages, increased reliance on intensive horticulture, burial mounds, and long-distance trade networks. These long-distance networks allowed the trade of exotic materials from the Gulf Coast, the Rocky Mountains, Lake Superior, and the Appalachian Mountains to areas far outside their immediate locations (Neusius and Gross 2007). 3.6.1.4 Mississippian Period (1,100-400 B.P. (ca. A.D. 900-1600)) The Mississippian Period is characterized by major changes in settlement, subsistence patterns, and social structure. Large, highly centralized chiefdoms with permanent settlements sites supported by many satellite villages emerged during this period. The platform mound-a new ceremonial earthen mound-appeared in association with these permanent settlements. Platform mounds; burial mounds; and defensive structures, such as moats and palisades, were often constructed in clusters in settlements and were common in the larger river valleys of the Midwest. Mississippian Period subsistence relied heavily on maize agriculture and on hunting and gathering. Long-distance trading increased and craft specialists produced highly specialized lithic and ceramic artifacts, beadwork, and shell pendants (Fagan 2005). In southern Wisconsin, the emerging Mississippian culture was blended with the receding Woodland culture to produce the Oneota tradition. The Oneota people were organized in permanent villages, produced unique ceramic artifacts, and relied on a mixed subsistence strategy of hunting and gathering even though they cultivated maize. Burial traditions varied from the mounds of the Woodland Period to nonmounded cemeteries near their villages (Neusius and Gross 2007; WHS 2013). 3.6.1.5 Protohistoric/Historic Period (A.D. 1600-present) The end of the Mississippian Period is characterized by severe social, political, and demographic changes that resulted from indirect and direct contact with Europeans. Before major European advancement in southern Wisconsin, the presence of the Winnebago, Potawatomi, Sac, Fox, and Menominee Tribes was documented in Rock County (Rock County undated b). However, the introduction of European infectious diseases, such as smallpox, yellow fever, typhoid, and influenza, severely decimated these native populations who had no immunity. The spread of these diseases resulted in the widespread abandonment of villages and a concurrent collapse of Native American socioeconomic networks. The first European exposure to Rock County was likely in the late 1770s from French fur traders (Rock County undated b). As the tribes of southeastern Wisconsin either migrated or were forcibly removed west of the Mississippi, Euro-American settlers moved to Wisconsin to take advantage of the fertile agricultural land. Manufacturing boomed in Rock County in the 1900s, as General Motors (GM), the Parker Pen Company, and other firms began producing tractors; machinery; paper; pens; and refined farm products, such as snack foods. Although Affected Environment 3-40 manufacturing gained a large market share, agriculture and dairying activities remain an important factor in the regional economy. The area surrounding the proposed site has been traditionally used as agricultural fields, which are located to the north, east, and south of the proposed site. A commercial farm office is also located north of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). 3.6.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources Databases that the National Park Service (NPS) maintains show 135 properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places in Rock County, including one property designated as a National Historic Landmark (NPS 2013a, 2013b) under the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). These historic properties reflect the prehistoric and historic cultural contexts for the proposed site and include prehistoric archaeological sites; historic archaeological sites; and historic buildings, structures, and districts dating from the mid-1700s to the mid-1800s. However, no historic properties are located within the boundaries of the proposed site. The closest property in the National Register of Historic Places list is the John and Martha Hugunin House, which is located about 1.0 mi (1.6 km) northeast of the proposed site and is surrounded by commercial, residential, and agricultural land. The Hugunin House, Italianate in style, is significant for its architectural design and relation to historic farming in the region (NPS 2013a). SHINE commissioned a Phase I archeological survey at the proposed site and, with its contractors, followed WHS methodologies. SHINE did not identify any archaeological sites or evidence of cultural resources within the survey area. As a result, SHINE did not recommend any further archaeological investigations (Knopf and Krause 2012). SHINE submitted the Phase 1 survey results and report to the WHS for review and comment. The WHS determined that the findings were acceptable (SHINE 2015a). 3.7 Socioeconomics This section describes socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or indirectly affected from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. The SHINE facility and the communities that would support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The communities provide the people, goods, and services required to construct and operate the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE facility operations, in turn, provide wages and benefits for people and dollar expenditures for goods and services. The measure of a community's ability to support the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility depends on its ability to respond to changing environmental, social, economic, and demographic conditions. The socioeconomic region of influence is defined by the area in which SHINE operations employees and their families would likely reside, spend their income, and use their benefits-all of which affect the economic condition of the region. For the purposes of analysis and because of the relatively small size of the SHINE operations work force (150 workers), this area includes all of Rock County and the City of Janesville. 3.7.1 Population Growth Rates and Projections Rock County has 6 cities, 20 towns, and 3 villages (Rock County 2013). In 2012, the total population for Rock County was 160,129. The two most populated cities-the City of Janesville and the City of Beloit-are approximately 13 mi (21 km) apart. The City of Janesville, the county seat for Rock County, has a population of 63,480; the City of Beloit has a population of Affected Environment 3-41 36,850. As of 2012, each of the other cities and towns in Rock County had populations of less than 8,000 (Rock County 2013). The population for Rock County grew steadily from 1970 to 2010, with the largest change of 9.2 percent between 1990 and 2000 (Table 3-11) (USCB 1995, 2000a, 2010a). Based on population projections from the Wisconsin Department of Administration (WDOA), Demographic Services Center, the population within Rock County is projected to continue to increase. Table 3-11. Resident Population for Rock County (1970-2050) Year Rock County Percent Change 1970 131,970 NA 1980 139,420 5.6 1990 139,510 0.1 2000 152,307 9.2 2010 160,331 5.3 2020 169,130 5.5 2030 179,360 6.0 2040 182,860 2.0 2050 190,847 4.4 Sources: Decennial population data for 1970-2010 (USCB 1995, 2000a, 2010a); projections for 2020-2040 by the WDOA Demographic Services Center (WDOA 2013); 2050 calculated. 3.7.2 Race and Ethnicity Table 3-12 presents the demographic profiles for the City of Janesville and Rock County (USCB 2010b). In 2010, minorities comprised 11.2 percent of the total population in the City of Janesville. As shown in Table 3-12, the largest minority populations were Hispanic and Latino (of any race) at 5.4 percent followed by Black or African American at 2.5 percent. In Rock County, minorities comprised 15.5 percent of the total population in 2010. The largest minority populations were Hispanic and Latino (of any race) at 7.6 percent followed by Black or African American at 4.8 percent. Table 3-12. Race and Ethnicity for the City of Janesville and Rock County, Wisconsin, in 2010 City of Janesville Rock County Total Population 63,575 160,331 Race (percent of total population, Not-Hispanic or Latino) White 88.8 84.5 Black or African American 2.5 4.8 American Indian and Alaska Native 0.2 0.2 Asian 1.3 1.0 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 Some other race 0.1 0.1 Two or more races 1.7 1.7 Affected Environment 3-42 City of Janesville Rock County Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 3,421 12,124 Percent of total population 5.4 7.6 Minority population (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity) Total minority population 7,110 24,805 Percent minority 11.2 15.5 Source: USCB 2010b 3.7.3 Transient Population Colleges and recreational opportunities attract daily and seasonal visitors who create a demand for temporary housing and services. In 2013, approximately 15,970 students attended colleges and universities within 20 mi (32 km) of the proposed SHINE facility (NCES 2014). According to the 2010 Census, there were 786 seasonal housing units in Rock County. Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural crops. These workers may or may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruit, throughout rural areas of the United States. Others may be permanent residents living near Janesville and Beloit and traveling from farm to farm harvesting crops. Migrant workers may be members of minority or low-income populations. Because migrant workers travel and can spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual residents, they may be unavailable for counting by Census takers. If uncounted, these minority and low-income workers would be "underrepresented" in the decennial Census population counts. In the 2002 Census of Agriculture, farm operators were asked for the first time whether they hired migrant workers-defined as a farm worker whose employment required travel-to do work that prevented the migrant workers from returning to their permanent place of residence the same day. The Census is conducted every 5 years and results in a comprehensive compilation of agricultural production data for every county in the Nation. Information about migrant and temporary farm labor (working less than 150 days) was collected in the 2012 Census of Agriculture. According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, approximately 1,267 farm workers were hired to work for less than 150 days on 265 farms in Rock County, Wisconsin (USDA 2014). Three farms in Rock County reported hiring migrant workers in the 2012 Census of Agriculture (USDA 2014). 3.7.4 Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment This section provides labor force, employment, and unemployment data for the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin. It also presents economic data on employment by industry, income, poverty levels, occupations, wages, poverty rates, and housing. Table 3-13 shows that Rock County had an available labor force in 2012 of 79,255, with an 8.4-percent unemployment rate. The City of Janesville had an available labor force of 32,256, with a 9-percent unemployment rate (WDWD 2010, 2011, 2012). Between 2000 and 2012, unemployment increased in the City of Janesville and in Rock County. One reason for this Affected Environment 3-43 increase in unemployment in the City of Janesville could be attributed to the GM manufacturing plant. The City of Janesville GM plant employed workers to produce sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks at the end of 2007 (Milwaukee Business Journal 2008). When gas prices rose in the late 2000s, production was shifted to a more fuel-efficient line of cars, causing a decline in the production at the GM plant. The GM plant fully closed in 2009. More than 2,000 hourly and salaried workers were laid off (Leute 2009). In addition to the jobs lost by the GM plant closure, companies in the region that supplied goods and services to the plant laid off approximately 1,200 people (Leute 2009). The unemployment rates in the City of Janesville for 2010 and 2011 reflect the impact of the GM plant closure (Table 3-13). During the same period, the State of Wisconsin as a whole experienced a similar rise in unemployment. Table 3-13. Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment Rates in the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin City of Janesville 2000 2010 2011 2012 2000-2012 Percent Change(a) Labor Force 31,948 32,878 32,091 32,256 1.0 Employed 30,438 29,097 28,850 29,341 -3.6 Unemployed 1,510 3,781 3,241 2,915 93.0 Unemployed Rate 4.7% 11.5% 10.1% 9.0% 91.5 Rock County Labor Force 80,895 81,015 78,817 79,255 -2.0 Employed 76,336 71,928 71,321 72,570 -4.9 Unemployed 4,545 9,087 7,496 6,685 47.1 Unemployed Rate 5.6% 11.2% 9.5% 8.4% 50.0 State of Wisconsin Labor Force 2,872,104 3,084,557 3,069,021 3,062,636 6.6 Employed 2,734,925 2,823,265 2,837,995 2,850,352 4.2 Unemployed 134,311 261,292 231,026 212,284 58.1 Unemployed Rate 4.7% 8.5% 7.5% 6.9% 46.8 (a) Percent changes are calculated. Source: USCB 2000a, 2000b, 2000c; WDWD 2010, 2011, 2012 Table 3-14 shows the results of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report of employment by industry for Rock County for 2012 (BLS 2013). During 2012, the largest industries for employment in Rock County were trade, transportation, and utilities with a 14,714 employment total or 27.56 percent of employment. The second highest category for employment by industry was education and health services with a 10,288 employment total or 19.27 percent of employment. The employment by industry with the lowest number in 2012 was natural resources and mining, with a 517 employment total or less than 1-percent total of employment. Affected Environment 3-44 Table 3-14. Employment by Industry in Rock County for 2012 Industry Rock County Employment Percent of Employment Natural Resources and Mining 517 0.97 Construction 2,719 5.09 Manufacturing 8,991 16.84 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 14,714 27.56 Information 1,437 2.69 Financial Activities 1,666 3.12 Professional and Business Services 4,994 9.35 Education and Health Services 10,288 19.27 Leisure and Hospitality 6,455 12.09 Other Services 1,607 3.01 Source: BLS 2013 3.7.5 Income and Wages Table 3-15 compares the median family and per capita income figures for the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin (USCB 2011a). According to the USCB 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, the City of Janesville had a median family income lower than both Rock County and the State of Wisconsin (USCB 2011a). The City of Janesville had a slightly higher per capita income than that of Rock County, but it was lower than that of the State of Wisconsin. Overall, both Rock County and the City of Janesville had lower median family and per capita income than that of the State of Wisconsin. Table 3-15. Median Family Income and Per Capita Income for City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin Median Family Income 2009-2011 City of Janesville $57,543 Rock County $58,679 State of Wisconsin $63,732 Per Capita Income 2009-2011 City of Janesville $22,924 Rock County $22,802 State of Wisconsin $26,212 Source: USCB 2011a 3.7.6 Poverty Rates Table 3-16 compares families and all people living below the Federal poverty threshold in the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin. The poverty levels determined by the USCB in 2011 were $11,484 for individuals and $23,021 for a family of four (USCB 2011b). According to USCB's 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, a slightly higher percentage of families and all people living below the poverty level lived in the City of Janesville when compared to Rock County. Both the City of Janesville and Rock County had Affected Environment 3-45 higher percentages of families and people living below the poverty level than the State of Wisconsin did overall. Table 3-16. People Living Below U.S. Census Poverty Thresholds for the City of Janesville, Rock County, and State of Wisconsin Families 2009-2011 City of Janesville 11.4% Rock County 10.7% State of Wisconsin 8.8% All People(a) 2009-2011 City of Janesville 14.8% Rock County 14.3% State of Wisconsin 12.9% (a) Census 2010, "All People" category Sources: USCB 2009-2011a 3.7.7 Housing Table 3-17 compares the housing units and vacancy rates for the City of Janesville and Rock County (USCB 2009-2011b). According to USCB's 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, the City of Janesville had 26,916 total housing units with 1,721 units vacant. Rock County had 68,461 total housing units with 5,478 units vacant. The rental rate was higher than the homeowner vacancy rate in both locations, with Rock County having a slightly higher rental rate at 8.0 percent. Table 3-17. Housing Unit Characteristics for the City of Janesville and Rock County City of Janesville 2009-2011 Total Number of Housing Units 26,916 Number of Vacant Housing Units 1,721 Homeowner Vacancy Rate 2.0% Renter Vacancy Rate 6.8% Rock County 2009-2011 Total Number of Housing Units 68,461 Number of Vacant Units 5,478 Homeowner Vacancy Rate 1.9% Renter Vacancy Rate 8.0% Sources: USCB 2009-2011b 3.7.8 Local Employers Table 3-18 ranks the 10 largest private and government employers in the City of Janesville. Three employers have more than 1,000 employees-Mercy Health System, Janesville Public School, and Rock County. These employers provide a variety of products and services, including medical services, public education, local government, wholesale distribution, data processing, manufacturing, and retail sales (Forward Janesville 2014). Affected Environment 3-46 Table 3-18. Ten Largest Employers in the City of Janesville (2014) Employer Number of Employees Product/Service 1. Mercy Health System 3,877 Medical services 2. Janesville School District 1,450 Public education 3. County of Rock 1,191 Local government 4 Blackhawk Technical College 762 Technical college 5. Data Dimensions Corporation 724 Business automation processing 6. Grainger 689 Safety equipment distribution 7. Seneca Foods 661 Canning and food processing 8. City of Janesville 572 City government 9. Prent Corporation 550 Custom thermoformer-plastic parts 10. Blain Supply/Blain's Farm & Fleet 540 Wholesale distributors/retail Sources: Forward Janesville 2014. Table 3-19 shows that the largest employer in Rock County is Mercy Health System, followed by Beloit Health System with over 1,000 employees each. The largest employer in Rock County that is not located in the City of Janesville is Beloit Health System, Inc. Similar to the City of Janesville, these employers provide a variety of products and services, including medical services, public education, local government, retail, and manufacturing (Rock County Development Alliance 2014). Table 3-19. Ten Largest Employers in Rock County (2014) Employer Number of Employees Product/Service 1. Mercy Health System 3,877 Medical services 2. Beloit Health System 1,550 Medical services 3. Janesville School District 1,450(a) Public education 4. County of Rock 1,161 Local government 5. Data Dimensions Corporation 830(a) Business automation processing 6. Wal-Mart/Sam's Club 804(a) Retail department store 7. Beloit School District 775(a) Public education 8. Blackhawk Technical College 701 Technical college 9. Grainger (laboratory safety) 694 Safety equipment distribution 10. Kerry Americas 690 Dehydrated food products (a) Employs seasonal and part-time workers. Sources: Rock County Development Alliance 2014 3.7.9 Taxes Counties, municipalities, and boards of education may impose sales taxes in addition to the State sales tax. Local and State entities in the region of influence impose sales, property, and income taxes. These include the school district, the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin. Tax rates can vary by jurisdiction. The retail sales tax rate is 0 percent in the City of Janesville and 0.5 percent in Rock County. The State of Wisconsin has a 4.60-percent to 7.75-percent personal income tax rate, a 5.0-percent sales tax rate, and a 7.9-percent corporate tax rate (City of Janesville undated). Affected Environment 3-47 The two school districts in the City of Janesville-Janesville and Milton-receive school district tax levies collected from property taxes in the school district boundaries. The proposed site is in the Janesville School District. In 2011 and 2012, the Janesville School District collected $36,774,828 in school district tax levies. The 2012 and 2013 taxes were $36,077,620 (WDPI 2011-2012, 2012-2013). The City of Janesville's proposed budget for 2013 lists a total estimated assessed value of real and personal property at $3.9 billion. The local tax rate is $7.88 for every $1,000 of property owned (City of Janesville 2013b). The 2012 full property tax value for the City of Janesville was $3,895,706,200 (WDR 2012). 3.7.10 Education In the 2012-2013 school year, the Janesville School District had 10,327 students in pre-kindergarten (K) through grade 12 (WDPI 2013). The Janesville School District has 12 pre-K to grade 5 elementary schools, 3 grade 6 to 9 middle schools, 2 grade 9 to 12 comprehensive high schools, and 4 charter schools. The Janesville Academy for International Studies, Jackson Elementary School, Lincoln Elementary School, Edison Middle School, and Van Buren Elementary School are the Janesville School District public schools within 2.5 mi (4.0 km) of the proposed site (SHINE 2013; Janesville School District 2012; WDPI 2013). The Milton School District, which is also located in the City of Janesville, had 3,388 students in kindergarten (K) through 12th grade for the 2012-2013 school year (WDPI 2013). The Milton School District has four K through grade 3 elementary schools, one elementary school for grades 4 to 6, one middle school for grades 7 to 8, one high school for grades 9 to 12, and one alternative high school. Rock County has eight public school districts serving K through grade 12 (Rock County 2009). These school districts, with their current total enrollment data for 2013-2014, include Beloit (7,137), Beloit Turner (1,485), Clinton Community (1,188), Edgerton (1,864), Evansville Community (1,719), Janesville (10,408), Milton (3,374), and Parkview (848) (Rock County 2009; WDPI 2013). The total of all enrollments in 2013-2014 for all Rock County school districts is 28,023. Fourteen private schools are located in Rock County and include 4 private schools in the City of Beloit and 10 private schools in the City of Janesville for K through grade 12 (Private School Review 2013). Three post-secondary schools are located in Rock County. Blackhawk Technical College and University of Wisconsin-Rock County are 2-year technical and community colleges located in the City of Janesville. Beloit College, which offers a 4-year degree, is located in the City of Beloit. Other educational facilities include the Arrowhead Library System for Rock County, which serves the communities of the City of Beloit (Beloit Public Library), the Village of Clinton (Clinton Public Library), the City of Edgerton (Edgerton Public Library), the City of Evansville (Eager Free Public Library), the City of Janesville (Hedberg Public Library), the City of Milton (Milton Public Library), and the Village of Orfordville (Orfordville Public Library) (Arrowhead Library System 2013). 3.7.11 Tourism, Activity Centers, and Recreation for the City of Janesville and Rock County Tourism and Activity Centers (Shopping, Business, Agricultural, and Sporting Events) The City of Janesville has several tourist attractions and activity centers, including the Janesville Performing Arts Center, the 4-H Rock County Fair, a local baseball team, and a local hockey team. The Helen Jeffries Wood Museum Center, Lincoln Tallman House, Milton House Affected Environment 3-48 Museum, and Angel Museum are all located in or near the City of Janesville. The Janesville Performing Arts Center, Beloit Civic Theatre, Beloit/Janesville Symphony Orchestra, Beloit Fine Arts Incubator, and Beloit International Film Festival all offer access to the arts. The Janesville Shopping Mall is available for local shopping (Janesville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau 2013). Sporting events include a baseball team, the Beloit Snappers; a North American Hockey League, the Janesville Jets; and the semi-pro Ironman Football League. Public Recreational Facilities The City of Janesville's Park Place has 2,590 ac (1,048 ha) with 64 improved parks that consist of regional parks, community parks, neighborhood parks, greenbelts, an arboretum, and open spaces. The City of Janesville has 10 mi (16 km) of cross-country ski trails and more than 25 mi (40 km) of paved bike trails. A portion of the statewide Ice Age Trail is located in the City of Janesville (City of Janesville 2011b). No direct trail connections or marked bike routes pass through the proposed site. The City of Janesville also owns two golf courses-the Riverside Golf Course and the Blackhawk Golf Course-and an ice arena (City of Janesville 2011b). The City of Janesville has 34 campgrounds (WDNR undated). Rock County offers recreational opportunities for biking, hiking, fishing, ice skating, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and horseback riding. Several parks, golf courses, and sports facilities are located in Rock County. Rock County parks include Rock River Trail and Roam the Rock. Part of the Wisconsin Ice Age Trail's 1,000-mi (1,600-km) footpath is located in Rock County (Rock County Tourism Council 2012; Ice Age Trail Alliance 2013). In addition, hot air balloon flights are available for balloon rides. Rock River and Lake Koshkonong in Rock County provide recreational opportunities. Rock County has several municipal golf courses, including Blackhawk, Krueger, and Riverside. The county's two ice arenas are the Beloit Sports Arena and the City of Janesville Ice Arena. Rock County has 15 state-owned natural areas (Table 3-20), including one State park, six wildlife management areas, four fishery management areas, and three areas listed as "other" (WDNR 2013f). Rock County also maintains 226 mi (364 km) of snowmobile trails with the closest located about 2.4 mi (3.9 km) south of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Table 3-20. State-Owned Natural Areas in Rock County Name Type of Natural Area Avon Bottoms Wildlife Area Wildlife management area Evansville Wildlife Area Wildlife management area Extensive Wildlife Habitat Wildlife management area Gift Lands Other Ice Age Trail State park Lima Marsh-Storrs Lake Wildlife Area Wildlife management area Lima Marsh Rough Fish Station Fishery management area Miscellaneous Lands Other Newville Rough Fish Station Fishery management area Statewide All Regulatory Wetland Mitigation Program Other Statewide Natural Area State natural area Statewide Public Access Fishery management area Statewide Wildlife Habitat Wildlife management area Streambank Protection Fee Program Fishery management area Turtle Creek Wildlife Area Wildlife management area Source: WDNR 2013f Affected Environment 3-49 3.7.12 Public Services Medical The City of Janesville has several medical care facilities, including two hospitals. Mercy Hospital has 240 beds, and St. Mary's Janesville Hospital has 51 beds. The Mercy Health System, Janesville Clinics, has seven homeless shelters and assisted-living care facilities and four nursing homes. Health care providers in Rock County include the Beloit Health System, Dean Health System, Edgerton Hospital and Health Services, Healthy Communities Cooperative, Mercy Health System, St. Mary's Janesville Hospital, and The Alliance (Rock County Development Alliance 2012). Emergency Services Fire/rescue and emergency medical services throughout Rock County are located in the cities of Beloit, Edgerton, Evansville, Janesville, and Milton; the Town of Beloit; and the villages of Clinton, Footville, and Orfordville. The Emergency Management Agency and the Telecommunications Center are located in the City of Janesville. The Emergency Management Agency coordinates countywide responses and supports local governments during major disasters and emergencies. It also prepares other governmental entities, private business, volunteer organizations, and citizens to respond and recover from major emergencies and disasters. The Telecommunications Center has a 24-hour dispatching service for all Rock County police and law enforcement, fire and rescue, and emergency medical services (Rock County 2014a, 2014b). Water Treatment Rock County supplies water to community residents by various water systems and well types-municipal, other than municipal, transient noncommunity, nontransient noncommunity, and private sources of supply water. The WDNR regulates municipal and industrial operations that discharge wastewater to surface water or groundwater through the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program. Under Section 281.41 of Wisconsin statutes, an owner must obtain WDNR review and approval of municipal and industrial treatment plant construction plans, related monitoring systems, and groundwater monitoring wells (WDNR 2012b). Rock County manages its wastewater in two ways-with municipal sanitary sewer systems or with onsite waste disposal (septic) systems. Three municipal sanitary sewer systems, located in the City of Beloit, the City of Janesville, and the Town of Beloit, serve more than 10,000 people. The WDNR requires these municipal systems to plan their service capabilities in conformance with the current groundwater quality standards. The many other smaller municipal sanitary sewer systems in Rock County are located in the cities of Edgerton, Evansville, and Milton; Consolidated Koshkonong (Newville area and Indianford); Hanover; and the villages of Clinton, Footville, and Orfordville. Rock County residents and businesses that do not reside within the boundaries of any of these municipal sanitary sewer system locations treat onsite waste disposal using septic systems. In 2000, the State of Wisconsin adopted a policy allowing conventional (underground) systems and alternative (aboveground) systems. Soil characteristics determine whether conventional or alternative onsite wastewater disposal (septic) systems are used. Rock County had 13,000 privately operated residential and commercial septic systems in 2009 (Rock County 2009). The septic systems allowed for residential and commercial purposes in Affected Environment 3-50 Rock County include conventional, pressure dosing, aerobic treatment unit, at-grade, and mound (i.e., Wisconsin mound wastewater soil treatment system, which is a combination of a, single pass sand filter and dispersal unit). The conventional system uses a tank with effluent distributed gravitationally that goes to a belowground drain field. A pressure dosing system uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through a pressurized pipe system going to a belowground drain field. The aerobic treatment unit uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through a pressurized pipe system to either an aboveground or belowground drain field by an aerobic tank where effluent is exposed to air. An at-grade system uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through a pressurized pipe system going to a drain field location just below the surface. The mound system uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through pressure-fed pipes to an aboveground drain field. 3.8 Human Health The proposed SHINE facility is a potential source of radiation exposure to onsite workers and offsite members of the public. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), gives the NRC authority to issue and enforce standards that provide an adequate level of protection for public health and safety and that protect the environment. The NRC staff evaluates the latest radiation protection recommendations from national and international scientific bodies as a basis for its radiation protection standards (10 CFR Part 20). The facilities that the NRC licenses to possess radioactive material must adhere to these radiation protection standards to protect workers and the public against potential health risks from exposure to radioactive material used, generated, and released from the licensed facility. The NRC staff periodically inspects a licensed facility to ensure the facility operates within the NRC requirements. The NRC staff also has enforcement authority to penalize a licensee for a violation of its regulations. The NRC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration share responsibility for protecting worker health at nuclear power plants. In September 2013, the NRC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration updated a Memorandum of Understanding that delineates the general areas of responsibility of each agency, describes how each agency achieves worker protection at facilities licensed by the NRC, and provides guidelines for coordinating activities between the two agencies regarding occupational safety and health (NRC 2013b). 3.8.1 Regulatory Radiological Requirements A radioisotope production facility using enriched uranium as a fuel must receive a license from the NRC and comply with NRC regulations and conditions specified in the license to operate. A licensee is required to comply with occupational dose limits for adults (10 CFR Part 20, Subpart C) and radiation dose limits for individual members of the public (10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D). 3.8.1.1 Regulatory Requirements for Occupational Exposure The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1201 establish occupational dose limits. The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1201 specify an annual maximum allowable occupational dose of 5 rem (0.05 sievert) to a radiation worker from exposure to radiation and radioactive material at a licensed facility. The dose limits apply to normal and accident conditions. Under 10 CFR 20.2206, the NRC requires licensees to submit an annual report of their results of Affected Environment 3-51 individual monitoring for each individual who required monitoring under 10 CFR 20.1502 during that year. The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.2202 and 20.2203 require licensees to submit reports of incidents and occurrences involving personnel radiation exposures that exceed specified doses, radiation levels, and concentrations of radioactive material, respectively. Licensees are required to investigate incidents and occurrences and to take corrective actions as necessary. 3.8.1.2 Regulatory Requirements for Public Exposure The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1301 specify an annual maximum allowable dose of 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) to a member of the public from exposure to radiation and radioactive material at a licensed facility. The dose limits apply to normal and accident conditions. In addition, under 10 CFR 20.1101(d), the NRC imposes a 10-millirem (0.01-millisievert) constraint on air emissions of radioactive material released into the environment. This dose constraint, applicable to the proposed SHINE facility, implements 10 CFR 20.1101(b), which requires NRC licensees to use, to the extent practical, procedures and controls based on sound radiation protection principles to achieve doses to members of the public (and facility workers) that are as low as is reasonably achievable. 3.8.1.3 Public Radiological Exposures The proposed SHINE facility, if approved by the NRC, would be licensed to possess, use, generate, and release radioactive effluents under controlled conditions into the environment during normal operation. SHINE would use radioactive waste management systems to remove radioactivity to maintain the doses to workers and members of the public within the NRC dose limits and to be as low as is reasonably achievable. Members of the public may be exposed to radioactive material contained in gaseous radioactive effluents released into the atmosphere from the proposed SHINE facility during normal operations. The radioactive materials released under controlled conditions would include krypton-85, iodine-131, xenon-133, and tritium. The NRC would require SHINE to monitor gaseous radioactive effluents to ensure compliance with the NRC requirements. SHINE would not plan to release any liquid radioactive effluents (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff evaluates the impact to human health from radioactive material by comparing the estimated dose to a member of the public from the proposed facility, submitted by SHINE in its Environmental Report, against the agency's radiation protection dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20. Dose is calculated based on the amount of time spent in the vicinity of the radioactive effluent or the amount of time the individual's body retains the inhaled or ingested radionuclides (exposure). Radioactive material released into the environment can expose individuals through the following pathways: (1) inhaling contaminated air, (2) standing in a plume of contaminated air, (3) drinking milk or eating meat from animals that grazed on open pasture on which radioactive material was deposited, (4) eating vegetables grown near the proposed site that are contaminated with radioactive material releases from the facility, and (5) being exposed to medical isotopes and low-level radioactive waste shipped off site. Affected Environment 3-52 SHINE calculated the dose for the maximally exposed individual (i.e., a hypothetical member of the public potentially subject to maximum exposure) by using site-specific data or conservative (overestimating) assumptions (SHINE 2015a). Because of the low power levels at the proposed facility, the NRC evaluates the potential impacts to human health at a radius of 5 mi (8 km) from the facility (NRC 2012). 3.8.1.4 Occupational Radiological Exposures SHINE workers who conduct activities involving radioactively contaminated systems or who work in radiation areas can be exposed to radiation. SHINE would monitor its workers in accordance with the NRC's requirements. SHINE expects that most of the occupational radiation dose would result from external radiation exposure rather than from internal exposure resulting from inhaled or ingested radioactive materials. Facility workers are expected to receive radiation exposure while working in the medical isotope production areas of the proposed SHINE facility during the following work activities: handling the product, conducting quality control inspections, packaging the product for transport, maintenance activities, and transporting the product to the end user. Additional exposure would result from handling, storing, packaging, and transporting low-level radioactive waste for disposal (SHINE 2015a). 3.8.2 Chemical Hazards Chemicals enter the body through the skin, by inhalation, or by ingestion. Chemical exposure produces different effects on the body, depending on the chemical and the amount of exposure. Chemicals can cause cancer, affect reproductive capability, disrupt the endocrine system, and have other health effects. Acute effects from chemical exposure occur immediately (e.g., when somebody inhales or ingests a poisonous substance). Chronic or delayed effects result in symptoms, such as skin rashes, headaches, breathing difficulties, and nausea (NRC 2013c). At the proposed SHINE facility, chemical effects could result from the routine use of chemicals and hazardous materials during the medical isotope production process. Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 of this EIS contains a list of the chemicals that SHINE plans to use at the facility (SHINE 2015a). The proposed SHINE facility would release small amounts of nonradioactive laboratory chemicals into the city sewer system as a result of routine facility maintenance activities and performance of analytical procedures. See Section 2.7.2 for a detailed discussion on the use of chemicals at the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). 3.8.3 Other Hazards The proposed SHINE facility is an industrial facility with many of the typical occupational hazards found at other industrial manufacturing or production facilities. Workplace hazards can be grouped into physical hazards (e.g., hazards from slips, trips, and falls from a height and those from transportation, temperature, humidity, and electricity); physical agents (e.g., noise, vibration, and ionizing radiation); chemicals; and psychosocial issues (e.g., work-related stress) (NRC 2013c). 3.9 Transportation Environments 3.9.1 Roads Figure 3-9 shows major roads and transportation features in the vicinity of the proposed site. The proposed SHINE site lies on the east side of U.S. Highway 51, also known as North Affected Environment 3-53 Riverside Drive, directly across from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. U.S. Highway 51 runs north-south, with the City of Janesville to the north and the City of Beloit to the south. The main entrance to the proposed SHINE facility would be on U.S. Highway 51, just north of the intersection with West Enterprise Drive. Figure 3-9. Existing Transportation Network Near the Proposed SHINE Facility Source: SHINE 2015a Affected Environment 3-54 Major highways and roads in the area of the proposed site include the following: (1) Interstate 39/90 runs generally northwest to southeast and passes about 2.0 mi (3.2 km) to the east of the proposed site. These two designated interstate highways share the same route from approximately the City of Rockford, Illinois, to the City of Portage, Wisconsin. (2) Interstate 43 runs generally northeast from the City of Beloit, which is located south of the proposed site, to the City of Milwaukee, which is located north of the proposed site. (3) State Trunk Highway 11 runs east-west to the north of the proposed site and accesses Interstate 39/90. (4) Town Line Road, a major collector road, runs east-west about 2.7 mi (4.3 km) south of the proposed site. However, this road does not have ramps to or from Interstate 39/90. (5) U.S. Highway 14 runs generally east-west through the City of Janesville, which is north of the proposed site. Table 3-21 describes the average daily traffic volumes for these roads and locations. Table 3-22 describes the morning, midday, and evening peak hourly traffic counts for various count locations in the vicinity of the proposed site. The Beloit-Janesville Express, a route of the Janesville Transit System public transportation network, operates weekdays between the City of Janesville and the City of Beloit via U.S. Highway 51. The stops nearest the proposed site are currently at Kellogg Avenue to the north and at Sunny Lane to the south (City of Janesville 2013c). Table 3-21. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site Traffic Count Location Vehicles Per Day U.S. Highway 51, south of State Trunk Highway 11 9,000 U.S. Highway 51, north of Town Line Road 9,400 State Trunk Highway 11, east of U.S. Highway 51 8,400 State Trunk Highway 11, west of U.S. Highway 51 4,500 State Trunk Highway 11, west of Interstate 39/90 12,400 Interstate 39/90, south of State Trunk Highway 11 45,700 Interstate 39/90, north of State Trunk Highway 11 50,400 Town Line Road, east of U.S. Highway 51 3,400 Source: WDOT 2010a Affected Environment 3-55 Table 3-22. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic Counts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site-Number of Vehicles Count Site No. Location Year of Count A.M. Peak(a) Midday Peak(b) P.M. Peak(c) Daily Total 531345 U.S. Highway 51, north of Happy Hollow Road, Rock Township 2010 667 679 746 8,977 530104 U.S. Highway 51, 1.0 mi south of Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport 2010 693 N/A(d) 802 N/A(d) 531344 State Trunk Highway 11, east of U.S. Highway 51 2010 659 509 703 8,411 531491 State Trunk Highway 11, between River Road and U.S. Highway 51 2010 368 263 382 4,465 530215 U.S. Highway 51, 0.5 mi south of Burbank Avenue, City of Janesville 2010 537 753 401 9,628 531300 Townline Road, between County Highway G and the Interstate 39/90 overpass 2010 58 66 96 1,102 (a) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 00:00 and 09:59. (b) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 10:00 and 14:59. (c) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 15:00 and 23:59. (d) Midday Peak and Daily Total are unavailable because no data were reported for 14:00 to 14:59 hours. Source: WDOT 2010b 3.9.2 Airports Rock County owns and operates the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. It is an air carrier/cargo airport with corporate, general, and cargo aviation but with no scheduled commercial passenger service. The airport has three runways and covers 1,405 ac (569 ha). In 2012, the airport had about 55,000 aircraft operations (i.e., takeoffs and landings combined), three quarters of which were freight operations (Rock County 2009). After Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, the next closest available airports for proposed SHINE product shipment are Dane County Regional Airport in Madison, Wisconsin, which is about 1 hour from the proposed site, followed by Mitchell International in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and O'Hare International in Chicago, Illinois, both of which are within 2 hours of the proposed site. 3.9.3 Rail A Union Pacific rail line runs northwest to southeast about 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the northeast of the proposed site. This line is not an Amtrak route; it is a freight-only line. The line carries both hazardous and nonhazardous freight. However, this rail line does not provide direct access to the proposed site (Union Pacific Railroad 2013). 3.10 References 7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, "Important farmlands inventory." 7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, "Farmland and protection policy act." Affected Environment 3-56 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor site criteria." 14 CFR Part 150. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Aeronautics and Space, Part 150, "Airport noise compatibility planning; final rule." 23 CFR Part 777. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Highways, Part 777, "Procedures for abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise." 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, "Occupational safety and health standards." 40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, "National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards." 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, "Requirements for preparation, adoption, and submittal of implementation plans." 40 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 52, "Approval and promulgation of implementation plans." 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, "Designation of area for air quality planning purposes." 50 CFR Part 10. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 10, "General provisions." 50 CFR Part 17. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 17, "Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants." 50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulation, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, "Interagency cooperation-Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended." 74 FR 56260. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases [Final rule]." Federal Register 74(209):56260-56519. October 30, 2009. 75 FR 9282. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "General Provisions; Revised List of Migratory Birds [Final rule]." Federal Register 75(39):9282-9314. March 1, 2010. 75 FR 31514. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule [Final rule]." Federal Register 75(209):31514-31608. June 3, 2010. 77 FR 41051. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits [Final rule]." Federal Register 77(134):41051-41075. July 12, 2012. Arrowhead Library System. 2013. Arrowhead Library System, Helping Public Libraries Serve the Citizens of Rock County. Revised April 30, 2013. Available at <www.als.lib.wi.us> (accessed 26 November 2013). Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2011 et seq. Avery, C. 2005. Reversal of Declining Ground-Water Levels in the Chicago Area. Fact Sheet FS-222-95. Urbana, IL: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. May 2005. Available at <http://il.water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs222_95.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2013). Affected Environment 3-57 [BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1984. Visual Resource Inventory Manual H-8410-1. U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM. H-8410-1. January 17, 1986. Available at <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.31679.File.dat/H-8410.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015). [BLS] Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Location Quotient Calculator, Preliminary data for 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, BLS. Available at <http://data.bls.gov/location_quotient/ContollerServlet> (accessed 19 August 2014). Buchwald CA. 2011. Water Use in Wisconsin, 2005. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. November 2011. Open-File Report 2009-1076, Version 1.1. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1076/pdf/ofr20091076.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014). City of Janesville. 2010. Water Utility, Water Conservation Plan. April 2010. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=573> (accessed 20 December 2013). City of Janesville. 2011a. Proposed TIF 35 Street and Lot Layout. City of Janesville, WI: Planning Services, K Benz. June 6, 2011. Available at <http://inwisconsin.com/ content/uploads/2013/04/Janesville_Site-Plan.pdf> (accessed 9 July 2013). City of Janesville. 2011b. Parks Division. Revised 2011. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=118> (accessed 4 December 2013). City of Janesville. 2012. Tax Increment Finance District No. 35, Project Plan, Amendment No. 1. City of Janesville, WI: Economic Development Agency, Accounting Division. February 13, 2012. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1463> (accessed 25 June 2013). City of Janesville. 2013a. Water Utility Facilities, Water Utility FAQs. 2011. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=370> (accessed 20 December 2013). City of Janesville. 2013b. 2013 Budget Information. 2011. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=565> (accessed 29 November 2013). City of Janesville. 2013c. Janesville Transit System Routes and Timetables. Available at <http:www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page288> (accessed 20 March 2014). City of Janesville. Undated. Business Climate, Janesville Profile. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=83> (accessed August 2013). Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. Crone AJ, Wheeler RL. 2000. Data for Quaternary Faults, Liquefaction Features, and Possible Tectonic Features in the Central and Eastern United States, East of the Rocky Mountain Front. Reston, VA: USGS. Open-File Report 00-260. 2000. 332 p. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/ofr-00-0260> (accessed 27 August 2013). Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Available at <http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm> (accessed 6 November 2014). Affected Environment 3-58 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Noise Effects Handbook: A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. Washington, DC: Office of Noise Abatement and Control. October 1979, Revised July 1981. Available at <http://nonoise.org/ epa/Roll7/roll7doc27.pdf> (accessed 29 October 2013). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Revised December 14, 2012. Available at <http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html> (accessed 10 October 2013). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Maps of Protected Areas. Revised May 5, 2012. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/visibility/maps.html> (accessed 29 October 2013). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Nonattainment Status for Each County by Year for Wisconsin. December 5, 2013. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ oar/oaqps/greenbk/anay_wi.html> (accessed 6 February 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014a. The 2011 National Emissions Inventory. Revised February 3, 2014. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html> (accessed 6 February 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014b. Memorandum. Next Steps and Preliminary Views on the Application of Clean Air Act Permitting Programs to Greenhouse Gases following the Supreme Court's Decisions in Utility Air Regulatory Group versus Environmental Protection Agency. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/ 2011inventory.html> (accessed 5 September 2014). Fagan B. 2005. Ancient North America. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd. 568 p. Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq. [FEMA] Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Rock County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas. Oakton, VA: FEMA Map Service Center. Map Number 55105C0307D. August 19, 2008. Available at <https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/ stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1> (accessed 20 December 2013). Find the Data. 2014. Compare Active Mines. 2014. Available at <http://active-mines.findthedata.org> (accessed 19 February 2014). Forward Janesville. 2014. Top 20 Janesville Employers (January 2014). Available at <http://www.forwardjanesville.com/CommunityInfo/Employment.aspx> (accessed 6 October 2014). Fullerton DS, Bush CA, Pennell JN. 2003. Map of Surficial Deposits and Materials in the Eastern and Central United States (East of 102° West Longitude). Denver, CO: Department of the Interior, USGS. Geologic Investigations Series I-2789. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ imap/i-2789/> (accessed 27 August 2013). [FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Letter from Fasbender P, FWS Green Bay Field Office Supervisor to Wong M, NRC Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch (RERB) Branch Chief.

Subject:

Reply to request for concurrence with list of protected species and habitats for the SHINE Facility Environmental Review. August 15, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13234A020. [FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Find Endangered Species, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/> (accessed 23 January 2014). Affected Environment 3-59 [GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012a. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, Janesville, Wisconsin. Duluth, MN: SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Golder Report 6, Revision 3. August 3, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13309B618. [GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012b. Preliminary Hydrological Analyses, Janesville, Wisconsin. Duluth, MN: SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Golder Report 7, Revision 3. August 3, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13309B623. Grannemann NG, Hunt RJ, Nicholas JR, Reilly TE, Winter TC. 2000. The Importance of Ground Water in the Great Lakes Region. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4008. Lansing, MI: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. Available at <http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/WRI004008/WRIR_00-4008.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2013). Ice Age Trail Alliance. 2013. "Ice Age Trail Alliance, Home." 2013. Available at <http://www.iceagetrail.org> (accessed 25 November 2013). Janesville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2013. Attractions. 2011. Available at <http://www.iceagetrail.org/directory/p/dir/39> (accessed August 2013). Janesville School District. 2012. School District of Janesville 2012-2013 Budget, Preliminary Working Draft. October 9, 2012. Available at <http://www.janesville.k12.wi.us/Portals/1/Finance/H%20-%2012%20-%20Budget%20Book%20Draft%202012-13.pdf> (accessed 29 July 2013). Juckem PF. 2009. Simulation of the Regional Ground-Water-Flow System and Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interaction in the Rock River Basin, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey and Rock River Coalition. Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5094. 38 p. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5094/pdf/sir20095094.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014). Knopf C, Krause K. 2012. A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed SHINE Medical Isotope Production Facility Near Janesville, Rock County, Wisconsin. AMEC, Louisville, KY. Leute JR. 2009. Thursday is last day of production as Isuzu line comes to an end. GazetteXtra. April 21, 2009. Available at <http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/apr/21/thursday-last-day-production-isuzu-line-comes-end/> (accessed August 2013). MacFarlane Pheasants, Inc. 2012. MacFarlane Pheasants, Inc., Home. 2001-2014. Available at <http://www.pheasant.com/default.aspx> (accessed 31 August 2014). Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 U.S.C. §703-712. Milwaukee Business Journal. 2008. GM Closing Janesville Assembly Plant. June 3, 2008. Available at <http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2008/06/02/daily9.html> (accessed August 2013). National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq. [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2010. 1981-2010 Normals Data Access. Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data> (accessed 12 September 2013). Affected Environment 3-60 [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2011. TD3505-Airways Surface Observations, Surface weather observations in TD 3505 digital format from 2005-2010, for Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, Janesville, WI. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), data purchased from NCDC, Asheville, NC, as cited in SHINE 2015a. [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2012. 2012 Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Madison, Wisconsin (KMSN). Asheville, NC: NOAA/NCDC. ISSN 0198-5728. Available at <http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/annual/2012/2012MSN.pdf> (accessed 6 February 2014). [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2013. Storm Events Database, Search Results for Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/ listevents.jsp?hailfilter=0.00&tornfilter=0&windfilter=000&sort=DT&statefips=55%2CWISCONSIN&county=ROCK&zone=ALL&eventType=%28C%29+ALL&beginDate_yyyy=1996&beginDate_mm=01&beginDate_dd=01&endDate_yyyy=2013&endDate_mm=04&endDate_dd=30> (accessed 12 September 2013). [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. Undated. U.S. Climatic Divisions. Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-divisions.php> (accessed 12 September 2013). [NCES] National Center for Education Statistics. 2014. College Navigator. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. College and university student population within 20 miles of ZIP code 53546. Released August 2014. Available at <http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/> (accessed 8 October 2014). Neusius SW, Gross GT. 2007. Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American Archaeology. Oxford University Press: NY. 720 p. [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v3.0. Available at <http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html> (accessed 23 January 2014). Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §4901 et seq. [NPS] National Park Service. 2013a. National Register of Historic Places, Rock County, Wisconsin. Revised February 25, 2014. Available at <http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/ natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome> (accessed 25 February 2014). [NPS] National Park Service. 2013b. National Historic Landmarks Program, Wisconsin. Available at <http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/> (accessed 6 December 2013). [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors; and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. NUREG-1537. October 17, 2012. ADAMS Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013a. Letter from Wong M, Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch (RERB) Branch Chief, to Vann Bynum R, SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Chief Operating Officer.

Subject:

Environmental site audit regarding SHINE Medical, Inc. proposed radioisotope production facility. July 3, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13168A562. Affected Environment 3-61 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013b. "Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and OSHA for NRC-Regulated Facilities." September 2013. Washington, DC: NRC. ADAMS No. ML11354A432. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Revision 1, Volume 1, 2, and 3. Washington, DC: NRC. NUREG-1437. June 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13107A023. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility. Washington, DC: NRC. ADAMS No. ML15062A111. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Web Soil Survey, Soil Map-Rock County, Wisconsin. (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit description; suitabilities and limitations for use; building site development). Updated February 15, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. Available at <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app> (accessed 20 December 2013). Olcott PG. 1968. A Summary of Geology and Mineral and Water Resources of Rock County. Open-File Report 68-4. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and Natural History Survey. 28 p. Available at <http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/wofrs/WOFR1968-04.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013). Olcott PG. 1992. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Ground Water. HA-730-J. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_j/index.html> (accessed 20 December 2013). Petersen MD, Frankel AD, Harmsen SC, Mueller CS, Haller KM, Wheeler RL, Wesson RL, Zeng Y, Boyd OS, Perkins DM, Luco N, Field EH, Wills CJ, Rukstales, KS. 2011. Seismic-Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States, 2008. Denver, CO: USGS. Scientific Investigations Map 3195, 6 sheets. Revised January 9, 2013. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3195/> (accessed 20 December 2013). Private School Review. 2013. Welcome to Private School Review. 2003-2014. Available at <www.privateschoolreview.com> (accessed 26 November 2013). Rock County. 2009. Rock County Comprehensive Plan 2035. Janesville, WI: Rock County Planning, Economic and Community Development Agency. September 10, 2009. Available at <https://www.co.rock.wi.us/planning-comprehensive-plan-2035> (accessed 7 January 2015). Rock County. 2013. Rock County, Wisconsin 2013-2014 Official Directory. Janesville, WI: Stottler L, Rock County Clerk. Revised October 24, 2013. Available at <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/images/web_documents/about_rock_county/rock_county_directory.pdf> (accessed 12 May 2014). Rock County. 2014a. Communications Center 911. Available at <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/departments/departments-a-f/communications-911> (accessed 25 February 2014). Rock County. 2014b. Emergency Management Home Page. Available at <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/emergency-mgmt-home> (accessed 25 February 2014). Rock County. Undated a. Rock County Ordinances. Undated. Available at <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/images/web_documents/about_rock_county/county_ordinance.pdf> (accessed 6 February 2014). Affected Environment 3-62 Rock County. Undated b. "Mission, Facts, and History." Available at <https://www.co.rock.wi.us/mission-facts-history?highlight=WyJoaXN0b3J5Il0=> (accessed 14 January 2015). Rock County Development Alliance. 2012. Health Care. 2012. Available at <http://www.rockcountyalliance.com/RockCountyLife/HealthCare/tabid/375/Default.aspx> (accessed 25 November 2013). Rock County Development Alliance. 2014. Rock County's Major Employers-Public and Private Sectors. Employer Survey, 2014. Available at <http://www.rockcountyalliance.com/Portals/1/Major%20Employers%20List%20Rock%20County%202014.pdf> (accessed 6 October 2014). Rock County Tourism Council. 2012. Rock County Wisconsin's Front Porch. 2012. Available at <http://www.rockcounty.org/Recreation/tabid/510/Default.aspx> (accessed 25 November 2013). Sample DW, Mossman MJ. 1997. Managing Habitat for grassland birds-A Guide for Wisconsin. Madison, WI: WDNR. PUBL-SS-925-97. 154 p. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online (Version 03JUN2002). Available at <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/wiscbird/index.htm> (accessed 7 January 2015). [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 2, "Site Characteristics," and Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404. Sinclair RA. 1996. Rock River Basin: Historical Background, IEPA Targeted Watersheds, and Resource-Rich Areas. Champaign, IL: Illinois State Water Survey, Hydrology Division. Miscellaneous Publication 174. April 1996. Available at <http://www.isws.illinois.edu/ pubdoc/MP/ISWSMP-174.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013). State of Wisconsin. Undated. Wisconsin Legislative Documents Search Results for Noise. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/search/results?q=noise> (accessed 29 October 2013). Union Pacific Railroad. 2013. E-mail from Thompson MA, Hazardous Materials Manager, Chicago, to Molter RJ, Compa Industries, Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Subject:

Union Pacific Railroad operations and restrictions, Janesville. August 23, 2013. [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 1995. Wisconsin Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900-1990. Revised 1995. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed August 2013). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://censtats.census.gov/ data/WI/05055105.pdf> (accessed 24 February 2014). Affected Environment 3-63 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, City of Janesville, Wisconsin. Available at <http://censtats.census.gov/ data/WI/1605537825.pdf> (accessed 24 February 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2000c. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, State of Wisconsin. Available at <http://censtats.census.gov/ data/WI/04055.pdf> (accessed 24 February 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2009-2011a. Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics 2009-2011, American Community Survey, 3-Year Estimates. City of Janesville, Wisconsin, Rock County, Wisconsin, State of Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed August 2013). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2009-2011b. Table DP04 Selected Housing 2009-2011, American Community Survey, 3-Year Estimates. City of Janesville, WI, Rock County, WI, State of Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed August 2013). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. American FactFinder, Community Facts. Rock County. Revised 2010. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed 21 August 2013). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. Table DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. City of Janesville, Wisconsin, Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed May 2013). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. American FactFinder, Advanced Search. Available at <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pa ges/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t> (accessed June 2013). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. Poverty Thresholds. Revised January 28, 2014. Available at <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/> (accessed 27 February 2014). [USDA]. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Wisconsin Rapid Watershed Assessment Lower Rock River. October 2007. Lower Rock River Water Shed (WI) HUC: 07090002. 20 p. Available at <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_020057.pdf> (accessed 28 January 2014). [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013. Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Available at <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/ Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Wisconsin/st55_2_025_025.pdf> (accessed 4 October 2013). [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2014. 2012 Census of Agriculture. Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 7. Hired Farm Labor-Workers and Payroll: 2012, and Table 25. Field Crops: 2012 and 2007. Last modified May 2, 2014. Available at <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Wisconsin/> (accessed 8 October 2014). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Physiographic Regions. Revised April 17, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). Available at <http://tapestry.usgs.gov/physiogr/physio.html> (accessed 27 August 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. National Land Cover Database. ESRI ArcGIS 9.3.1 software. Available at <http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer> (accessed 4 October 2013). Affected Environment 3-64 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. Divisions of Geologic Time-Major Chronostratigraphic and Geochronologic Units. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS. Fact Sheet 2010-3059. July 2010. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3059/> (accessed 27 August 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. July 18, 2012. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults> (accessed 27 August 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013a. 2009 Mineral Yearbook, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). April 2013. Available at <http://minerals.usgs.gov/ minerals/pubs/state/> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013b. Earthquakes in the Stable Continental Region. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/product/tectonic-summary/usc000te4p/us/1420825648040/tectonic-summary.inc.html> (accessed 16 January 2015). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013c. Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive Search and URL Builder, Search Results. (Radius search parameters: center latitude 42.622213 N, center longitude -89.026766 W, and outside radius 322 km). U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Revised November 7, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013d. Historic Earthquakes in the United States and its Territories, Illinois. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Revised March 6, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/historical_state_mag.php> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013e. Magnitude/Intensity Comparison. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Revised January 9, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mag_vs_int.php> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013f. Poster of the Northern Illinois Earthquake of 28 June 2004-Magnitude 4.2. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Revised October 30, 2012. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/poster/2004/20040628.php> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013g. Water-Resources Data for the United States, Water Year 2012, Site 05430500. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). USGS Water-Data Report WDR-US-2012. Available at <http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/05430500.2012.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS and WDNR] U.S. Geological Services and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Map of Distribution of Wisconsin Fish Species. Available at <https://cida.usgs.gov/wdnr_fishmap/map/> (accessed 28 January 2014). Vandewalle & Associates. 2009. City of Janesville Comprehensive Plan. Madison, WI: City of Janesville. March 9, 2009. Available at <http://www.saa-madison.com/sites/saa-madison.com/files/microsite-documents/JV-comp-plan-Volume1.pdf> (accessed 9 September 2014). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 29. Wild Animals and Plants. Available at <http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/29> (accessed 7 January 2015). Affected Environment 3-65 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 281. Water and Sewage. Available at <http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/281> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102. Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters. November 2010. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/ code/admin_code/nr/100/102> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 104. Uses and Designated Standards. February 2004. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/104/_1> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 140. Groundwater Quality. January 2012. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/140/Title> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 404. Ambient Air Quality. November 2011. Available at <http://docs.legis.wi.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/404/Title> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 405. Prevention of Significant Deterioration. July 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/405.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406. Construction Permits. March 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/406.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 407. Operation Permits. February 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/407.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 445. Control of Hazardous Pollutants. March 2012. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/445.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Trans 405. Siting Noise Barriers. November 2000. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/405> (accessed 29 October 2013). [WCMP] Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 2007. Wisconsin Coastal Management Program: A Strategic Vision for the Great Lakes. Madison, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Documents/DIR/Coastal%20Management/Program%20Docs/WCMP%20Strategic%20Vision%20for%20Great%20Lakes%202007.pdf> (accessed 1 October 2015). [WDOA] Wisconsin Department of Administration. 2013. Population and Household Projections, County Age-Sex Population Projections, 2010-2040, Final Release 12/10/2013. Demographic Services Center, Division of Intergovermental Relations. Available at <http://www.doa.state.wi.us/divisions/intergovernmental-relations/demographic-services-center/projections> (accessed 7 October 2014). [WDATCP] Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection. 2013. Well Constructor's Reports. Available at <http://datcpgis.wi.gov/WellLogs/> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Watershed-Rock River-Milton (LR04). Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/watershedDetail.aspx?code=LR04&Name=Rock River - Milton> (accessed 29 January 2014). Affected Environment 3-66 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012a. Explore Wisconsin's Water, Upper Rock River Basin. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012b. Plan Review for Municipal and Other Nonindustrial Wastewater Systems. Revised September 3, 2012. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wastewater/municipalsystems.html> (accessed 25 February 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. Rock River Prairie (No. 289). Revised January 10, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/naturalareas/ index.asp?sna=289> (accessed 12 May 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013b. Rock River TMDL. Revised November 19, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/TMDLs/RockRiver/index.html> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013c. DNR Drinking Water System: High Capacity Wells. Revised January 6, 2014. Available at <http://prodoasext.dnr.wi.gov/inter1/hicap$.startup> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013d. Look Up Groundwater Data, Well Construction Information. Revised November 12, 2012. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Groundwater/data.html> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013e. Southeast Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape. Revised January 23, 2012. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=9> (accessed 23 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013f. State Natural Areas by County. Revised December 27, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/naturalareas/county.html> (accessed 12 May 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013g. Wisconsin NDR. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/> (accessed 27 June 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. Letter from Heggelund E, WDNR Environmental Analysis and Review Specialist, to Moser M, NRC Environmental Project Manager.

Subject:

WDNR comments for the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Statement and Scoping for SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production facility. February 7, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14045A298. [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014b. Wisconsin's Natural Communities. Revised October 7, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Communities.asp> (accessed 7 November 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014c. Wetlands. Revised August 19, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wetlands/> (accessed 28 January 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014d. Wisconsin Natural Heritage Working List. Revised January 9, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/nhi/wlist.html#SRank> (accessed 23 January 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014e. Wisconsin's Endangered and Threatened Species Laws. Revised January 9, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/laws.html> (accessed 28 January 2014). Affected Environment 3-67 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Undated. Find Campgrounds-ReserveAmerica. Available at <http://wisconsinstateparks.reserveamerica.com/campground SearchResult.do?startIdx=0> (accessed 26 February 2014). [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2010a. Average Annual Daily Traffic for Lower Half, City of Janesville, Rock County. Available at <http://www.dot.state.wi.us/travel/ counts/docs/rock/janesville-2-2010.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015). [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2010b. Hourly Traffic Volume Reports-2010. The WisTransPortal System, Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Available at <http://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourly-traffic-data/bysiteid/rock.html> (accessed 9 October 2014). [WDPI] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2011-2012. FY2011-2012 Equalized Levy Rates (Mill Rates). Available at <https://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/safr_ro/all_mill_rate.asp?year=2012> (accessed 29 July 2013). [WDPI] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2012-2013. FY2012-2013 Equalized Levy Rates (Mill Rates). Available at <https://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/safr_ro/all_mill_rate.asp?year=2013#J> (accessed 25 February 2014). [WDPI] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2013. "WISEdash, Wisconsin Information System for education, Data Dashboard." Revised 2013. Available at <www.wisedash.dpi.wi.gov> (accessed 29 July 2013 and 26 November 2013). [WDR] Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2012. Town, Village, and City Taxes-2012, Taxes Levied 2012-Collected 2013. Available at <http://www.revenue.wi.gov/pubs/slf/tvc12.pdf> (accessed 5 December 2013). [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2010. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) Results-Janesville. Available at <http://worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/dalaus.aspx?menuselection=da> (accessed 28 August 2014). [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2011. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) Results-Rock County. Available at <worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/ dalaus.aspx?menuselection=da> (accessed 28 August 2014). [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2012. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) Results-Wisconsin. Available at <http://worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/ dalaus.aspx?menuselection=da> (accessed 28 August 2014). [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2011a. Glaciation of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: UW Extension. Educational Series 36, 4th edition. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/es0362011/> (accessed 16 January 2015). [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2011b. Bedrock Stratigraphic Units in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: UW Extension. Educational Series 51, ISSN: 1052-2115. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/ES051/> (accessed 16 January 2015). [WHS] Wisconsin Historical Society. 2013. Cultural Overview of Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archaeology/overview/> (accessed 16 January 2015). Zaporozec A. 1982. Ground-Water Quality of Rock County, Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Geological and Natural History Survey in cooperation with Rock County Division of Environmental Health. Information Circular 41. March 1982. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

4-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AND DECOMMISSIONING This chapter addresses potential environmental impacts related to the proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) standard of significance for impacts uses the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significantly" (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 1508.27). Because the significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, both "context" and "intensity," as defined in CEQ regulation 40 CFR 1508.27, were considered. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects would occur. Intensity is the severity of the impact. Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. The definitions of these three significance levels, which are presented in the Interim Staff Guidance to NUREG-1537 (NRC 2012), follow: SMALL-environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. In assessing radiological impacts, the NRC has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the NRC's regulations are considered SMALL. MODERATE-environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource. LARGE-environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. For this environmental impact statement (EIS), the NRC staff characterized impact levels using the above definitions (NRC 2012). These impacts are grouped and presented according to the resource area. Within each resource area, the NRC staff determined the impacts during each of the three phases: construction, operations, and decommissioning. As described in Section 2.2, the NRC staff included the activities and impacts of preoperational activities as part of the construction phase. The NRC staff characterizes the impacts to resources as a single level or as a range of impact levels. Ranges of impacts may be provided if environmental conditions are uncertain or if there are multiple circumstances associated with environmental conditions surrounding the proposed or alternate sites. For example, a range of impacts may be appropriate to characterize impact levels if the environment changes in time or space, such as the impacts may be smaller at certain times or in certain places and larger at other times or places. 4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources 4.1.1 Land Use 4.1.1.1 Construction The proposed SHINE site currently includes 91.1 acres (ac) (36.9 hectares (ha)) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas (SHINE 2015a; USGS 2006). Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would permanently disturb and convert 25.67 ac (10.39 ha) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas into an industrial area that would include facility buildings, an employee parking lot, facility access roads, a stormwater detention area, and access road drainage ditches (Table 4-1). In addition, 14.54 ac (5.88 ha) of Environmental Impacts 4-2 agricultural land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking area and construction material staging or laydown areas. Installation of the water and sewer line would also temporarily affect an additional 0.62 ac (0.25 ha) of offsite agricultural lands immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed site. Once construction activities are complete, SHINE would restore temporarily affected areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie (SHINE 2015a). The remaining portion of the site would likely remain as open area or agricultural fields, or it would be converted to cool season grasses or native prairie. The potential conversion of up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of agricultural and cultivated crops would be minor when compared to the 25,236 ac (10,213 ha) of agricultural land remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site. The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) and its implementing regulations requires agencies to make Farmland Protection Policy Act evaluations part of the process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), to reduce the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by Federal projects and programs. Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would convert up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of land with soils that may qualify as prime farmland or farmland of statewide significance to industrial use, cool season grasses, or native prairie. However, this is a small percentage of the approximate 41,900 ac (16,900 ha) of land with soils that may qualify as prime farmland and farmland of statewide significance within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed site (SHINE 2015a; NRCS 2013). Similarly, the potential relative value of the farmland on the 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) proposed site would be 13,771 bushels (bu) of grain corn or 3,947 bu of soybeans, which is relatively minor when compared to the 10-year production estimate average for Rock County, Wisconsin (22,075,540 bu of grain corn and 3,786,415 bu of soybeans) (USDA 2013). Furthermore, the proposed site is currently zoned light industrial and is part of a larger development project to create an industrial park in Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District No. 35 (City of Janesville 2012). Because the proposed SHINE site has been committed to urban development and zoned light industrial, the proposed site does not have farmland soils subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR 658.2). Land-use impacts would be confined to the proposed 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) site and 0.62 ac. (0.25 ha) of offsite agricultural lands immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed site. Therefore, areas with a special land use or mineral resources (as described in Section 3.1) would not be affected by the proposed construction of the SHINE facility. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), was enacted by Congress in 1972 to address the increasing pressures of overdevelopment upon the Nation's coastal resources. Applicants for any NRC license or permit that would include activities that affect coastal zone resources must provide a certification to the NRC that the proposed activity complies with any applicable State Coastal Zone Management Plan. An applicant must also provide this certification to the State, and the State must notify the NRC whether the State concurs with the applicant's certification. The NRC cannot issue a license or permit to an applicant until the State has concurred with the applicant's certification. Given that no Federally designated coastal zone areas are within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed SHINE site, and that the proposed action would not affect any land or water use or natural resource within the coastal zone, the applicant's certification and the State's concurrence is not applicable for the NRC's review of the construction permit for the proposed SHINE facility (WCMP 2007). Based on the relatively small amount of farmland that would be permanently converted to other land uses, the lack of qualifying important farmland soils within affected areas, the location of the proposed facility within an area zoned for light industrial use, and the lack of special land use or mineral resources on site, land use impacts from construction would be SMALL. Environmental Impacts 4-3 Table 4-1. Acres of Land Required for Construction of the Proposed SHINE Facility Land Cover Type Permanent Disturbance Temporary Disturbance Total Land Cover Within 5 mi (8 km) ac ha ac ha ac ha Percent Open Water 796 322 1.6 Developed, Open Space 0.18 0.07 3,043 1,231 6.1 Developed, Low Intensity 5,858 2,371 11.7 Developed, Medium Intensity 1,968 796 3.9 Developed, High Intensity 992 401 2 Barren 43 17 0.1 Deciduous Forest 3,298 1,335 6.6 Evergreen Forest 68 28 0.1 Mixed Forest 1 0 0 Shrub/Scrub 505 204 1 Grassland 1,049 425 2.1 Pasture/Hay 5,896 2,386 11.7 Cultivated Crops 25.67(a) 10.39(a) 15.16(a)(b) 6.13(a)(b) 25,236 10,213 50.2 Woody Wetlands 722 292 1.4 Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 787 318 1.6 Total(c) 25.85 10.46 15.16 6.13 50,262 20,339 100 (a) Cultivated crops on the proposed site are located on soils that are prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. (b) Temporarily disturbed lands include 14.54 ac (5.88 ha) of onsite land and 0.62 ac (0.25 ha) of offsite land. (c) Total may add up to more or less than 100 percent due to rounding. Source: USGS 2006; SHINE 2015a 4.1.1.2 Operations Operation of the SHINE facility would not require any new land or require land use changes beyond that required for construction. Therefore, land use impacts during operations would be SMALL. 4.1.1.3 Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities because they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Land requirements to perform these activities would be the same or less than those required during construction (SHINE 2014). After decommissioning activities are complete, the proposed site could remain industrial or could be converted back to agricultural land or open space. Given that land requirements would be similar to those described during construction and that, after decommissioning is complete, land would either be industrial, agricultural, or open space, land use impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. Environmental Impacts 4-4 4.1.2 Visual Resources 4.1.2.1 Construction As described in Section 3.1.2, the visual setting of the proposed SHINE facility includes agricultural and light industrial viewsheds. The proposed site is currently used for agricultural purposes, and no existing structures or natural or built barriers, screens, or buffers occur on site. SHINE would build a Production Facility Building that would be approximately 58 ft (18 m) high, 284 ft (87 m) long, and 194 ft (59 m) wide (SHINE 2014). The highest point at the SHINE facility, the exhaust vent on the main building, would be approximately 66 ft (20 m) (SHINE 2014). Figure 4-1 is a conceptual rendering of the proposed SHINE facility based on these dimensions. The activities associated with construction of the SHINE facility (e.g., excavation, earthmoving, pile driving, and erection) would require large equipment, would significantly alter onsite conditions, and would partially obstruct views of the existing landscape. However, as described in Section 3.1, the NRC staff determined that the proposed site has low scenic quality because of a lack of notable features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, mute colors, cultural modifications to adjacent scenery, and a commonality within the physiographic province. The NRC staff also determined that the proposed site has a low sensitivity rating because it is in an area with low scenic values resulting from a low amount of use by viewers, low public interest in changes to the visual quality of the proposed site, a low sensitivity to changes in visual quality by the type of users in the area, and a lack of special natural and wilderness areas. In addition, the viewshed surrounding the proposed site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, such as warehouses and an airport. Further, once construction activities are complete, SHINE may vegetate open areas with crops, cool season grasses, or native prairie grasses (SHINE 2015a). Vegetation could partially mitigate impacts to visual resources given that the majority of the surrounding viewshed is cultivated fields or grasses. SHINE would also mitigate impacts by landscaping or planting shrubs along U.S. Highway 51 and bordering access roads (SHINE 2015a). Based on the low scenic quality and light industrial viewshed within the vicinity, construction-related aesthetic impacts would be SMALL. 4.1.2.2 Operations The appearance of the SHINE facility would not change during operation, other than a small steam plume that may be visible coming from the exhaust stack. The steam plume from the exhaust stack is expected to be minimal because opacity associated with the natural gas-fired boiler and heaters tends to be low, as described in Section 4.2.2.1. The plume would be more visible during periods of cold weather, although the size of the plume would still be relatively small. Therefore, visual impacts during operations would be SMALL. Environmental Impacts 4-5 Figure 4-1. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed SHINE Facility Conceptual View of Proposed SHINE Facility from U.S. Highway 51, Looking Southeast Figure 4-1. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed SHINE Facility (Continued) Conceptual View of Proposed SHINE Facility Looking West Source: SHINE 2014 4.1.2.3 Impacts from Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities because they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. After SHINE completed decommissioning activities, the proposed site could remain industrial or could be converted back to agricultural land or open space. As the proposed SHINE facility is Environmental Impacts 4-6 located in a district zoned for light industrial use and the viewshed surrounding the proposed site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, the NRC staff would not expect any changes to the landscape to significantly affect any viewsheds. Therefore, visual impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.2 Air Quality and Noise Air and noise emissions would occur during construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. Emission sources, pollutants, and durations would be different for each phase and are discussed below. As discussed in Chapter 3, the region of influence (ROI) for this air quality analysis is Rock County, which is designated as an attainment/unclassifiable area for all criteria pollutants. The ROI for the noise analysis is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the proposed SHINE facility. 4.2.1 Construction During construction, both air quality and noise levels may be affected near the proposed SHINE facility. Air pollutants would include fugitive dust from earth-moving equipment and other vehicles, exhaust gases from diesel engines, and exhaust gases from worker vehicles as they commute to and from the proposed SHINE facility. Noise would be emitted from diesel engines, backup alarms, and increased traffic as workers commute to and from the proposed SHINE facility and as materials are hauled on and off the construction site. Table 4-2 lists the equipment that would be used during construction. The NRC staff expects actual equipment activity to be lower than what is presented in Table 4-2 because SHINE assumed operation of a majority of the construction equipment throughout the entire construction phase, multiple pieces of the same equipment type and simultaneous use of equipment, and equipment continuously running 5 hours a day during construction (SHINE 2015b). SHINE estimated that a maximum of 451 workers would be needed during construction (SHINE 2014). Table 4-2. Equipment Used During Construction Equipment Type Engine Size (hp) Total Activity (hours)(a) Asphalt Compactor Cat CB434C 107 521 Asphalt Paver, Barber Greene AP-1000 174 521 Backhoe/Loader Cat 430 105 6,979 Boom Lift JLG 800AJ 65 7,917 Concrete Pump Putzmeister 47Z-Meter(b) 300 3,021 Crane (Lattice Boom, Manitowoc 8000-80t)(b) 205 1,354 Crane (Picker, Grove RT530E-2 30t)(b) 160 5,729 Crane (Picker, Grove RT600E-50t)(b) 173 1,146 Dump, Dual axel (15 cy) Mack 350 4,896 Excavator (Large, Cat 345D L)(b) 380 521 Excavator (Medium, Cat 321D LCR)(b) 148 1,354 Extended Forklift Lull 1044C-54 115 10,104 Fuel Truck, Mack MP6(b) 150 1,458 Material Truck 2-1/2t F-650 270 3,229 Mechanic's Truck 2-1/2t F-650 270 2,813 Motor Grader Cat 140M 183 1,563 Pickup Truck F-250 300 19,063 Semi Tractor and Trailer (20 cy) Mack MP8(b) 450 7,188 Environmental Impacts 4-7 Equipment Type Engine Size (hp) Total Activity (hours)(a) Skidsteer Loader Case SR200 75 8,229 Tracked Dozer Cat D6 150 2,188 Tracked Dozer Cat D7 235 2,708 Tracked Dozer Cat D8(b) 310 1,979 Tracked Loader CAT 973C 242 4,479 Vibratory Soil Compactor Cat C874 156 1,458 Water Truck Mack MP6 150 1,146 Portable Air Compressors 50 5,625 Portable Generators 50 6,354 Portable Welders 50 4,688 Walk Behind Compactor 50 2,396 (a) Activity represents the total number of hours SHINE would operate equipment during the 18-month construction period. Within each equipment category, several pieces of equipment may be operated simultaneously (SHINE 2015b). Equipment hours are based on construction work schedule, number of hours the equipment is assumed to be used in during the entire18 month construction phase, and equipment utilization factors provided in SHINE 2014, 2015b. (b) Equipment anticipated to be utilized during the first 12 months of the construction phase. Source: SHINE 2014, 2015b 4.2.1.1 Air Quality During construction, the diesel equipment on site listed in Table 4-2 would generate air emissions. Engine exhausts emit criteria pollutants, and fugitive dust would be generated by earth-moving activities. Employee vehicular traffic would also generate both exhaust and fugitive dust emissions, some of which would occur on site and others would occur off site. However, fugitive dust emissions should be minimal for vehicles when traveling on paved roads off site. Construction-related emissions are summarized in Table 4-3. Additional vehicle-related emissions would be associated with the transportation of shipments and deliveries during construction, as discussed in Section 4.10.1. However, they would be emitted beyond the ROI (SHINE 2014) and would traverse various counties, air quality control regions (AQCRs), and states. Therefore, the air quality analysis focuses on the predominant emission sources during construction, which includes diesel equipment exhaust, worker vehicle commuting, and earth-moving activities. Table 4-3. Annual Air Emissions During Construction Source Emissions During Construction (tons/yr) CO NOx Hydro-carbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Diesel Equipment Exhaust(a) 58 269 22 18 19 19 10,000 Peak Worker Vehicle Exhaust(a) 126 9 14 0.3(d) 0.06 0.06 4,920 Fugitive Dust(b) - - - - 40 4 - Total 183 278 36 18 59 23 14,900 Percent of Rock County Annual Emissions(c) 0.6 5.0 0.3 18 0.7 0.8 1.3 Environmental Impacts 4-8 Source Emissions During Construction (tons/yr) CO NOx Hydro-carbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 (a) SHINE 2015b (b) Fugitive dust emissions (as total suspended particles (TSP)) were estimated by SHINE (2014) based on the acres that would be permanently or temporarily disturbed during the construction phase (41.01 ac (16.6 ha)). To calculate particulate matter (PM)10 and PM2.5, the NRC staff applied the annual construction phase work schedule (50 weeks, 5 days/week, 5 hours/day) and the expected particle-size ratios for PM10/TSP, a ratio of 0.48, and for PM2.5/PM10, a ratio of 0.1 (EPA 1984; MRI 2006). (c) Rock County annual emissions are shown in Table 3-5. (d) NRC staff applied the emission factors from Cai et al. 2013 to construction worker vehicles-miles provided in SHINE 2014, 2015a to estimate SO2 emission. Key: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrous oxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter of 10 microns (µm) or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 µm or less; CO2 = carbon dioxide Source: SHINE 2014, 2015b As shown in Table 4-3, construction-related emissions would be approximately less than 5 percent of countywide emissions for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter. Sulfur dioxide could result in an increase of up to 18 percent of annual sulfur dioxide emissions for Rock County; however, as explained below, the emissions presented in Table 4-3 are highly conservative. Total greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) (approximately 15,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq)4 per year) would be well below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq (68,000 metric TPY) threshold for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V permits set in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, about 295 mi (475 km) from the proposed site. EPA recommends that sources located within 62 mi (100 km) of a Class I area be modeled to consider adverse impacts (EPA 1992). Given the distance and estimated emissions from construction, the NRC staff does not anticipate that activities from construction could adversely affect air quality and air quality-related values (e.g., visibility or acid deposition) in the nearest Class I area. Emissions presented in Table 4-3 should be regarded as bounding conditions for construction activities. The emission estimates presented in Table 4-3 do not account for emission control technologies for diesel engines, best management practices, or mitigative measures that can be implemented during construction-related activities. For instance, SHINE proposes to minimize fugitive dust emissions on site by watering and limiting speeds on unpaved roads, minimizing material handling, stabilizing construction roads and spoil piles, and slope revegetation (SHINE 2015a). Such measures would reduce particulate matter emissions related to land-disturbing activities below those presented in Table 4-3. Furthermore, diesel-related construction equipment emission estimates presented in Table 4-3 are estimated uncontrolled emissions that do not account for control technologies that can be implemented to reduce emissions, such as selective catalytic converters that can reduce emissions (EPA 1996). 4 Carbon dioxide equivalent is a metric used to compare the emissions of GHG based on their global warming potential (GWP). GWP is a measure used to compare how much heat a GHG traps in the atmosphere. GWP is the total energy that a gas absorbs over a period of time, compared to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide equivalent is obtained by multiplying the amount of the GHG by the associated GWP. For example, the GWP of methane (CH4) is estimated to be 21; therefore, 1 ton of methane emission is equivalent to 21 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Environmental Impacts 4-9 Estimates are also based on conservative equipment activity values presented in Table 4-2. SHINE plans to implement techniques during construction, where practical, to reduce diesel emissions, such as using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels (15 parts per million sulfur maximum), deploying new equipment with emission control systems and exhaust filtration devices (diesel oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate matter filters and/or catalytic converters), performing diesel equipment inspections and necessary maintenance to ensure proposed condition of exhaust filtration devices, implementing recommended maintenance procedures, and periodic checks of diesel equipment, and minimizing the idle time of equipment, which would reduce the equipment activity presented in Table 4-2 (SHINE 2013). Finally, worker commuter emissions assumed a minimum of a 100-mi (160-km) roundtrip commute and a peak number of workers. Because the workforce could travel from all over the 50-mi (80-km) region and not necessarily have a 100-mi roundtrip commute and not all 451 workers would necessarily travel to the site on a daily basis, this projected increase in miles traveled daily for each county is conservative. Furthermore, SHINE will encourage carpooling or other appropriate measures to minimize emissions due to worker vehicles (SHINE 2013). Therefore, the emissions presented in Table 4-3 should be regarded as bounding conditions for construction activities, and, for these reasons, the NRC staff does not expect increased air emissions from construction activities to contribute to concentrations that would exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in Rock County. SHINE intends to submit an application for a Type A Registration Construction Permit to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (SHINE 2013). The requirements in the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, are implemented within Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 285, "Air Pollution." WDNR administers its construction permit program under Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 406. Compliance with the construction permit from WDNR would ensure that the proposed project would meet air pollution standards. SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated within the permit. Given that emissions during construction would be local and temporary (construction phase of 18 months), pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from WDNR, and with Rock County designated as an attainment/unclassifiable area, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL. 4.2.1.2 Noise Noise emissions during construction would occur because of increased traffic volumes on U.S. Highway 51 and because of the use of construction equipment on site. The maximum number of worker vehicles expected on site during construction is 451, all of which would be expected to travel via U.S. Highway 51 during the hours when work starts and stops (SHINE 2015a; SHINE 2014). SHINE modeled highway noise to estimate existing noise levels near U.S. Highway 51 (50 ft (15 m)) away from the road) and used a peak-hour traffic volume of 465 vehicles per hour. If work start and stop times occur during the peak hours modeled, traffic volume would nearly double during some periods during construction. The NRC staff conducted additional noise modeling using the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Traffic Noise Model (TNM), Version 2.5, which shows adding the proposed SHINE facility construction traffic would increase noise levels near U.S. Highway 51 by less than 3 decibels A-weighted (dBA). Most people are unable to discern noise level differences less than about 3 dBA. Furthermore, posted speed limits and a staggered construction work shift schedule can reduce traffic noise during construction (SHINE 2015a). The types of equipment that would be used on site during construction are listed in Table 4-2. The noisier equipment from this list was modeled by the NRC staff using the FHWA's Roadway Construction Noise Model, Version 1.1. Modeling results show a maximum noise level of about Environmental Impacts 4-10 53 dBA at the nearest residence to the proposed site (about 0.3 mi (0.5 km) away from the site boundary). This noise level would be well below existing ambient noise levels (about 65 dBA but sometimes greater because of the airport and traffic on U.S. Highway 51) and would not be noticeable by most people. Given the minor (less than 3 dBA) increase in noise levels caused by additional vehicle traffic and estimated noise levels from construction equipment not exceeding existing ambient noise levels, the NRC staff concludes that offsite noise impacts from construction would be SMALL. 4.2.2 Operations 4.2.2.1 Air Quality Air emissions from operating the proposed SHINE facility would be predominantly from two sources: (1) radioisotope production and (2) fuel combustion associated with processing and facility heating purposes. Additional emissions would come from vehicular traffic from workers commuting and from transportation of shipments and deliveries during operations. However, shipment-related emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI (SHINE 2014) and would traverse various counties, AQCRs, and states. Therefore, the air quality analysis presented below focuses on emissions from radioisotope production, fuel combustion associated with processing and facility heating purposes, and vehicle worker commuting. The effects on nearby air quality resulting from these emissions would be determined by what and how much is emitted; how and where pollutants are emitted (stack location, size, temperature, and exhaust velocity); and ambient meteorological conditions. Radioisotope Production A criteria air pollutant that would be emitted from the radioisotope production process includes nitrogen oxide. SHINE would use nitric acid in target solution vessels (TSVs) and in the thermal denitration process, resulting in the formation and release of nitrogen oxides. SHINE would treat gaseous effluents through the control ventilation systems, which involves two stages of high-efficiency particulate air filters before being vented to the atmosphere through the main stack of the production facility. Total nitrogen oxide emissions from the radioisotope production process would be about 3 TPY (SHINE 2015a). Fuel Combustion Diesel and natural gas combustion sources are listed in Table 4-4. Four natural-gas-fired heaters and one boiler would be used to meet heating and hot water requirements for the proposed SHINE facility. Additionally, a diesel generator would be used for emergency power (SHINE 2015a). Emissions from diesel and natural gas combustion sources are summarized in Table 4-5. Estimated fuel combustion-related emissions from the facility during operation, as provided in Table 4-5 are well below the major source threshold of 100 TPY for criteria pollutants requiring a Title V operation permit. GHG emissions (approximately 15,700 TPY of CO2eq) would be well below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq threshold for PSD and Title V permits set in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, SHINE plans to develop programs, when appropriate, to avoid and control GHG emissions and implement energy efficiency and conservation at the facility (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates that emissions from combustion-related activities during operation will not be a major source and, therefore, has little potential for significantly affecting air quality or interfering with plans to achieve compliance with the NAAQS. Environmental Impacts 4-11 Table 4-4. Fuel Combustion Sources Description Fuel Heat Input Rates (MMBTU/hr) Maximum Expected Load Emergency Generator Diesel 43.56 NA Production Building Boiler Nat. gas 30 23.6 Support Facility Building Nat. gas 0.42 0.337 Administration Building Nat. gas 0.29 0.233 Waste Staging and Shipping Building Nat. gas 0.18 0.142 Diesel Generator Building Nat. gas 0.072 0.058 Source: SHINE 2013, 2015a Table 4-5. Fuel Combustion Emissions During Operations Description Maximum Emissions (ton/yr) CO NOx PM10(a) Hydrocarbons SO2 CO2 Emergency Generator(b) 0.36 3.52 0.026 0.12 0.01 345 Production Building Boiler(c) 10.37 6.22 0.92 0.67 0.08 14,822 Support Facility Building(c) 0.067 0.16 0.013 0.01 0.001 208 Administration Building(c) 0.05 0.12 0.009 0.007 0.001 143 Waste Staging and Shipping Building(c) 0.03 0.07 0.005 0.004 0.001 89 Diesel Generator Building(c) 0.01 0.03 0.002 0.002 0.001 36 Total 10.9 10.1 1.00 0.81 0.09 15,642 (a) Particulate emissions from diesel and gas combustion are assumed to be less than 1 µm in diameter. Hence, PM2.5 and PM10 emissions are the same. (b) Generator emissions of CO, NOx, PM, and hydrocarbons were computed using emission factors from the CAT C175-20 Diesel Engine Data Sheet provided by Caterpillar. SO2 emissions are based on a maximum of 50 parts per million (ppm) sulfur in the fuel. CO2 emissions were computed using an emission factor from Section 3.4 of AP-42 (EPA 2006). (c) Emissions from gas-fired heaters and boilers were calculated using emission factors from Section 1.4 of AP-42 (EPA 2006). Source: SHINE 2013 SHINE computed air pollutant concentrations near the proposed SHINE facility during operations using the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), Version 12345. Air pollutant concentrations modeled include emissions from the radioisotope production process and heater and boiler combustion during operation (SHINE 2015a). Emissions from the standby diesel generator were not accounted for in the model because its use would be infrequent (SHINE 2015a). SHINE used surface and upper air meteorological data from Madison, Wisconsin (Station 14837), for the years 2006 to 2010. Modeled air pollutant concentrations (maximum predicted impact) for each pollutant resulting from operation (production process and heater and boiler combustion) were added to ambient background concentrations and compared with NAAQS. SHINE's modeling results are shown in Table 4-6. Environmental Impacts 4-12 Table 4-6. SHINE Air Dispersion Modeling Results Pollutant Averaging Period Maximum Predicted Impact 3)(a) Year Total Concentration 3)(b) NAAQS 3) CO 1-hr 26.45 2009 1,389 40,000(c) 8-hr 12.16 2007 1,203 10,000(c) NO2 1-hr 61.57 2007 117 188 Annual 1.722 5-yr 26 100 SO2 1-hr 0.2266 2009 13 196 3-hr 0.1238 2010 43 1,310 24-hr 0.0584 2008 - NA(d) Annual 0.0062 5-yr - NA PM10 24-hr 0.7318 2008 48 150 Annual 0.0786 5-yr - NA PM2.5 24-hr 0.75 5-yr 29 35 Annual 0.09 5-yr 10 12 (a) Values represent the highest predicted impacts for each pollutant and averaging time. (b) Total concentrations provided are the maximum predicted impact plus background concentrations. (c) The value shown is approximate. The NAAQS is expressed in units of ppm or parts per billion. (d) NA = Not applicable. No current NAAQS applies to this averaging time. Source: SHINE 2013; EPA 2012a. As can be seen from Table 4-6, total concentrations (maximum predicted impact plus background concentration) for each pollutant do not exceed the NAAQS. In other words, the additional emissions resulting from operation did not result in NAAQS thresholds being exceeded. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that violations of NAAQS are not expected as a result of increased air emissions from operation of SHINE. Additionally, the maximum impacts include consideration of building downwash effects. Therefore, these values are conservative and bounding. Visibility modeling was not performed for this project because of the low emission rates and resulting pollutant concentrations. No visible plume other than steam is expected from SHINE stacks during normal operation. The nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, about 295 mi (475 km) from the proposed site. EPA recommends that sources located within 62 mi (100 km) of a Class I area be modeled to consider adverse impacts (EPA 1992). Given the distance and estimated emissions from operation, the NRC staff does not anticipate that activities from operation could adversely affect air quality and air quality-related values (e.g., visibility or acid deposition) in the nearest Class I area. SHINE would control emissions of nitrogen oxide from the natural-gas-fired boiler using low nitrogen oxide burners and emissions from gas-fired heaters using combustion controls and properly designed and tuned burners (SHINE 2015a). The generator would be required to meet applicable New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ). Emissions from radioisotope production and fuel combustion sources would be emitted through stacks. Terrain near the proposed SHINE facility is relatively flat and, therefore, should not affect dispersion of pollutants. SHINE intends to submit an application for a Type A Registration Operation Permit to WDNR for stationary equipment (e.g., emergency generator) (SHINE 2013). The operating Environmental Impacts 4-13 permit from WDNR would set limits and establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements with which SHINE would be required to comply. Additional emissions would result from workforce vehicles. Approximately 150 passenger vehicles would enter and leave the proposed SHINE facility on a daily basis (SHINE 2013, 2014). Vehicular emissions would occur wherever the vehicles are driven, both on and off the proposed SHINE facility. Employee vehicle emissions during operation are summarized in Table 4-7. Additional vehicle-related emissions would be associated with the transportation of waste shipments, as discussed in Section 4.10.2, during operation. However, these emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI because they are expected to be shipped to facilities in Clive, Utah; Andrews, Texas; and/or Kingston, Tennessee (SHINE 2014, 2015a); therefore, they would traverse various counties, AQCRs, and states. Minimal air emissions resulting from waste shipments would be emitted within Rock County. Table 4-7. Vehicle Emissions During Operation Activity Emissions During Operation (TPY) CO NOx Hydro-carbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Worker Commuting Exhaust 42 3 5 0.1(a) 0.02 0.02 1,600 (a) NRC staff applied the emission factors from Cai et al. 2013 to worker vehicles-miles provided in SHINE 2014, 2015a to estimate SO2 emission. Source: SHINE 2014, 2015a When estimated emissions from vehicles (Table 4-7) are added to the estimated emissions from radioisotope production and fuel combustion emissions (Table 4-5), total emissions are below the major source threshold of 100 TPY for criteria pollutants that would require a Title V permit and are below 250 TPY, which is the threshold for triggering PSD requirements (as discussed in Section 3.2.2). Furthermore, total GHGs (approximately 17,300 TPY of CO2eq) are below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq threshold for PSD and Title V permits set in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates that emissions from related activities during operation has little potential for significantly affecting air quality or interfering with plans to achieve compliance with the NAAQS. Given that modeled air emissions from operation do not exceed NAAQS, that estimated emissions from operation-related activities are below the 100-TPY major source threshold, that Rock County is designated attainment/unclassifiable status and given the provisions that would be established in the air permit, the impact of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality during operation is expected to be SMALL. 4.2.2.2 Noise Noise emissions during operation would occur because of increased traffic volumes on U.S. Highway 51. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE buildings at the site. The number of worker vehicles expected during operation is 150 (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Adding this traffic volume to the TNM modeling completed for existing traffic levels would increase noise levels near U.S. Highway 51 by about 1 dBA. Most people are unable to discern noise level differences less than about 3 dBA. The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport currently operates approximately 105 flights per day, 38,400 flights per year (FAA 2014). Flight operations may increase because of the demand to Environmental Impacts 4-14 transport materials to and from the proposed SHINE facility. Up to 468 medical shipments would occur each year associated with the proposed action with most being transported by air (SHINE 2015a). However, these increases are not anticipated to cause an appreciable increase in noise above the current operations. Given that noise emissions from operating equipment are not expected to be audible beyond the building facility, that additional noise emissions caused by worker vehicles are minor (1 dBA), and that noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels from current airport operations, the NRC staff concludes that offsite noise impacts during operation would be SMALL. 4.2.3 Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities. The decommissioning activities would include, for example, vehicular traffic, earth-moving equipment, demolition of structures, and dismantlement and decontamination of systems over a period of 6 months (SHINE 2015a). Table 4-8 lists the equipment that would be used during the decommissioning phase. The NRC staff expects actual equipment activity to be lower than what is presented in Table 4-8 because SHINE assumed operation of the construction equipment throughout the entire decommissioning phase, multiple pieces of the same equipment type and simultaneous use of equipment, and equipment continuously running 5 hours a day during decommissioning (SHINE 2015b). SHINE estimated that a maximum of 261 workers would be on the proposed SHINE site at one time during decommissioning (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Table 4-8. Diesel Equipment Used During Decommissioning Equipment Type Engine Size (hp) Total Activity (hr)(a) Backhoe/Loader Cat 430 105 3,542 Boom Lift JLG 800AJ 65 3,958 Crane (Lattice Boom, Manitowoc 8000-80t) 205 729 Crane (Picker, Grove RT530E-2 30t) 160 2,917 Crane (Picker, Grove RT600E- 50t) 173 625 Dump, Dual axel (15 cy) Mack 350 2,500 Excavator (Large, Cat 345D L) 380 313 Excavator (Medium, Cat 321D LCR) 148 729 Extended Forklift Lull 1044C-54 115 5,104 Fuel Truck, Mack MP6 150 729 Material Truck 2-1/2t F-650 270 1,667 Mechanic's Truck 2-1/2t F-650 270 1,458 Motor Grader Cat 140M 183 833 Pickup Truck F-250 300 9,583 Semi Tractor and Trailer (20 cy) Mack MP8 450 3,646 Skidsteer Loader Case SR200 75 4,167 Tracked Dozer Cat D6 150 1,146 Tracked Dozer Cat D7 235 1,354 Tracked Dozer Cat D8 310 1,042 Tracked Loader CAT 973C 242 2,292 Vibratory Soil Compactor Cat C874 156 729 Water Truck Mack MP6 150 625 Portable Air Compressors 50 2,813 Portable Generators 50 3,229 Environmental Impacts 4-15 Equipment Type Engine Size (hp) Total Activity (hr)(a) Portable Welders 50 2,396 Walk Behind Compactor 50 1,250 (a) Activity represents the total number of hours SHINE would operate equipment during the 6-month decommissioning period. Within each equipment category, several pieces of equipment may be operated simultaneously (SHINE 2015b). Equipment hours are based on decommissioning work schedule, number of hours the equipment is assumed to be used in 6 months, and equipment utilization factors provided in SHINE 2014, 2015b. Source: SHINE 2014, 2015a, 2015b 4.2.3.1 Air Quality During decommissioning, the diesel equipment on the proposed SHINE site would be a source of air emissions (Table 4-8). Engine exhausts emit criteria pollutants, and fugitive dust would be generated by earth-moving activities. Vehicular traffic would also generate both exhaust and fugitive dust emissions, some of which would occur on site and some off site. Emissions are summarized in Table 4-9. Additional vehicle-related emissions would be associated with the transportation of waste shipments, as discussed in Section 4.10.3, during decommissioning. However, these emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI because they are expected to be shipped to facilities in Clive, Utah; Andrews, Texas; and/or Kingston, Tennessee (SHINE 2014, 2015a); therefore, they would traverse various counties, AQCRs, and states. Minimal air emissions resulting from waste shipments would be emitted within Rock County. As shown in Table 4-9, emissions during decommissioning would be less than 3 percent of total countywide emissions of pollutants, with the exception of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide could result in an increase of up to 11 percent of annual sulfur dioxide emissions for Rock County. The NRC staff expects SHINE emissions to be low enough that resulting air quality concentrations should not cause NAAQS to be exceeded. Similarly, total GHGs (approximately 9,330 tons of CO2eq per year) would be well below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq threshold for PSD and Title V permits set in the GHG Tailoring Rule. Environmental Impacts 4-16 Table 4-9. Air Emissions During Decommissioning Source Emissions During Decommissioning Phasee (tons) CO NOx Hydro-carbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Diesel Equipment Exhaust(a) 37 170 14 11 12 12 6,400 Peak Worker Commuting Exhaust(a) 37 3 4 0.1(d) .02 .02 1,440 Fugitive Dust(b) 7 0.7 Total 74 173 18 11 19 13 7,840 Percent of Rock County Annual Emissions(c) 0.2 3.0 0.2 11 0.2 0.4 0.7 (a) SHINE 2014 (b) Fugitive dust emissions (as TSP) were estimated by SHINE 2014 based on the acres that would be permanently or temporarily disturbed during construction (25 ac). To calculate PM10 and PM2.5, the NRC staff applied the decommissioning phase work schedule (25 weeks, 5 days/week, and 5 hours/day) and the expected particle size ratios for PM10/TSP, a ratio of 0.48, and PM2.5/PM10, a ratio of 0.1 (EPA 1984; MRI 2006). (c) Rock County annual emissions are shown in Table 3-5. (d) NRC staff applied emission factors from Cai et al. 2013 to worker vehicles-miles provided in SHINE 2014, 2015a to estimate SO2 emission. (e) The decommissioning phase is assumed to be 6 months. Source: SHINE 2014, 2015a The emission estimates presented in Table 4-9 did not account for emission control technologies for diesel engines or mitigative measures that can be implemented during construction activities. For instance, SHINE proposes to minimize fugitive dust emissions by watering disturbed areas and unpaved roads and by limiting speeds on unpaved site roads (SHINE 2015a). Such measures should reduce dust emissions below those presented in Table 4-9 and should prevent fugitive dust from adversely affecting highway or airport traffic. Emissions are estimated based on equipment activity presented in Table 4-8, which are bounding and conservative. Actual emissions are expected to be lower depending on the exact use of equipment. Additionally, estimated diesel-related equipment emissions are for uncontrolled emissions that do not consider emission control technologies. SHINE plans to implement techniques during decommissioning, where practical, to reduce diesel equipment emissions, such as using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels (15 parts per million sulfur maximum), deploying new equipment with emission control systems and exhaust filtration devices (diesel oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate matter filters and/or catalytic converters), performing diesel equipment inspections and necessary maintenance to ensure proposed condition of exhaust filtration devices, implementing recommended maintenance procedures, and periodic checks of diesel equipment, and minimizing the idle time of equipment, which would reduce the equipment activity presented in Table 4-9 (SHINE 2013). Furthermore, worker commuter emissions assumed a minimum 100-mi (161-km) roundtrip commute. Because the workforce could travel from all over the 50-mi (80-km) region and not necessarily have a 100-mi (161-km) roundtrip commute, this projected increase in miles traveled daily for each county is conservative. Therefore, emissions in Table 4-9 are bounding and conservative. Given that air emissions during decommissioning would be local and temporary (decommissioning phase of 6 months) and that Rock County is designated as an attainment/unclassifiable area, the NRC staff concludes that the air quality impact associated with the decommissioning phase would be SMALL. Environmental Impacts 4-17 4.2.3.2 Noise Noise emissions during decommissioning would be similar to those generated during construction. Increased noise levels would occur from increased traffic volumes on U.S. Highway 51 and from the use of construction equipment on site. A maximum of 261 worker vehicles could be on site during decommissioning (SHINE 2014). For purposes of analysis, the NRC staff assumed that all of these vehicles would travel on U.S. Highway 51 near the proposed SHINE facility during the hours when work starts and stops. Adding these to the TNM, as completed for the other phases, shows increased noise levels near U.S. Highway 51 of less than 2 dBA. Most people are unable to discern noise level differences less than about 3 dBA. The types of equipment that would be used on site during decommissioning are listed in Table 4-8; they are similar to those used during construction. Application of the Roadway Construction Noise Model by the NRC staff indicates that decommissioning activities would result in a maximum noise level of about 53 dBA at the nearest residence to the proposed site (about 0.3 mi (0.5 km) away from the site boundary). During the day, this noise level would be well below existing ambient noise levels (about 65 dBA but sometimes greater because of the airport and traffic on U.S. Highway 51) and would not be noticeable by most people. Given the minor (2-dBA) increase in noise levels caused by additional vehicle traffic and given that estimated noise levels from decommissioning activities would be bounded by existing ambient noise levels, the NRC staff concludes that offsite noise impacts from decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.3 Geologic Environment 4.3.1 Construction Construction of the proposed SHINE facility is expected to disturb approximately 41 ac (16.6 ha) of land, as detailed in Section 4.1.1.1. The property has been in active agricultural use and would likely be left fallow before the start of construction. Construction of the radiologically controlled area (RCA) of the facility would require excavation to a depth of 39 ft (12 m). Utility routings and other foundation slabs and footings would require excavation to a depth of about 5 ft (1.5 m). As the depth to bedrock is greater than 221 ft (67 m) and likely greater than 300 ft (91 m), no blasting would be required for site preparation and facility construction. Site soils may be prone to slumping in excavations (Section 3.3.2) because of textural characteristics; therefore, bracing may be required. Mineral and other geologic resources would be required to support the construction effort, including approximately 7,600 yd3 (5,800 m3) of granular road base (e.g., typically crushed aggregate (sand and gravel) as a base material); 2,200 yd3 (1,680 m3) of asphalt pavement material; and 8,500 yd3 of gravel surfacing (6,500 m3) (SHINE 2015a). These resources would be procured from local and/or regional commercial vendors. As noted in Section 3.3.1, construction aggregate is widely available throughout Rock County and the greater southeastern Wisconsin region. SHINE estimated that 27,700 yd3 (21,180 m3) of concrete would also be used for facility construction and would be obtained from offsite commercial vendors (SHINE 2015a). Consequently, no onsite concrete batch plant would be required (SHINE 2014). The mineral products that comprise concrete (i.e., Portland cement, sand, gravel, and other additives) are widely available in the region or are not otherwise limited in commercial availability. Environmental Impacts 4-18 Additionally, an estimated 74,000 yd3 (56,600 m3) of backfill would be required for emplacement around structures, along with the use of 10,000 yd3 (7,650 m3) of topsoil for miscellaneous earthwork and final surface preparation (SHINE 2015a). The backfill material would be reworked from onsite material and prepared as necessary to meet structural requirements, and the topsoil would likewise be derived from onsite soils that are temporarily stockpiled during site preparation and excavation work for later use. Construction materials are further detailed in Table 2-1, and construction activities are described in Section 2.2. Although site grading, surface compaction, excavation work, and construction-related vehicle traffic would expose site soils and sediments to wind and water erosion, adherence to standard best management practices (BMPs) for soil erosion and sediment control during facility construction would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss. Such BMPs would include the use of gravel aprons, sediment traps, sediment fencing, check dams and staked hay bales, mulching and geotextile matting, and rapid reseeding. The impacts would also be contained within the immediate project site and would be temporary in nature. SHINE has indicated that soil erosion and sediment control for ground-disturbing activities would meet or exceed the applicable regulatory requirements under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations pursuant to CWA Section 402, and applicable Wisconsin regulations (SHINE 2015a). EPA has delegated NPDES permit authority to Wisconsin for stormwater dischargers associated with construction and industrial activity. The WDNR administers its permit program under the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 151 and NR 216). Specifically, SHINE would be required to obtain and comply with the provisions of a General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff (Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013a). The permit would require SHINE to develop and implement a site-specific construction site erosion control plan, including specific BMPs or pollution control measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management). The permit also specifies that the permittee should minimize soil compaction and preserve topsoil. Pursuant to Section 401(a) of the CWA, an applicant for a Federal license or permit, which may result in a discharge into navigable waters of the United States, must provide to the Federal licensing or permitting agency the certification, or a waiver, from the State in which the discharge originates. A Federal agency cannot issue such a license or permit to an applicant until the required certification is obtained. As described above, SHINE would have to obtain and comply with a State-issued general permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. BMPs and other requirements imposed by the State-issued stormwater discharge permit would ensure that runoff during construction of the proposed facility will meet applicable State water quality standards. SHINE will need to provide the NRC a 401 certification from the State of Wisconsin, a waiver, or confirmation that a 401 certification is not applicable. Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would consume geologic resources and have the potential to increase soil erosion. However, given that the geologic resources are widely available within the region and that erosion would be managed with the implementation of BMPs, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on the geologic environment from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.3.2 Operations During facility operations, previously disturbed areas would not be subject to long-term soil erosion. Areas disturbed during construction would be within the footprint of the completed facility or overlain by other impervious surfaces, such as roadways and parking lots. Land Environmental Impacts 4-19 temporarily disturbed during construction within the site boundary and lying outside the facility footprint would be revegetated. SHINE proposes to use native vegetation in the landscaping design (SHINE 2015a). As currently proposed, implementation of a stormwater management plan for the facility site would entail the use of vegetated drainage swales to control runoff, which would be effective in reducing surface erosion and sediment transport. All production activities would be conducted within enclosed buildings, and vehicle traffic would be confined to paved surfaces (e.g., roads and parking areas) that service the facility. As a result, incremental impacts on geology and soils would be negligible during operations. The NRC staff does not expect site geologic conditions to affect the operation of the SHINE facility. The proposed site is located in a region with a low seismic hazard, as described in Section 3.3.3. The proposed facility would be sited, designed, and constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes, which provide for the evaluation of site geologic and soil conditions, including potential seismic hazards. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the operational impacts associated with the geologic environment at the proposed site would be SMALL. 4.3.3 Decommissioning Compacted site soils and underlying sediments would be disturbed by facility demolition work. The impacts on site geology and soils would be similar in scope to those described for construction. Site clearing to restore the proposed site to a reusable condition would be subject to the requirements of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013a). Before beginning to dismantle onsite structures, waste materials and contaminated media would be removed from the facilities, packaged, and properly disposed of as discussed in Section 4.9. Thus, these materials would not pose a contamination threat to site soils or underlying groundwater. Soils and other media would be sampled to determine the presence of any contamination and associated waste management requirements. All activities would be conducted in accordance with a decommissioning plan approved by the NRC, as described in Section 2.8. Consequently, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on the geologic environment from facility decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.4 Water Resources 4.4.1 Surface Water 4.4.1.1 Construction No natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, and there would be no direct impact from facility construction on natural surface-water drainages. The closest surface-water feature to the proposed construction location is an unnamed tributary to Rock River located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) southeast of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). During construction, however, stormwater runoff from construction areas could potentially affect downstream surface-water quality if not properly managed. As described in Section 4.3.1, appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs would be employed to minimize the transport of suspended sediment and other pollutants. SHINE would be required to conduct construction activities in accordance with the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). SHINE would be required to prepare a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention measures. In accordance with this permit, these measures Environmental Impacts 4-20 would be required to include proper management of all construction materials and chemicals to prevent them from being exposed to, and conveyed by, stormwater to waters of the State. The permit would explicitly require the development of spill prevention and response procedures, such as measures to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of fuels and other materials from construction equipment and activities. In accordance with common construction practices, the NRC staff expects that portable restroom facilities, serviced by a commercial vendor, would be used during site construction. As a result, there would be no sanitary wastewater discharges during construction. Section 4.9 describes the waste management impacts. No surface water or onsite groundwater would be diverted or withdrawn to support facility construction (SHINE 2015a). SHINE proposes to obtain water for construction and operations from the City of Janesville Water Utility, which uses groundwater as its supply source. Section 4.4.2.1 presents an NRC analysis of groundwater use impacts. The proposed site is not located in an area susceptible to flooding or in a delineated floodplain, as discussed in Section 3.4.1. No natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, no surface water would be diverted or withdrawn to support facility construction, and SHINE must prepare a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention measures; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface-water hydrology, quality, and use from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.4.1.2 Operations During operations, there would be no direct impact on surface-water features and no direct discharge of industrial wastewater to surface water. Stormwater would be collected and discharged from the facility property in compliance with applicable State and local permit provisions and ordinances. The Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), as described for construction, specifically requires the development of a stormwater management plan with appropriate BMPs to address runoff from buildings and other impervious surfaces. Temporary stormwater management controls, such as rip-rap-lined culverts and ditches, would first be stabilized and otherwise integrated with permanent stormwater management structural controls to provide long-term stormwater velocity attenuation, runoff, and sediment transport reduction and to prevent channel scouring (SHINE 2015a). The design, construction, and subsequent operations of the proposed SHINE facility incorporate features and structural controls to manage stormwater runoff and associated hydrologic impacts during operations. For example, the site plan for the proposed facility (Figure 2-3) minimizes impervious surfaces and infiltration and uses a system of diversion ditches and vegetated drainage swales to manage stormwater runon and runoff, instead of a traditional detention or retention pond. Specifically, the SHINE facility would be surrounded by an exterior stormwater runon diversion berm with an interior and exterior ditch system. The exterior ditch would direct stormwater and farm-field runoff to flow spreaders, which direct the excess water to the surrounding fields. The interior ditch directs excess water to the vegetated stormwater basin and swale located in the southwest corner of the facility site. Collected stormwater would then discharge from the west end of the swale through an outfall structure to the existing drainage ditch along U.S. Highway 51 with drainage ultimately flowing to the unnamed tributary to Rock River (Figures 2-3 and 3-8). This stormwater system would be designed to address the 1-year, 2-year, and 24-hour storm events per State regulations and the 10-year and 100-year events, Environmental Impacts 4-21 as required by the City of Janesville (SHINE 2015a). As discussed in Section 3.3.2, the natural soils at the proposed site are well drained and not prone to water ponding. No discharge of stormwater associated with industrial activity (i.e., where stormwater can come into contact with stockpiles, raw materials, or process areas) would occur. Nevertheless, in accordance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), stormwater discharges from the SHINE site would have to comply with the wasteload allocation established for downstream receiving waters. As described in Section 3.4.1, the segment of Rock River that would ultimately receive drainage from the SHINE facility site is impaired for total suspended solids and total phosphorous. The proposed SHINE facility is designed to have no discharge of liquid wastes from the RCA (SHINE 2015a). Sections 2.7 and 4.9 discuss the treatment and handling of waste from the RCA. Furthermore, there would be no direct discharge of industrial or process wastewater to surface waters to support SHINE facility operations. Wastewater from the SHINE facility would be conveyed to the City of Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) through a 10-in. (25-cm) sanitary sewer line extended to the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Facility wastewater would normally consist of sanitary wastewater and boiler blowdown from the facility's heated water system for building heating. In total, this wastewater would be discharged at an average rate of 5,850 gallons per day (gpd) (22,145 liters per day (Lpd)), or about 0.006 million gallons per day (mgd) (23 cubic meters (m3)/day). About once a year, an additional 10,000 gal (37,850 L) of cooling water would be flushed from the closed-loop chilled water system to the sanitary sewer. This water would contain residual water treatment chemicals added to control biological growth and scale buildup and corrosion from the chilled water system (SHINE 2013). Small quantities of maintenance and laboratory chemicals also would be discharged periodically to the facility's sanitary sewer drains. However, administrative controls would be in place to ensure that such waste streams meet the acceptance requirements of the City of Janesville WTP before they are released (SHINE 2013, 2015a). All wastewater conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP would also have to meet influent acceptance requirements for industrial users and, specifically, the prohibitions and maximum daily limits specified by the City's Wastewater Facilities and Sewer Ordinance (City of Janesville 2013; SHINE 2013). The conveyance of wastewater to the City of Janesville WTP constitutes an indirect discharge and excluded from the definition of "discharge of a pollutant" to waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.2). SHINE facility operations will not require an individual NPDES permit for the discharge of wastewater to waters of the United States. Overall, the volume of this nonhazardous wastewater is very small compared to the capacity of the City of Janesville WTP. The WTP, according to City of Janesville officials, has a treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd (72,290 m3/day) with an average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd (54,900 m3/day) (NRC 2014). Finally, as much as 30,000 gal (113,600 L) of fuel oil may be stored on site in an underground storage tank to supply the facility's standby generator. This volume of oil storage requires the development and implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 112 and applicable State requirements. The SPCC Plan details requirements for oil-spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil discharges to land and surface waters (SHINE 2015a). Given that SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility operations, that a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention measures must be prepared, and that SHINE would be required to develop and implement an SPCC Plan, the NRC staff Environmental Impacts 4-22 concludes that the impacts on surface-water hydrology, quality, and use from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.4.1.3 Decommissioning No natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, and there would be no direct impacts on surface-water resources as a consequence of facility decommissioning activities. No surface water would be used during decommissioning. As previously noted in Section 4.3.3, during decommissioning, waste materials and contaminated media would be removed from the facility and packaged for proper disposal. Building demolition and related ground-disturbing activity, including the removal of the facility site's stormwater management structures, would be subject to the requirements of WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013a). BMPs, including the use of structural controls, such as sediment fencing and sediment basins, and the use of mulching, geotextile matting, and rapid reseeding of disturbed areas, would be used to prevent soil erosion and loss and downstream water-quality impacts. Soils and other media would be sampled to determine the presence of any contamination and associated waste management requirements. Thus, any such materials would not pose a contamination threat to offsite surface water or groundwater. The Wisconsin General Permit requires the development of spill prevention and response procedures, such as measures to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of fuels and other materials from equipment that would be used during building demolition and site restoration. Therefore, appropriate waste handling and stormwater pollution prevention practices and spill prevention and response procedures would be observed during decommissioning to ensure that no materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater. Given that no natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, that there would be no diversion or withdrawal of surface water during decommissioning, and that SHINE would be required to prepare a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention and spill prevention and response measures, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface-water resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.4.2 Groundwater 4.4.2.1 Construction Groundwater dewatering is not expected to be required during construction. The deepest proposed excavation for facility construction is 39 ft (12 m) (SHINE 2013a). As described in Section 3.4.2, site studies have shown the depth to groundwater to range from 50 to 65 ft (15 to 20 m) below ground surface. Further, SHINE did not identify any perched aquifers (i.e., water-bearing zones confined to locations above the site water table) or seasonally high water table conditions during site geotechnical and hydrogeologic studies (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff determined that facility construction would be unlikely to affect groundwater conditions beneath the proposed site. No groundwater supply wells would be drilled on the proposed site (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff expects that the four monitoring wells completed as part of site characterization and geotechnical studies would be maintained as environmental monitoring wells. SHINE would not use groundwater from onsite sources during construction. Instead, SHINE would obtain water from the City of Janesville Water Utility as needed for construction. Water would be required during construction for such uses as dust control and soil compaction (Table 4-10). Some potable water would also be required to meet the drinking and sanitary needs of the construction workforce during the projected 18-month construction period. Water Environmental Impacts 4-23 would also be consumed for concrete production and would likely be required for other miscellaneous uses, such as washing down equipment and work areas. The City of Janesville plans to construct a new, 16-in. (41-cm) water distribution line along the northern boundary of the site property. This distribution line would serve the properties in the vicinity of the SHINE site as well as the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would use water trucks for dust mitigation and suppression during construction, which would require 10,000 gal (37,850 L) of water per day for the first 3 months of construction (SHINE 2013). SHINE estimated total water needs for concrete mixing to be 700,000 gal (2.65 million L) (SHINE 2015a). The peak demand to meet the personal needs of the construction workforce (including preoperational testing) is estimated to be 13,530 gpd (51,233 Lpd) (SHINE 2013, 2014). Further, the NRC staff estimates that other miscellaneous uses would increase total water requirements by about 10 percent. Table 4-10. Water Requirements for SHINE Requirement Quantity (gal)(a) Quantity (L)(a) Dust Control/Soil Compaction 600,000 2,271,000 Concrete Production 700,000 2,650,000 Potable and Sanitary Uses 4,871,000 18,439,000 Washing and Miscellaneous Uses 487,000 1,843,000 Total Demand(a) 6,658,000 25,203,000 (a) Values are total requirements for the period of construction and assume 20 workdays per month for 12 months, except for potable and sanitary uses, which include an additional 6 months of preoperational testing and commissioning. Conversions are rounded. Note: To convert gallons (gal) to liters, multiply by 3.7854. To convert gal to cubic meters (m3), divide by 264.2. Source: Based on values derived or scaled from SHINE 2013b, 2014 During the course of construction and before the establishment of permanent utility connections with the newly constructed facility, the NRC staff expects that water would be trucked to the point of use at the work site or conveyed through a nearby, temporary water tap from the City of Janesville Water Utility. While water would be consumed to produce concrete, no onsite batch plant is proposed. Instead, ready-mix concrete would be delivered to the proposed site, supplied by commercial vendors. These commercial suppliers would likely be in Rock County, but SHINE could use water from purveyors other than the City of Janesville Water Utility. Moreover, in accordance with common construction practices, the NRC staff expects that portable restroom facilities, serviced by a commercial vendor, would also be used during site construction. This measure would reduce the quantity of projected water required for potable and sanitary uses by the construction workforce. The total estimated water demand for construction is approximately 6.66 million gal (25.2 million L), or a daily demand during the 18-month construction period averaging about 0.012 mgd (45 m3/day) (Table 4-10). The NRC staff considers these values to be conservative (i.e., bounding) with respect to the total water needs required for construction, based on the above assumptions. As described in Section 3.4.2, groundwater is the source of water supply for the City of Janesville Water Utility. The utility has a system capacity of approximately 32 mgd (121,100 m3/day), with current demand of approximately 10 mgd (37,900 m3/day) (City of Janesville 2013). Even if all required construction water is supplied by the City of Janesville Water Utility, the estimated demand would be a very small percentage (less than 1 percent) of both the utility system's total capacity and average, available excess capacity. Environmental Impacts 4-24 Given that SHINE would not use groundwater from onsite sources during construction and that the estimated water demand would be less than 1 percent of the City of Janesville Water Utility system's total capacity and average available excess capacity, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater hydrology, quality, and use from construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.4.2.2 Operations The NRC staff expects that routine facility operation would not have any impact on local groundwater hydrology because of the depth of groundwater and provisions for proper design and construction of the facility site's stormwater management and drainage system. SHINE has stated that all equipment and material storage areas would comply with appropriate regulations requiring secondary containment of stored liquids and materials to prevent their release where such materials could contaminate site soils or stormwater runoff, or infiltrate to contaminate groundwater (SHINE 2015a). As described in Section 4.4.1.1, SHINE would develop and implement an SPCC Plan for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. Furthermore, SHINE would not use onsite groundwater nor discharge liquid effluents to the subsurface (SHINE 2015a). Because of the nature of the facility, with all process and material storage areas located indoors, the risk to groundwater and other environmental media is low. Water would be required for potable and sanitary uses, fire protection, heating and cooling system makeup, and makeup for the radioisotope production process. This water would be supplied by the City of Janesville Water Utility (SHINE 2013a). These water needs are summarized in Table 4-11. Table 4-11. Water Requirements for SHINE Requirement Quantity (gpd)(a) Quantity (Lpd)(a) Potable and Sanitary 3,270 12,380 Facility Heating Water System 2,580 9,770 Radioisotope Production Process 223(b) 844(b) Total Daily Demand 6,073 23,005 (a) Values are average daily demand. Conversions are rounded. (b) Consumptive water use is water that is not returned to a water resource system after it is used. Note: To convert gallons per day (gpd) to liters per day (Lpd), multiply by 3.7854. To convert gal to cubic meters (m3), divide by 264.2. Source: SHINE 2013a, 2013b Potable water demand is 3,270 gpd (12,380 Lpd), and blowdown and makeup to the facility heating water system is 2,580 gpd (9,770 Lpd). Water initially would be needed to provide makeup supply to the chilled water and facility heating water system, as well as for fire protection. The largest automatic fire suppression system demand in the event of a fire is 390 gpm (1,476 Lpm). The automatic fire suppression demand would be supplied by a fire water tank (SHINE 2013a). The majority of the makeup water to the radioisotope production process would pass through a demineralizer system to control the water's chemistry. As reflected in Table 4-11, water use in the radioisotope production process is consumptive in nature, and water would either be lost to the atmosphere as vapor or incorporated into packaged waste streams from the process (SHINE 2013b). Environmental Impacts 4-25 Total water use is projected to be 6,073 gpd (22,990 Lpd), or 0.006 mgd (23 m3/day) during operations. This water requirement is a very small percentage (less than 0.03 percent) of the available capacity of the City of Janesville Water Utility (see Section 4.4.2.1) and could easily be supplied by the extension of the proposed 16-in. (41-cm) water distribution line to the facility site. Given that SHINE would not use groundwater from onsite sources, and the estimated water demand would be a very small percent (less than 0.03 percent) of the City of Janesville Water Utility's total capacity, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater hydrology, quality, and use from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.4.2.3 Decommissioning The potential decommissioning impacts on and associated mitigation measures for groundwater are similar to those described in Section 4.4.1.3 for surface water. In summary, demolition and site-restoration activities would be conducted in accordance with the Wisconsin General Permit and with appropriate BMPs. Further, waste handling and pollution prevention practices and spill prevention and response procedures would be observed during decommissioning, so that no materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater, where they could contaminate underlying groundwater. SHINE would be required to conduct necessary surveys of the soils and subsurface to comply with the NRC's radiological criteria for license termination in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The NRC staff also expects that soils and other media would be sampled to ensure that no nonradiological contamination is present. Given the depth to the water table, the NRC staff concludes that any spills of fuels or other petroleum products during facility demolition, or inadvertent release of contaminated materials, would be contained and remediated before any such material could reach the groundwater. Small quantities of water may be required for dust control and soil compaction in association with site-restoration activities. As the source of water supply in Rock County is groundwater, it would be expected that water would be trucked to the point of use or conveyed from a temporary connection from the onsite water line as decommissioning activities progress. The volume of water required would likely to be less than that required during facility construction. No onsite groundwater would be used to support decommissioning (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff anticipates that portable restroom facilities, serviced by a commercial vendor, would be used during site decommissioning to meet the needs of decommissioning personnel. Thus, there would be no onsite discharge of sanitary waste streams. Therefore, based on the stated considerations, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on groundwater resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.5 Ecological Resources 4.5.1 Construction As described in Section 4.1, construction of the proposed SHINE facility would permanently convert 25.67 ac (10.39 ha) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open space into an industrial area (Table 4-1) (SHINE 2015a). In addition, 15.16 ac. (6.14 ha) of agricultural land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking area, construction material staging or laydown area, or construction laydown areas to install a water and sewer line (SHINE 2015a). Once construction activities are complete, SHINE would restore the areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie (SHINE 2015a). Directly affected vegetation would be limited to cultivated crops and weedy species, both of which are abundant within the region and provide relatively low-quality habitat for birds and Environmental Impacts 4-26 wildlife in comparison to forests, grasslands, and wetland habitats. In addition to a loss of habitat, noise from construction activities could disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such disturbances and loss of habitat, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat (e.g., agricultural fields) within the vicinity. Once construction activities are complete, birds and wildlife could return to the area. During construction, bird collisions with construction equipment and the new facility could result in increased mortality caused by the presence of tall structures and artificial night lighting. SHINE would use tall cranes to build the facility, which, when built, would be at a height of 58 ft (18 m) (SHINE 2015a). In addition, the exhaust vent would be at a maximum height of 66 ft (20 m) (SHINE 2015a). Migratory songbirds would be most likely to collide with artificially lighted structures or cranes because of their propensity to migrate at night, their low flight altitudes, and their tendency to be trapped and disoriented by artificial light (Ogden 1996; NRC 2013a). SHINE (2013a) stated that, during construction at night, BMPs, such as light source shielding and appropriate directional lighting, would be used to mitigate impacts associated with artificial nighttime illumination. The NRC staff reviewed bird collisions with plant structures at nuclear power plants and determined that collision rates were negligible sources of bird mortality with plants that have cooling towers 100 ft (30 m) in height. The SHINE facility and construction equipment would be similar or smaller in size and height than an operating nuclear power plant; therefore, the impacts from bird collisions at the SHINE site would be bounded by the conclusions the NRC staff reached in its review of bird collisions at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers 100 ft (30 m) in height. Construction of the SHINE facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts to aquatic resources, such as habitat loss, because no aquatic resources occur on site. As described in Section 3.4, water drains off the proposed site to the south and west towards the Rock River and its tributaries. Runoff from the proposed site could affect offsite aquatic resources by increasing turbidity or introducing various chemicals or other pollutants. However, impacts to the Rock River and its tributaries are expected to be minimal because of the distance to the nearest tributary and Rock River, appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs would be employed to minimize the transport of suspended sediment and other pollutants, and SHINE would be required to develop a site-specific program to prevent pollution from stormwater runoff (see Section 4.3). Given that construction would not permanently or temporarily affect any high-quality habitats, such as grasslands, forests, or wetlands; permanently and temporarily affected habitats (agricultural fields) are abundant within the region; mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible; and no aquatic features or Federally or State-listed species occur on the SHINE site, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to ecological resources during construction would be SMALL. 4.5.2 Operations During operations, impacts to ecological resources could result from bird collisions, herbicide applications for landscape maintenance activities, elevated noise levels, and increased turbidity or introduction of pollutants from site runoff. As described above, mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, given that the tallest structure would be a stack no higher than 66 ft (20 m). Disturbance from daily activities, herbicide applications, or elevated noise levels are likely to have minimal impacts on wildlife and plant species, given that the species identified at the proposed site are generally tolerant of human disturbances because the land has been actively farmed for the past several decades. In response to any disturbances, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat (agricultural fields) Environmental Impacts 4-27 within the vicinity. In addition, SHINE would apply herbicides according to an integrated pest management plan, which would include applicable BMPs or related permit requirements. Operation of the SHINE facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts to aquatic resources, because no aquatic resources occur on site and wastewater would be conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP through a 10-in. (25-cm) sanitary sewer line extended to the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Indirect impacts during operations could include runoff that may contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or herbicides. However, as described in Section 4.3, impacts to aquatic resources are expected to be minimal because of the distance to the nearest tributary and the Rock River, a vegetated onsite detention swale would minimize stormwater runoff, and SHINE would be required to develop a site-specific program to prevent pollution from stormwater runoff. Given that mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, habitat disturbances during operations would be minimal, any disturbed wildlife could find similar habitat in the vicinity, and no aquatic features or Federally or State-listed species occur on the proposed site, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to ecological resources during operations would be SMALL. 4.5.3 Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would have impacts that are similar to the impacts that would occur during construction of the proposed facility. For example, SHINE would use construction equipment to dismantle large buildings, which could result in disturbances to wildlife and birds and potential runoff to nearby waterbodies. In addition, some land on the proposed site could be used as staging areas for the equipment and to conduct certain dismantling activities. As described above, if noise or other activities disturb birds or wildlife, similar habitat is available in nearby offsite areas. Once activities are complete, birds and wildlife could return to the area. No surface water would be used during decommissioning and impacts from runoff would be minimal, based on the distance to the nearest tributary and the Rock River, and because BMPs would be required in SHINE's stormwater permit. Therefore, impacts during decommissioning are expected to be SMALL. 4.5.4 Federally Protected Species Section 3.5 describes the special status species and habitats that have the potential to be affected by the proposed action. The discussion of species and habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., herein referred to as ESA), includes a description of the action area as defined by the ESA section 7 regulations at 50 CFR 402.02. The action area encompasses all areas that would be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. Appendix D contains information on the NRC staff's section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the proposed action. The NRC did not consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as part of the construction permit review because (as described in Sections 3.5) no species or habitats under NMFS's jurisdiction occur within the action area. In Section 3.5, the NRC staff concludes that no Federally listed species are likely to occur in the action area. The NRC staff also concludes that no candidate species, proposed species, or designated critical habitat occur in the action area. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on Federally listed species or habitats under FWS's jurisdiction. Environmental Impacts 4-28 As discussed in Section 3.5, no species or habitats under NMFS's jurisdiction occur within the action area. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on Federally listed species or habitats under NMFS's jurisdiction. As discussed in Section 3.5, NMFS has not designated essential fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; herein referred to as MSA) in the Rock River. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on EFH. 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources 4.6.1 Historic and Cultural Resources This section provides the NRC's assessment of the potential effects of the proposed undertaking on historic and cultural resources under 40 CFR 1508.8. Additionally, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility is an undertaking that could potentially affect historic properties. Historic properties are defined as resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for eligibility are listed in 36 CFR 60.4 and include (1) association with significant events in history, (2) association with the lives of persons significant in the past, (3) embodiment of distinctive characteristics of type, period, or construction, and (4) sites or places that have yielded, or are likely to yield, important information. Regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 36 CFR Part 800 outline the historic preservation review process (Section 106 of the NHPA). 4.6.2 Proposed Action In accordance with the provisions of the NHPA, the NRC is required to make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties included in, or eligible for, inclusion in the NRHP in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE for this undertaking is the 91-ac (37-ha) proposed site and its immediate environs that may be affected by construction-, operation-, and decommissioning-related land-disturbing activities. The APE may extend beyond the immediate environs in those instances where construction and postconstruction land-disturbing operations may potentially have an effect on known or proposed historic sites. This determination is made irrespective of ownership or control of the lands of interest. If historic properties are present within the APE, the NRC is required to contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), assess the potential impact, and resolve any possible adverse effects of the undertaking on historic properties. In addition, the NRC is required to notify the SHPO if historic properties would not be affected by the undertaking or if no historic properties are present. The SHPO is part of the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) in the State of Wisconsin. 4.6.3 Consultation In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), on July 1, 2013, the NRC initiated consultations on the proposed action by writing to the ACHP and WHS (NRC 2013b, 2013c). On July 31, 2013, the NRC staff visited the WHS in Madison, Wisconsin, to perform a cultural resource review of the proposed site. The NRC staff queried the Archaeological Sites Inventory and Architectural History Inventory, Burial Sites Inventory, and the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the WHS. No known historic or cultural resources or historic properties were found at the proposed Environmental Impacts 4-29 project site (NRC 2013d). In July 2015, the NRC received a determination from the WHS that no historic properties would be affected (WHS 2015) (see Appendix D). The closest historic property to the proposed site is the John and Martha Hugunin House, located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) to the northeast. The NRC staff also initiated consultation with the following 13 Federally recognized tribes on July 1, 2013 (see Appendix D for a copy of these letters) (NRC 2013e): Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, Forest County Potawatomi Community, Hannahville Indian Community, Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, Lower Sioux Indian Community, Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Prairie Island Indian Community, Santee Sioux Nation, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Spirit Lake Tribe, Upper Sioux Community, and Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. In its letters, the NRC provided information about the proposed action, defined the APE, and indicated that the NHPA review would be integrated with the NEPA process, according to 36 CFR 800.8. The NRC staff invited participation in the identification and possible decisions concerning any historic properties and also invited participation in the scoping process. The NRC staff received scoping comments from one tribe, the Forest County Potawatomi, in July 2013. The Tribe indicated that the proposed SHINE project occurs within Potawatomi ancestral land and expressed concern for any impacts to historic and cultural properties within the APE (Cook 2013). Attempts to contact representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi to discuss the undertaking are ongoing. The last attempt to contact the Forest County Potawatomi was in March 2015. 4.6.4 Impact Analysis 4.6.4.1 Construction Of the 91 ac (37 ha) comprising the APE, construction would permanently convert approximately 26 ac (10 ha) of agricultural land and open space to industrial facilities and temporarily would disturb 15 ac (6 ha) of agricultural fields, as described in Section 4.1.1. SHINE intends to make connections to the main sewage, commercial natural gas, underground electrical distribution, and municipal water lines but would not construct additional pipelines for the facility (SHINE 2013). Because there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and cultural resources located within the APE, impacts to these resources are not likely during construction. Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would have little or no visual or Environmental Impacts 4-30 aesthetic impact because potential visual impacts during construction would be temporary. The proposed SHINE facility is a low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) away and is surrounded by other residential and commercial properties. However, previously unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-disturbing activities associated with construction. In anticipation of this possibility, SHINE has developed a sitewide cultural resource management plan (CRMP) to manage and protect as-yet unidentified cultural resources. The WHS has reviewed and concurred on the CRMP (SHINE 2013). According to the CRMP, if cultural resources or materials are discovered during construction; the activity would be immediately halted; the area would be protected; the SHINE Environment, Health, and Safety (ES&H) Manager would be notified; and consultation with the WHS might be initiated. Consultation may require additional investigation and preservation plans, which would be developed by the SHINE ES&H Manager. All investigation and preservation plans would be approved by SHINE management and in consultation with the WHS. Work that uncovered potential cultural resources would not recommence without SHINE management approval. If actual or suspected human remains are unearthed during construction, construction activities would halt immediately, and the area would be protected. The procedures for uncatalogued burial sites found in Wisconsin Statute 157.70 would be followed, and local law enforcement would be contacted (SHINE 2013). Additionally, SHINE would educate its employees and contractors engaged in the construction of the proposed site in a capacity that disturbs the ground or that could result in the discovery of cultural resources on requirements of the CRMP. Actions for the special case of the discovery of human remains would be discussed in the training CRMP. Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE's CRMP procedures, and (4) cultural resource assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff, construction of the SHINE facility would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the possibility of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources caused by land disturbance during construction, the overall impact would be SMALL. 4.6.4.2 Operations Because there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and cultural resources located within the proposed SHINE facility site, impacts to these resources are not likely during operations. Operation of the proposed SHINE facility would have little or no visual or aesthetic impact on historic properties in its immediate vicinity because it is a low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is over 1 mi (1.6 km) away and is surrounded by other residential and commercial properties. However, normal maintenance and operation of the proposed facility could result in the inadvertent discovery of previously undiscovered cultural resources. SHINE would continue to follow the procedures specified in its CRMP to manage and protect any such cultural resources for the entire period of facility operation (SHINE 2013). Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE's commitment to follow CRMP procedures throughout the period of facility operation, and (4) cultural resource assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff, operation of the proposed SHINE facility would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the possibility of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources occurring as a result of normal maintenance and operational activities, the overall impact would be SMALL. 4.6.4.3 Decommissioning Because there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and cultural resources located within the proposed SHINE facility site, impacts to these resources Environmental Impacts 4-31 would not be expected during decommissioning. However, similar to construction, previously unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-moving activities associated with decommissioning. Activities during decommissioning would involve the use of heavy equipment and land-disturbing activities to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities within the APE. Land use for the APE after decommissioning is undetermined at this time, but it may be returned to agricultural lands or open space (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would continue to follow the procedures specified in its CRMP to manage and protect previously unidentified cultural resources for the entire period of facility decommissioning (SHINE 2013). Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE's commitment to follow CRMP procedures throughout the period of facility decommissioning, and (4) cultural resource assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff, decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the possibility of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources caused by land disturbance during decommissioning, the overall impact would be SMALL. 4.7 Socioeconomic Impacts The SHINE medical radioisotope production facility and the people and communities surrounding it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The facility needs people, goods, and services from the communities to operate, and the communities, in turn, provide the people, goods, and services to run the facility. Facility employees residing in the community receive income from the plant in the form of wages, salaries, and benefits. Employees and their families, in turn, spend this income on goods and services within the community, thereby creating additional opportunities for employment and income. In addition, people and businesses in the community receive income for the goods and services sold to the facility. Payments for these goods and services create additional employment and income opportunities in the community. The measure of a community's ability to support the operational demands of a facility that stores, generates, or uses nuclear materials depends on its ability to respond to changing socioeconomic conditions. The analysis presented in this section considers four socioeconomic impact areas: (1) employment; (2) housing, recreation, and tourism; (3) tax revenue; and (4) community services and education. For the purposes of this analysis, the ROI is Rock County, Wisconsin, and the City of Janesville. 4.7.1 Construction 4.7.1.1 Employment An estimated 451 workers would be needed to construct the proposed SHINE facility during peak construction (SHINE 2014). Table 4-12 compares construction worker occupations with available labor in the ROI by occupation, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in May 2012. Based on this information, a number of construction workers (56 percent) currently reside within the ROI with shortages in most labor categories. The remaining labor needed from outside the ROI would be expected to commute from adjacent counties and communities. In addition, Blackhawk Technical College, located in Environmental Impacts 4-32 the City of Janesville, offers several technical diplomas to students, which could provide an additional labor resource. However, the total number of jobs generated during construction would represent less than 2 percent of the available labor force reported for both the City of Janesville and Rock County in 2012 (Table 3-13); therefore, employment impacts would be SMALL. 4.7.1.2 Housing, Recreation, and Tourism SHINE estimates 451 workers would be needed during peak construction (SHINE 2014). The percentage of construction workers needed represents less than 1 percent of Rock County's total population of approximately 160,000 (USCB 2010). As discussed in Section 4.7.1.1, the majority of construction workers already reside within the ROI. Any additional construction workers likely would commute from other nearby counties and would not likely relocate to the ROI. This would result in little, if any, increased demand for temporary housing, recreation, and tourism. Any construction workers from outside of the immediate commuting area relocating to the ROI would find available housing in the City of Janesville and Rock County. Because few, if any, construction workers would relocate to the ROI, housing, recreation, and tourism impacts would be SMALL. 4.7.1.3 Tax Revenues The estimated total construction costs expected to be spent in the local community would be approximately $20 to $30 million for labor, electrical equipment, cabling, and concrete, spread over the construction period (SHINE 2013b). As most of the plant equipment is highly specialized, very little of it would be purchased and taxed locally (SHINE 2013, 2015a). SHINE intends to enter into a TIF agreement with the City of Janesville during the first 10 years of the proposed project, covering the entirety of the construction period. The TIF agreement would allow SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes to the City of Janesville. SHINE's estimated payments would total $600,000 per year and would be used to offset the infrastructure expenses for the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would also pay property taxes estimated to be $35,000 per year, based on the assessed property before improvements during this 10-year period (SHINE 2015a). As the proposed SHINE facility would be located in the Janesville School District, schools within the district would receive additional property tax revenue. In addition, there would be an increase in sales tax revenues within the ROI, generated when nonspecialized supplies would be purchased during construction or from workers paying for commercial services within the ROI. However, the total amount of taxes collected within the ROI during the period of construction would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of the City of Janesville and Rock County, even if the entire $635,000 were applied to one taxing jurisdiction; in 2012, the City of Janesville's tax revenue was approximately $35.4 million, whereas Rock County's was $71.5 million (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the tax revenue impacts during construction would be SMALL. Table 4-12. Comparison of SHINE Work Force Estimates by Occupation with Employment by Occupation in ROI Occupation SHINE Peak Workers(a) Available Labor Force in ROI(b) Additional Labor Needed from Outside ROI(c) Construction Boilermaker 26 5 21 Carpenter 48 72 0 Electrician 59 38 21 Ironworker 54 10 44 Environmental Impacts 4-33 Occupation SHINE Peak Workers(a) Available Labor Force in ROI(b) Additional Labor Needed from Outside ROI(c) Laborer(d) 75 68 7 Equipment Operator/Eng.(e) 28 26 2 Plumber/Pipefitter(f) 75 14 61 Sheet Metal Worker 32 16 16 Construction Supervisor(g) 22 32 0 Other 32 6 26 Total 451 287 198 Operation Operation Support(h) 40 34 6 Productions/Operations 37 11 26 Tech Support(i) 40 259 0 Other 33 3 30 Total 150 307 62 Decommissioning Carpenter 20 72 0 Ironworker 20 4 16 Laborer(d) 100 68 32 Equipment Operator/Eng.(e) 20 26 0 Plumber/Pipefitter(f) 30 14 16 Radiation Technicians 30 6 24 Other 41 0 41 Total 261 190 129 (a) Peak month estimated need of labor categories for which need is greater than or equal to 20. (b) Estimated available construction and decommissioning labor force based on 20 percent of BLS-estimated work force in Rock County. Available operational labor force based on 10 percent of BLS-estimated labor force. (c) Additional labor determined by subtracting available labor estimates from SHINE peak worker estimates. (d) Laborer is listed as a Construction Laborer. (e) Equipment Operator/Eng. is listed as Operating Engineers and Other Construction Equipment Operators. (f) Plumber/Pipefitter is listed as Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters. (g) Construction Supervisor is listed as First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers. (h) Operation Support is listed as First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers. (i) Tech Support is listed as Industrial Machinery Mechanics. Source: SHINE 2013a, 2014; BLS 2012 4.7.1.4 Community Services and Education There would be little or no increase in population in the ROI during construction because most of the construction workers already reside in the ROI. These workers would continue to use existing community services and educational facilities. These community services should also be able to handle any temporary increases in demand for services from the small number of additional workers during construction. Therefore, the impact of this increased demand on community services and education during construction would be SMALL. 4.7.1.5 Summary of Construction Impacts The availability of construction workers and housing within the ROI and the short duration of construction (18 months) would minimize any socioeconomic impacts within the ROI. The Environmental Impacts 4-34 creation of 451 jobs would help maintain construction employment and generate property and sales tax revenue, but any changes would be minimal. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.7.2 Operations 4.7.2.1 Employment Approximately 150 jobs would be added to the local economy during SHINE facility operations (SHINE 2014, 2015a). In Table 4-12, SHINE facility operations worker occupations were compared with available labor in the ROI by occupation, as reported by the BLS in May 2012. Based on this information, some specialized workers would be recruited from outside the ROI. The total number of jobs generated during SHINE facility operation represents less than 1 percent of the available labor force in Janesville and Rock County in 2012 (Table 3-13), therefore, employment impacts would be SMALL. 4.7.2.2 Housing, Recreation, and Tourism SHINE estimates that 150 workers would be needed during operations (SHINE 2015a). The percentage of operation workers needed represents less than 1 percent of Rock County's total population of approximately 160,000 in 2010 (USCB 2010). As shown in Table 4-12, Janesville has occupational labor available to perform most of the operational tasks. Additionally, Blackhawk Technical College, located in Janesville, offers several technical diplomas to students who could provide additional labor. However, some specialized workers would likely relocate to the ROI to support SHINE facility operations. Because of the long-term nature of SHINE facility operations, workers relocating to the ROI would likely purchase or rent permanent housing. Any operations workers moving to the ROI would find available housing in Janesville and Rock County. Because few, if any, operations workers would relocate to the ROI, housing, recreation, and tourism impacts would be SMALL. 4.7.2.3 Tax Revenues As discussed in Section 4.7.1.3, SHINE intends to enter into a TIF agreement with Janesville, allowing SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes during the first 10 years of the project. The payments are estimated to total $600,000 per year and would be used to offset the infrastructure expenses for the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE also would pay property taxes estimated to be $35,000 per year based on the assessed property before improvements during this 10-year period. Additionally, when the 10-year TIF agreement with Janesville expires, SHINE expects to pay annual property taxes of approximately $660,000 during the remaining period of operation of the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). As the proposed SHINE facility would be located in the Janesville School District, schools within the district would receive additional property tax revenue. In addition, there would be an increase in sales tax and property tax revenues within the ROI, generated by SHINE facility operations workers in the ROI. However, the total amount of taxes collected within the ROI during operations would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Janesville and Rock County, even if the entire $660,000 tax payment were applied to one taxing jurisdiction; in 2012, Janesville's tax revenue was approximately $35.4 million, whereas Rock County's was $71.5 million (WDOR 2014). Therefore, tax revenue impacts during operations would be SMALL. 4.7.2.4 Community Services and Education As discussed in Section 4.7.2.2, there would be little or no increase in population during SHINE facility operations because most of the operations workers would already reside within the ROI. These workers would continue to use existing community services and educational facilities. These community services should be able to handle any increase in demand for services from Environmental Impacts 4-35 the small number of new operations workers and their families. Therefore, the impact of this increased demand on community services and education during SHINE facility operations would be SMALL. 4.7.2.5 Summary of Operation Impacts The availability of operations workers and housing within the ROI and the small number of specialty workers relocating from outside of the ROI, would minimize any socioeconomic impacts. The creation of 150 jobs would help maintain existing employment and generate property and sales tax revenue, but any changes would be minimal. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.7.3 Decommissioning 4.7.3.1 Employment An estimated 261 workers would be needed to decommission the SHINE facility during peak activity (SHINE 2015a). In Table 4-12, decommissioning worker occupations were compared with Janesville employment by occupation, as reported by the BLS in May 2012. Based on this information, a number of workers currently reside within the ROI. In addition, some operations workers may be kept on to support decommissioning. Some specialized workers may have to be recruited from outside the ROI. The total number of jobs generated during decommissioning would represent less than 1 percent of the available labor force reported for both Janesville and Rock County in 2012 (Table 3-13); therefore, employment impacts would be SMALL. 4.7.3.2 Housing, Recreation, and Tourism SHINE estimated that decommissioning would require a maximum of 261 workers (SHINE 2015a). However, as previously discussed, some operations workers may be kept on to support decommissioning, thereby reducing the need for new hires. As demonstrated in Table 4-12, Janesville and Rock County have workers available to support decommissioning. In addition, Blackhawk Technical College, located in Janesville, offers several technical diplomas to students who would provide additional labor, if needed, and some specialized labor may be needed from outside the ROI. Any additional decommissioning workers would likely commute from other nearby counties and would not likely relocate to the ROI. This factor would result in little, if any, increased demand for temporary housing, recreation, and tourism. Any decommissioning workers from outside the immediate commuting area relocating to the ROI would find available housing in Janesville and Rock County. Because few, if any, decommissioning workers would relocate to the ROI, housing, recreation, and tourism impacts would be SMALL. 4.7.3.3 Tax Revenues SHINE would continue to pay property taxes during decommissioning. The assessed property taxes that would be collected after the completion of the proposed SHINE facility would be based on the property tax rates at the time. Revenue loss would directly affect Rock County and other local taxing districts and communities closest to, and most reliant on, the facility's tax revenue. However, the loss in tax revenue should be small in comparison to the established tax base of Janesville and Rock County. Therefore, tax revenue impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.7.3.4 Community Services and Education Any temporary increase in population during decommissioning would be small relative to the projected population of Janesville and Rock County. Community services currently available in Janesville and Rock County should be able to handle any temporary increases in demand for Environmental Impacts 4-36 services during decommissioning. Therefore, the impact of this potential increased demand on community services and education during decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.7.3.5 Summary of Decommissioning Impacts The availability of decommissioning workers and housing within the ROI and the short duration of decommissioning (6 months) would minimize any socioeconomic impacts within the ROI. Decommissioning activities would temporarily stimulate the local economy with purchasing activity and tax contributions, and SHINE would continue to pay property taxes during decommissioning. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 4.8 Human Health This section provides the NRC's assessment of the potential radiological and nonradiological effects from the proposed SHINE facility. Radioactive and nonradioactive materials would routinely be used at the proposed SHINE facility. The NRC and State of Wisconsin regulations would control the use and discharge of these materials to protect facility workers and members of the public. Radiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility would include offsite doses to members of the public and onsite doses to facility workers. The NRC has the authority to issue, inspect, and enforce radiation protection standards that provide an adequate level of protection for workers, members of the public, and the environment. The NRC has multiple layers of radiation safety standards to ensure that radioactive material is adequately controlled. The NRC's radiation safety requirements appear in 10 CFR Part 20. Specifically, 10 CFR 20.1301(a) limits the annual dose to members of the public from a licensed facility, such as that proposed by SHINE, to 100 millirem (mrem) (0.1 millisievert (mSv)). In addition, 10 CFR 20.1101(d) imposes a constraint of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) on air emissions to ensure that the dose to members of the public is as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Nonradiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility to workers and members of the public would be regulated by the State of Wisconsin in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (SHINE 2013). 4.8.1 Construction 4.8.1.1 Radiological During construction and pre-operational testing of the facility and equipment commissioning, SHINE would have radioactive material onsite (SHINE 2015b). The possession and use of the radioactive material would require SHINE to obtain an NRC license (e.g., 10 CFR Part 30) before receiving the radioactive material. To obtain a license, the NRC staff would conduct a thorough independent review of SHINE's application for the radioactive material to ensure the material is used in accordance with NRC regulations and there is adequate protection of the workers and the public. The radioactive material brought onsite would not be used for any radioisotope production-related activities. SHINE does not expect any radioactive waste to be generated during construction or pre-operational testing of the facility (SHINE 2015b). Access controls for the construction site would ensure that only authorized personnel would be at the site (SHINE 2015a). Assuming the NRC staff determines SHINE has adequate controls in place to ensure that the dose to workers and the public is within the dose limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to workers and the public would be SMALL. Environmental Impacts 4-37 4.8.1.2 Nonradiological Members of the public would not have access to the construction site. As discussed in Section 4.2 of this document, the NRC expects air pollutants from worker vehicles and fossil-fueled equipment (e.g., excavation and earth-moving equipment and electric generators), but the impact to the public would be SMALL because the effects would not be noticeable. Construction workers would encounter potential hazards typical of any industrial construction site. As discussed in Section 3.8, workplace hazards can be grouped into physical hazards (e.g., slips and trips; falls from height; and those related to transportation, temperature, humidity, and electricity); physical agents (e.g., noise and vibration); petrochemicals; and psychosocial issues (e.g., work-related stress). SHINE would employ normal construction safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, such as safety training, safety equipment, and supervision of the work force to promote worker safety and reduce the likelihood of worker injury during construction (SHINE 2015a). However, construction accidents could occur. Over the projected 12-month period when construction activities would occur, the average number of workers at the site would be 248 with a peak of 451 (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff notes that this 12-month period does not include the 6-month preoperational period because preoperational activities would not including building and other activities that are applicable for construction accidents. The NRC staff used data from BLS for nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses to calculate the potential number of reportable cases at the proposed SHINE construction site based on the average number of workers. The DOL data for 2012 showed that nearly 3.0 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses were reported by private industry employers, resulting in an incidence rate of 3.4 cases per 100 equivalent full-time workers (DOL 2013). Conservatively assuming an average number of 248 workers during the construction period, the NRC staff estimates that there would be 8.4 recordable cases during the 12 months of construction. With the use of normal construction safety practices at the proposed SHINE construction site, the NRC staff concludes that the average number of recordable cases would be consistent with the DOL data. During construction, SHINE would store nonradioactive chemical sources on site in liquid; gaseous; and solid forms, including fuels, oils, and solvents necessary for site preparation and construction. SHINE does not plan to use any products or processes that emit hazardous air pollutants (SHINE 2015a). Toxic chemicals stored or used at the construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code (SHINE 2013). Given that access to the site would be restricted, that SHINE would implement normal construction safety practices contained in OSHA regulations, and that toxic chemicals stored or used at the construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to human health during construction would be SMALL. 4.8.2 Operations 4.8.2.1 Radiological As part of normal operation of the proposed SHINE facility, radioactive material (e.g., nuclear fuel, radioisotopes, and radioactive waste) would be used, produced, handled, stored, released as gaseous effluents into the environment, and transported off site for use in medical procedures or as waste products for disposal (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Environmental Impacts 4-38 As discussed in Section 2.7 of this document, radioactive gaseous effluents containing krypton, xenon, iodine, and tritium would be released into the environment. The NRC staff expects radioactive gaseous effluents to be the only contributor to a radiation dose to members of the public because no radioactive liquid effluents would be released (Section 2.7). Radioactive liquid wastes would be solidified and shipped off site for disposal. SHINE designed the buildings containing radioactive material with shielding to minimize direct radiation outside the facility. Given this shielding, SHINE projected negligible direct radiation at the site boundary (SHINE 2013, 2015a). SHINE estimates that the maximum dose to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous effluents in the offsite environment would be approximately 9.0 mrem (0.9 mSv) (SHINE 2015c). This dose is well below the annual dose limit of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) and is below the ALARA requirements in 10 CFR 20.1101(d) that impose a constraint of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) on the annual dose from radioactive gaseous effluents. SHINE plans to maintain radiation exposure to facility workers to within the occupational dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1201. As discussed in Section 2.7 of this document, radiation exposure within the proposed facility would be minimized using shielding, shielded hot cells, shielded transport containers, access control to radiation areas, ventilation, filters, training, protective clothing, and administrative controls. In addition, SHINE would operate the proposed facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements (SHINE 2015a). As described above, the maximum dose to a member of the public would be within the annual dose limits of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) in 10 CFR 20.1301 (SHINE 2013a). Further, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from operation of the SHINE facility. This independent evaluation will be documented in the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER). If the NRC staff determines in its SER that the maximum dose to workers and the public is within the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential radiological exposures would be SMALL. In addition, the design of the facility incorporates measures to minimize radiation exposure to workers and members of the public by limiting the release of radioactive gaseous effluents, and that SHINE would operate the proposed facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. 4.8.2.2 Nonradiological The proposed SHINE facility would be designed with engineering controls (e.g., shields, double-valves, ventilation system, glove boxes, fume hoods, safety switches, and safe-storage facilities) to minimize the exposure of workers to chemicals (SHINE 2013, 2015c). SHINE would have a Chemical Hygiene Plan to minimize chemical exposure to its workforce. The Chemical Hygiene Plan would incorporate mechanisms for maintaining a safe working environment and would be based on OSHA requirements, industry standards, and the experience of the managerial staff. General areas within the proposed facility and laboratory spaces would be kept clean and orderly. SHINE would store hazardous material (e.g., acids, bases, oxidizers, gases, and pyrophoric metals) in appropriate safety containers and cabinets (SHINE 2013). SHINE would designate a Chemical Hygiene Officer, whose main responsibilities would be to oversee the effective implementation of the Chemical Hygiene Plan. The Chemical Hygiene Officer would coordinate with the Radiation Safety Officer because some chemicals would be used in the radiological areas of the proposed facility. Coordination would help ensure the effectiveness of the overall safety culture at the proposed SHINE facility. In addition to Environmental Impacts 4-39 supervision and oversight of facility operations, SHINE would implement an extensive training program that would emphasize workplace safety (SHINE 2013). In addition to supervision and training, the Chemical Hygiene Plan would describe requirements for protective equipment commensurate with the hazards. These requirements would range from a description of appropriate clothing for workers (e.g., no shorts or open-toed shoes in the facility or the laboratory) to protective equipment (e.g., gloves, safety glasses, and laboratory coats). For more potentially hazardous operations, such as target solution preparation, which involves the handling of acids, workers would be required to use face shields, aprons, and heavy nitrile gloves (SHINE 2013b). As discussed in Sections 2.7, 4.2, and 4.4, nonradioactive pollutants may be present in wastewater and air emissions released into the environment during normal operations. Solid nonradioactive wastes would also be generated. After initial use, SHINE expects the majority of chemicals to be either reused, released into the environment, or shipped off site as waste (SHINE 2015a). Given that SHINE would manage and minimize worker hazards by complying with OSHA and State of Wisconsin regulations and by using multiple planned features (e.g., facility design, Chemical Hygiene Plan, supervision, training, and protective equipment), the NRC staff concludes that impacts to workers and members of the public during routine facility operations would be SMALL. 4.8.3 Decommissioning 4.8.3.1 Radiological The majority of the impacts associated with facility operations would cease with shutdown of the medical radioisotope production process; however, some impacts would remain unchanged, whereas others would continue at reduced or altered levels. Ancillary systems that were used solely to support radioisotope production would cease operations completely; however, because of residual radioactivity in the systems, impacts from their physical presence could continue as long as they remain at the facility (SHINE 2013a). Terminating the medical radioisotope production operations would result in the cessation of actions necessary to maintain the TSV system, neutron generator, and processing vessels in an operable status. In addition, SHINE expects a reduction in the workforce directly supporting the radioisotope production operations. Termination of the medical radioisotope production operations does not automatically mean that immediate decontamination and dismantlement of the facility would occur. After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and associated processing equipment would be made inoperable and maintained in a safe condition (SHINE 2013a). SHINE would store the uranium fuel and other radioactive materials in a safe condition until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. Facility workers would continue to receive radiation exposure during work activities relating to the cleanup, movement, storage, and disposal of radioactive material. The radiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this document would be used to maintain radiation dose to levels that are ALARA. With the termination of radioisotope production, radioactive gaseous effluents released into the environment from operations would effectively stop. However, low levels of residual radioactive material that remain in the radioactive waste treatment systems may be released as effluents into the environment during the decommissioning process or sent to a low-level waste disposal facility. Environmental Impacts 4-40 During decommissioning activities, workers and members of the public would continue to be exposed to negligible or low levels of radioactive material within the facility and from radioactive gaseous effluents resulting from decommissioning activities involving the dismantlement and decontamination of equipment and systems and the handling, packaging, and transportation of radioactive waste to a disposal facility. The NRC's radiation protection standards and dose limits for workers and members of the public during decommissioning are the same as those for the operating facility. The NRC would terminate the license if the decommissioning were performed in accordance with the facility's approved decommissioning plan and if the termination radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrated that the facility and site were suitable for release in accordance with the criteria in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. Based on the expected reduced levels of radioactive material in the facility and the radiological controls expected to be used to ensure compliance with radiation protection standards, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to workers and members of the public from the decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility and site would be SMALL. 4.8.3.2 Nonradiological Nonradiological health impacts on the public and workers from decommissioning and demolition activities would be similar to construction activities. Decommissioning and demolition activities would involve the use of heavy construction and demolition equipment and the transport of new and waste materials and personnel to and from the site. The public and workers could be exposed to dust and vehicle exhaust and noise. Workers could also experience occupational injuries. Nonradiological hazards would also be associated with emissions, discharges, and waste from processes within the facility and from accidental spills and releases. SHINE would manage nonradioactive wastes generated by decommissioning the SHINE facility, including solid wastes, liquid wastes, discharges, and air emissions, in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and with applicable permit requirements discussed in Section 2.7. As discussed in Section 4.2 of this document, the NRC staff determined that air pollutants from worker vehicles and fossil-fueled equipment (e.g., demolition, excavation, and earth-moving equipment and electric generators) would have a SMALL impact on air quality. In addition, SHINE's access controls would help ensure that only authorized personnel would come on site. Given that SHINE would prohibit members of the public from accessing the site during decommissioning and that SHINE would manage nonradioactive wastes generated by decommissioning the SHINE facility in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and with applicable permit requirements, the NRC staff expects decommissioning activities to result in minimal human health impact to members of the public. Decommissioning and demolition workers would encounter potential hazards typical of any industrial construction and demolition site. As discussed in Section 3.8, workplace hazards can be grouped into physical hazards (e.g., slips and trips; falls from height; and those related to transportation, temperature, humidity, and electricity); physical agents (e.g., noise and vibration); chemicals; and psychosocial issues (e.g., work-related stress). SHINE would implement normal construction safety practices contained in OSHA regulations, such as safety training, safety equipment, and supervision of the work force, to promote worker safety and reduce the likelihood of worker injury during decommissioning. However, decommissioning accidents could occur. Over the projected 6-month decommissioning period, SHINE estimated a peak of 261 workers at the site (SHINE 2014). The NRC staff used data from the DOL BLS for nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses to calculate the potential number of reportable cases at the proposed SHINE construction site based on the average number of workers. The Environmental Impacts 4-41 DOL data for 2012 show that private industry employers reported nearly 3.0 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses, resulting in an incidence rate of 3.4 cases per 100 equivalent full-time workers (DOL 2013). Conservatively assuming the peak number of 261 workers during the decommissioning period, the NRC staff estimates that there would be 4.4 recordable cases of nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses during the 6-month decommissioning period. The NRC staff expects that SHINE would use the best available practices, such as proper planning, workplace design, and engineering controls, supplemented by the use of personal protective equipment and administrative controls, to protect workers. With the use of normal construction safety practices at the proposed SHINE decommissioning site, the NRC staff concludes that the average number of recordable cases during decommissioning would be consistent with the DOL data. During decommissioning, nonradioactive chemical sources would be stored or used on site in liquid; gaseous; and solid forms, including fuels, oils, and solvents. SHINE does not plan to use any products or processes that emit hazardous air pollutants. Toxic chemicals stored or used at the construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Given that access to the site would be restricted, that SHINE would implement normal safety practices contained in OSHA regulations, and that toxic chemicals stored or used at the construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to human health during decommissioning would be SMALL. 4.9 Waste Management 4.9.1 Radioactive Waste As described in Section 2.7, operation of the proposed SHINE facility would include the temporary storage and generation of radioactive waste. NRC regulations require that radioactive material within the facility and radioactive effluents released into the environment meet radiation protection dose-based limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20. NRC regulations also require occupational and public exposure to radioactive material be ALARA, as required by 10 CFR 20.1101(b). In addition, the State of Wisconsin is an NRC Agreement State and has its own set of radiation protection regulations with authority to regulate certain radioactive byproduct materials. Wisconsin's rules on radiation protection are contained in the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code DHS 157. Radiation protection standards help to ensure the safety of facility workers and members of the public from operation of the radioisotope production facility. SHINE would implement waste management systems to control, handle, process, store, and transport the types and quantities of radioactive waste expected to be generated by the medical radioisotope production process. For example, SHINE would use radioactive waste management systems, shielding, procedures, protective clothing, and training to control and process radioactive wastes within and outside the facility to ensure public and occupational safety (SHINE 2013, 2015a). As discussed in Section 2.7.1, the radioactive liquid and gaseous wastes would be processed (i.e., temporary storage to allow for radioactive decay) to reduce the levels of radioactive material in the waste. SHINE would solidify some liquid wastes before disposal on site. For example, it would solidify evaporator bottoms and spent ion-exchange column media from the target solution cleanup system. Waste from proprietary processes may be solidified in a hot cell using Portland cement before shipment and disposal (SHINE 2015a). Environmental Impacts 4-42 After SHINE treats, solidifies, and packages liquid radioactive waste, it would be temporarily stored on site only long enough for radioactive decay before offsite disposal shipment and for efficient frequency of disposal shipments (SHINE 2015a). Class A waste would be shipped approximately annually to the EnergySolutions disposal site. No liquid radioactive effluents would be released into the environment. SHINE would use high-efficiency particulate filters and carbon bed filters to treat gaseous radioactive effluents to reduce their radioactivity before they are released through a vent stack in the Production Facility Building (SHINE 2015a). SHINE expects the gaseous radioactive effluents released into the environment to contain measurable quantities of noble gases (i.e., xenon and krypton), radioactive iodine, and tritium (see Section 2.7). The vent stack would have a radiation monitor that would continuously monitor the gaseous effluents to ensure that the effluents are within design parameters and regulatory limits. SHINE would be able to collect samples of the gaseous effluent in the vent stack to perform a detailed analysis of the specific types, concentrations, and quantities of the radionuclides in the gaseous effluents (SHINE 2015a). The proposed SHINE facility design would incorporate features to minimize radioactive contamination of the facility and radioactive effluent releases into the environment. The design would use engineered features, such as shielding, berms, sumps, and drain collection systems with leak detection; ventilation systems with filters; hot cells; glove boxes; shielded transport containers; and protective coatings on floors and walls. Other protection measures for the facility workers include the following: training, protective clothing and equipment, and procedures. Additionally, administrative measures would be used to minimize the movement of contaminated materials out of the facility's RCA and to limit the introduction of unnecessary materials into the RCA that may become contaminated and require disposal as low-level waste (SHINE 2013, 2015a). The waste management systems and engineering designs features would help ensure that the dose to facility workers and members of the public are within the NRC's dose limits and are reduced to levels that are ALARA in accordance with NRC regulations. Further, SHINE would implement procedures to ensure proper operation of the waste systems. Therefore, the NRC staff determined that the waste management systems would be expected to ensure that the radioactive wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance with the regulatory requirements of the NRC, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the State of Wisconsin. A provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) states that DOE would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE) does not have access to a disposal path. For example, if a disposal pathway for greater than Class C waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its disposal. Based on SHINE's proposed waste management systems; engineered designs features to minimize radioactive contamination; and because SHINE would operate within the NRC's, DOT's, and State of Wisconsin's radiation protection requirements, the NRC staff concludes that radioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulatory requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. Environmental Impacts 4-43 4.9.2 Nonradioactive Waste As discussed in Section 2.7, SHINE would acquire, use, and store solid and liquid nonradioactive waste. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste regulations govern the disposal of solid and hazardous waste. RCRA, Subtitle C, establishes a system for controlling hazardous waste, and RCRA, Subtitle D, encourages states to develop comprehensive plans to manage nonhazardous solid waste and mandates minimum technological standards for municipal solid waste landfills. In the State of Wisconsin, EPA has delegated the primary responsibility for implementing RCRA regulations to the State of Wisconsin. For example, Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500. SHINE would implement waste management systems to control, handle, process, store, and transport nonradioactive waste generated during construction, operations, and decommissioning (SHINE 2015a). As described in Section 2.7, SHINE's nonradioactive waste management program is based on a pollution prevention and waste minimization framework. The design of the SHINE facility would also incorporate features to minimize the release of fuel, chemicals, or other nonradioactive materials into the environment (SHINE 2013). Additionally, during operations, SHINE would contain chemicals within closed systems, use the chemicals in controlled processes, and treat chemicals through filters and scrubbers (SHINE 2013, 2015a). (See Section 4.9.2 for additional discussion on nonradioactive gaseous effluents.) The NRC staff expects that the waste management systems would ensure that the nonradioactive wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance with the regulatory requirements of DOT and the State of Wisconsin. Nonhazardous waste would be temporarily stored on site before being transported to a local disposal or recycling facility (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff determined that adequate storage capacity occurs within the facility to accommodate the waste generated and stored between shipments to offsite disposal facilities. Based on SHINE's proposed waste management systems, processes to minimize chemical contamination, and because SHINE would operate within DOT and the State of Wisconsin's nonradiological requirements, the NRC staff concludes that nonradioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 4.10 Transportation 4.10.1 Construction Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would require an average of 420 deliveries per month (14 deliveries per day) and 9 offsite waste shipments per month using heavy vehicles (dump trucks, delivery trucks) (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during construction would add an estimated 451 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff assumed that, with a total of 465 vehicles per day, each having an arrival and departure trip, and with some vehicles making return trips during the day (e.g., off site for lunch), vehicle counts immediately adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility may increase by approximately 1,000 trips per day. Although offsite sources of construction materials, including concrete, have not been specified and routes for delivery of these materials have not been designated, SHINE plans to ensure that Environmental Impacts 4-44 delivery routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas (SHINE 2013). SHINE and the common carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC regulations (10 CFR Parts 20, 40, and 71), the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326, "Transportation," and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure public health and safety on roadways. Table 3-21 indicates that U.S. Highway 51 experiences approximately 9,000 vehicles per day adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility. Although available traffic counts do not distinguish between types of vehicles currently traveling this route, the addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips per day) from construction activities at the proposed SHINE facility would result in an increased traffic volume on U.S. Highway 51 of approximately 11 percent, and the percentage of heavy vehicles on this route would also increase. SHINE's traffic analysis indicated that construction-related traffic would contribute to minor delays during peak-hour traffic at intersections along U.S. Highway 51 in the vicinity of proposed SHINE facility, but not to a degree that would require modifications to the transportation infrastructure (SHINE 2015a). Because traffic to and from the proposed SHINE facility would use both U.S. Highway 51 northbound and southbound routes, the site access point at U.S. Highway 51 would experience the greatest impact on current traffic with impacts decreasing further from the proposed SHINE facility. During construction, SHINE plans to use a staggered work shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013). Based on the overall increase in average daily traffic flow and construction-related truck traffic, the NRC staff concludes that traffic impacts in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. These impacts likely would be temporary and of short duration, and would abate as construction activities wind down. Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the construction phase would be MODERATE. 4.10.2 Operations During operations at the proposed SHINE facility, an estimated maximum of 150 worker vehicles per day would access the site over three work shifts (SHINE 2014, 2015a). In its Environmental Report (ER), SHINE assumed that 75 percent of site-related traffic would come from and go to the north, and 25 percent would come from and go to the south (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff estimated that each vehicle would make separate trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility, plus a number of trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility during the midshift, resulting in approximately 325 additional worker vehicle trips daily. In addition to operations employees commuting to the proposed SHINE facility, SHINE estimates traffic to and from the proposed facility would also include the following: (1) an average of 36 truck deliveries per month to the proposed SHINE facility, which would include both radioactive and nonradioactive materials (SHINE 2015a, 2015b); (2) an average of 39 outbound medical isotope product shipments per month through the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport (SHINE 2015b); (3) an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year (SHINE 2015b); and (4) an average of one shipment per month of nonradioactive domestic and industrial waste (SHINE 2015a, 2015b). SHINE's preferred method of product shipments would be to transport products by truck from the proposed SHINE facility to the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, approximately 0.5 mi Environmental Impacts 4-45 (0.8 km) away, for air transport to customers. These shipments would result in an estimated 1 percent increase in flight operations at the airport. In the event that the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport is unavailable, product shipments would be transported by truck to the nearest secondary airport (SHINE 2015a). SHINE's traffic analysis indicates that a "slight degradation of service" (i.e., traffic delays) would occur at the intersection of westbound State Trunk Highway 11 onto southbound U.S. Highway 51 during the morning peak hour (SHINE 2015a). This impact could be mitigated by optimizing the signal timing for this turning movement, which would improve the level of service to its existing level (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility to increase slightly during the operation phase, but it would not be appreciable when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility, as discussed in Section 3.9.1. As described above and in Section 2.7, SHINE would transport radioactive waste from the proposed SHINE site to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal facility. A common carrier truck would transport the waste. SHINE and the common carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC regulations (10 CFR Parts 20, 40, and 71), the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326, "Transportation"), and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure public health and safety on roadways. Because of the relatively small increase in traffic as compared to the average daily and annual traffic flows near the proposed SHINE site and because SHINE and common carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material, impacts on transportation would generally be SMALL. However, because the additional traffic attributable to SHINE worker vehicles would result in morning peak-hour traffic delays sufficient to reduce the existing level of service (traffic flow) at a key intersection near the SHINE facility, impacts could temporarily be MODERATE. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impact on transportation infrastructure during operations would range from SMALL to MODERATE. 4.10.3 Decommissioning Decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would require an average of 72 truck deliveries and 191 offsite waste shipments per month (a total of approximately 9 heavy-vehicle shipments per day) (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during decommissioning would add an estimated 261 vehicles per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff estimates that there could be an increase of approximately 580 trips a day on local roads during the decommissioning phase, thereby increasing the average daily traffic on roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility from traffic during the operation phase. SHINE assumed that traffic in support of decommissioning, including employee commutes, would be similar to the initial construction phase with the following three exceptions: (1) Production equipment brought to the proposed SHINE facility as clean material and later contaminated from operations would be packaged and transported as radioactive waste. Thus, the ratio of radioactive to nonradioactive shipments would likely be greater than those in the construction phase. As described above, SHINE and common carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material. Environmental Impacts 4-46 (2) Facility upgrades and expansions that would be implemented during the operational life of the proposed SHINE facility and not accounted for under initial construction would add to the ultimate decommissioning waste volume. (3) Size reduction of facilities and process components during decommissioning, such as the compacting of pre-assembled filter plenums and air ducts to minimize waste packaging void space, could reduce the overall volume of both contaminated and noncontaminated wastes generated and shipped for disposal under decommissioning. SHINE could use a staggered work shift schedule, similar to construction, to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013). However, the change in average daily traffic flows in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility and the increase in commuter, truck delivery, and waste traffic directly related to decommissioning could noticeably affect local commuting patterns. Because traffic to and from the proposed SHINE facility would use both U.S. Highway 51 northbound and southbound routes, the site access point at U.S. Highway 51 would experience the greatest impact to current traffic with impacts decreasing further from the proposed SHINE facility. Based on the overall increase in average daily traffic flow and decommissioning-related truck traffic, the NRC staff concludes that traffic impacts in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. These impacts likely would be temporary and of short duration, and would abate as decommissioning activities wind down. Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the decommissioning phase would be MODERATE. 4.11 Accidents This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with potential radiological and hazardous chemical accidents that might occur at the proposed SHINE facility. The information contained in this section comes from the SHINE ER (SHINE 2015a). In addition to this EIS, the NRC staff will perform an independent verification of the potential accident scenarios and associated consequences at the proposed SHINE facility in its SER. The SER is part of the regulatory process used by the NRC to decide whether to issue a construction permit and operating license for the proposed SHINE facility. The term "accident," as used in this section, refers to any off-normal event that releases radioactive or hazardous chemicals into the environment that may affect facility workers and members of the public. The accidents described in this section are associated with the medical radioisotope production process. Potential initiating events and credible operational accidents for the proposed SHINE facility constitute the design-basis accidents (DBAs). For example, SHINE considered a small aircraft collision as a credible DBA scenario. The maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) goes beyond the credible DBA scenarios and represents the bounding case accident (SHINE 2015a). This EIS uses the impacts from the MHA as the basis for the significance determination of the environmental impact from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE classified accidents into two categories: those that are nuclear or involve radiation and those related to handling and storage of hazardous chemicals. The list below includes potential hazards associated with the operation of the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). Environmental Impacts 4-47 (1) Nuclear or Radioactive Material. The types of accidents involving nuclear or radioactive material include the following: criticality accidents associated with handling and storage of fissile source material; criticality accidents associated with fissile solution mixing and TSV or dump tank operation; and radiation doses exceeding regulatory limits to facility workers accidents from the following: irradiated fissile solution and fission/decay (dissolved and gaseous), accelerator/moderator neutron production, and radioactive waste handling and storage (SHINE 2013a). (2) Hazardous Chemicals. The types of accidents involving hazardous chemicals include explosion or fire accidents associated with radiolytic gas generation, collection, or recombination and include the following: hazardous chemical vessel or tank failure accidents caused by natural catastrophic events that result in leaks or spills, hazardous chemical reactivity (heat or pressure) accidents in a vessel or tank exceeding the equipment design that result in a leak or spill, and human-error accidents occurring during hazardous chemical handling that result in a spill inside or outside the buildings (SHINE 2013a). 4.11.1 Maximum Hypothetical Accident This section discusses the potential offsite radiological consequences of the MHA and controls to prevent or mitigate the potential consequences. The results of the analysis are compared to the NRC public dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301. The MHA is a conservative evaluation and represents the bounding consequences for potential DBAs at the proposed SHINE facility. The MHA is an event that could result in radiological consequences exceeding those of any credible accident. It is a bounding calculation on the radiological consequences of postulated DBAs at the proposed SHINE facility. The MHA is based on events unique to the design of the proposed SHINE facility that hypothetically could release radioactive materials into the environment. The proposed SHINE facility would have two major operation facilities involving radioactive and hazardous chemical materials: the irradiation facility and the radioisotope production facility (Chapter 2) (SHINE 2015a). Under normal operating conditions, processes in both of these areas would be of generally low energy (i.e., subcritical and low-heat generation). SHINE designed the facility to withstand credible external events, such as tornadoes and earthquakes, without causing an accident (SHINE 2015a). An internal accident that releases the largest hypothetical quantity of radioactive material would be the initiating event that results in the maximum bounding radiological consequence or MHA (SHINE 2015a). The irradiation facility and radioisotope production facility are designed to function as two physically separated, independent areas within the facility. Although the irradiation facility and radioisotope production facility have interconnected processes and systems, they are physically separated by concrete walls. Additional safety features include shielding, redundant isolation Environmental Impacts 4-48 valves, ventilation systems, and penetration seals that reduce the likelihood that an accident in one area would affect the other area (SHINE 2013a). The SHINE irradiation and radioisotope production facilities are designed to withstand external events, such as tornadoes, maximum expected seismic events, and manmade external events. SHINE states that scenarios involving multiple irradiation units are not credible because there is no initiating event that could produce a breach of more than one irradiation unit (SHINE 2015a). SHINE states that one credible MHA initiating event, a rupture or leakage of the TSV, or TSV dump tank, would affect only one irradiation unit cell. This event would result in a complete release of the target solution and fission product inventory into one irradiation unit cell. Under a worse-case condition, this MHA assumes that the 5.5-day irradiation cycle has just been completed and that decay time has not begun. By design, this event would be confined to the interior of the irradiation unit cell. The calculated radionuclide inventory released from the TSV to the irradiation unit cell would represent the bounding source term for any postulated accident in the irradiation facility (SHINE 2015a). SHINE states that the radiation effects of this MHA would be mitigated by several controlling mechanisms, including confinement provided by the irradiation unit cell's exterior walls; confinement by the RCA ventilation system; radiation monitoring; shielding of the pipe penetrations; and the collection of gas, vapor, or particulates by the TSV off-gas system (SHINE 2015a). Another potential MHA initiating event scenario evaluated by SHINE is a release of the radioactive material inventory held in the noble gas removal system storage tanks when they are at their maximum storage level. By design, this event would be confined to the noble gas storage tank room, located in the radioisotope production facility. The calculated radionuclide inventory released from the noble gas removal system storage tanks represents the bounding source term for any other postulated MHA in the radioisotope production facility. The radiation effects of this MHA in the radioisotope production facility would be mitigated by the walls in the noble gas removal room and isolated by RCA Ventilation Zone 1 (RVZ1) and RCA Ventilation Zone 2 (RVZ2) (SHINE 2015a). SHINE's evaluation of the radioactive material inventory for these two potential MHAs is based on a set of initial conditions that maximize the potential source terms and bound DBA scenarios (SHINE 2015a). SHINE calculated the potential dose to an offsite member of the public for the potential MHAs as follows: (1) A rupture or leakage of the TSV or TSV dump tank scenario would result in a total effective dose equivalent of 16.5 mrem (0.16 mSv) at the site boundary and 2.30 mrem (0.023 mSv) at the nearest residence. (2) A release of the inventory stored in the noble gas removal system storage tanks would result in a total effective dose equivalent of 82.0 mrem (0.82 mSv) at the site boundary and 11.5 mrem (0.11 mSv) at the nearest residence (SHINE 2015b). SHINE has proposed to provide safety-related structures, systems, and components (as defined in the SHINE Preliminary Safety Analysis Report) that would prevent the initiation of accidents or mitigate their consequences (SHINE 2015a). These safety-related structures, systems, and components include the systems described above (i.e., the irradiation unit cell confinement, radiation monitoring system, ventilation system, pipe penetration shields, TSV off-gas system, noble gas removal system walls, RVZ1, RVZ2, secure chemical containers, and other safety-related structures, systems, and components). The NRC staff is conducting a thorough Environmental Impacts 4-49 independent review of these safety-related structures, systems, and components, which it will document in its SER. The NRC staff will determine whether the safety-related structures, systems, and components will be designed, implemented, and maintained to ensure that they are available and reliable to perform their preventive or mitigative functions when needed so that the likelihood of serious consequences is small. If the staff determines, in its SER, that SHINE has met all of the NRC regulatory requirements described above, the likelihood of accidents would be reliably controlled. The calculated doses for the MHA at the proposed SHINE facility would be within the annual dose limits of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) in 10 CFR 20.1301 to a member of the public (SHINE 2015a). Further, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from the MHA. This independent evaluation will be documented in the NRC staff's SER. If the NRC staff determines in its SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential radiological accidents would be SMALL. 4.11.2 Hazardous Chemical Accidents In its ER, SHINE evaluated the consequence of hazardous chemical releases from its proposed facility using dispersion models and/or computer codes that are consistent with methodologies contained in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook (NUREG/CR-6410) (NRC 1998). SHINE used a combination of ALOHA (Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres) code (EPA/NOAA 2013) and EPIcode (Homann Associates, Inc., 2007) computer programs to model chemical releases and to determine the chemical concentration (SHINE 2015a). These codes are widely used to support accident analysis and emergency response evaluations by Government agencies, such as EPA and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). SHINE verified and validated both codes for modeling chemical hazards at the proposed SHINE facility. ALOHA is only able to model about half of the chemicals that would be used at the proposed SHINE facility; therefore, SHINE used the EPIcode to model other chemical dose calculations. SHINE stated that both computer codes give comparable results for the hazardous chemicals they have in common and both implement release and dispersion models that are consistent with the guidance in NUREG/CR-6410. For validation, SHINE used ALOHA to check some of the output values from the EPIcode (SHINE 2015a). In its analysis, SHINE assumed the release of all chemical materials and did not take a reduction credit for the deposition of chemicals within the facility or during transport to the site boundary or the nearest population location. All dispersion calculations were made assuming neutral meteorological conditions and a 4.1-m-per-second (m/s) wind speed. The chemical concentrations reported in Table 4-13 are in units of parts per million (ppm) and milligram per cubic meter (mg/m3). These represent 50th percentile meteorological conditions at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). Ambient temperature was assumed to be 75 °F (24 °C), no deposition of airborne material was assumed, and a receptor height of 1.5 m (4.9 ft) was used to simulate the height of an individual (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). Concentrations produced by the model runs are for plume centerline values. Chemical releases were conservatively modeled at ground level and in the centerline of the plume (SHINE 2015a). SHINE determined the chemical concentrations for nonpropriety hazardous chemicals in the proposed facility inventory. The concentrations were calculated for the maximum offsite individual (MOI) at the site boundary and the nearest residence, 249 m (817 ft) and 788 m (2,585 ft), respectively (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). In its ER, SHINE summarizes the results of the source term and calculated concentrations for the nonpropriety chemicals that would be used at the proposed facility. The NRC staff provides this information in Table 4-13. The material at risk (MAR) category represents the inventory of hazardous material that is available for release Environmental Impacts 4-50 from the postulated accident scenario. The MAR for most of the chemicals represents the amount of material in storage. In some cases, the MAR represents the total facility inventory. For other chemicals, a reduction factor has been applied to account for the total inventory that is not available for release because the material is being stored in separate storage locations, or to account for normal industrial chemicals not interacting with licensed materials or affecting the safety of licensed materials (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). SHINE selected the chemicals for evaluation based on the combination of anticipated bounding facility inventory amounts and toxicity characteristics. As its acceptance criteria, SHINE used the criteria in NUREG/CR-6410, which correspond to Protective Action Criteria (PAC) (DOE 2012a) and which are explained later in this section. The PAC values correspond to Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) in EPA guidance (EPA 2012b), Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) (AIHA 2012), or Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits (TEEL) (DOE 2008) values for the chemicals (SHINE 2015a). Table 4-13. SHINE Hazardous Chemical Source Terms and Concentrations Hazardous Chemical/ Release Mechanism MAR (lb) Source Term(a) (lb) PAC-1 PAC-2 PAC-3 Site Boundary (249 m) Concentration Nearest Residence (788 m) Concentration Nitric Acid, 12 M, associated w/licensed materials (Evaporating liquid) 721 721 0.53 ppm 24 ppm 92 ppm 0.090 ppm 0.012 ppm Sulfuric Acid (Evaporating liquid) 7,770 7,770 0.20 mg/m3 8.7 mg/m3 160 mg/m3 4.7x10-7 mg/m3 6.3x10-8 mg/m3 Calcium Hydroxide (Dispersed solid) 3,182 3.182 15 mg/m3 240 mg/m3 1,500 mg/m3 0.16 mg/m3 0.020 mg/m3 Caustic Soda (Dispersed solid) 1,488 1.488 0.5 mg/m3 5 mg/m3 50 mg/m3 0.073 mg/m3 0.010 mg/m3 Ammonium Hydroxide (Dispersed solid) 59 0.059 61 ppm 330 ppm 2,300 ppm 2.0x10-3 ppm 2.6x10-4 ppm Dodecane associated with licensed material (Evaporating liquid) 304 304 0.0028 ppm 0.031 ppm 7.9 ppm 4.4x10-4 ppm 5.9x10-5 ppm Potassium Permanganate (Dispersed solid) 66 0.066 8.6 mg/m3 14 mg/m3 78 mg/m3 3.3x10-3 mg/m3 4.2x10-4 mg/m3 Tributyl Phosphate (Dispersed solid) 333 0.333 0.6 mg/m3 3.5 mg/m3 125 mg/m3 1.5x10-3 mg/m3 2.0x10-4 mg/m3 Uranyl Nitrate (Dispersed solid- likely in solution) 480 0.480 0.99 mg/m3 5.5 mg/m3 33 mg/m3 0.024 mg/m3 3.1x10-3 mg/m3 Environmental Impacts 4-51 Hazardous Chemical/ Release Mechanism MAR (lb) Source Term(a) (lb) PAC-1 PAC-2 PAC-3 Site Boundary (249 m) Concentration Nearest Residence (788 m) Concentration (a) The source term value has been reduced from the inventory value based on a reduction factor to account for the amount of material available for release into the environment. Source: SHINE 2015a, 2015d Emergency exposure limits are essential components of planning for the uncontrolled release of hazardous chemicals. These limits, combined with estimates of exposure, provide the information necessary to identify and evaluate accidents for the purpose of taking appropriate protective actions. During an emergency response to an uncontrolled release, these limits may be used to evaluate the severity of the event, to identify potential outcomes, and to decide what protective actions should be taken. In anticipation of an uncontrolled release, these limits may also be used to estimate the consequences of an uncontrolled release and to plan emergency responses (DOE 2008). SHINE's analysis indicates that the chemical dose or concentration for the MOI and the nearest residence for the worst-case analysis is below the PAC-1, PAC-2, and PAC-3 levels (equivalent to ERPG-2 and ERPG-3) for all the listed hazardous chemicals. These concentrations are conservatively calculated (i.e., they overestimate the potential consequences of the hazardous chemical release) and are based on the conservative assumption that the liquid hazardous chemicals would be instantaneously released and evaporating over a duration calculated by EPICode. If an accident were to occur, SHINE states that this amount of fluid evaporation would take longer than 1 hour, which would have the effect of reducing the hazardous chemical concentrations at the site boundary and to the nearest resident (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). PAC (AEGLs and ERPGs) are defined below. The AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours. Three levelsAEGL-1, AEGL-2, and AEGL-3are used for each of five exposures periods (10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 4 hours, and 8 hours) and are distinguished by varying degrees of severity of toxic effects. DOE guidance that SHINE followed states that the 1-hour AEGL values should be used to assess the potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous chemicals. The three AEGLs are defined as follows: (1) AEGL-1 is the airborne concentration (expressed in ppm or milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort; irritation; or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects. However, these effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure. (2) AEGL-2 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting, and adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape. (3) AEGL-3 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience life-threatening adverse health effects or death. The three ERPGs are defined as follows: Environmental Impacts 4-52 (1) ERPG-1 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or perceiving a clearly defined objectionable odor. (2) ERPG-2 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms that could impair their abilities to take protective action. (3) ERPG-3 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing life-threatening health effects. SHINE's analysis shows that, for the hazardous chemicals listed in Table 4-13, the concentrations to the MOI and the nearest residence would be below the PAC-1, PAC-2, and PAC-3 levels (equivalent to ERPG-1, ERPG-2, and ERPG-3), except for nitric acid, which exceeds the PAC-1 level for the MOI. For nitric acid, the MOI could be exposed to a concentration above the PAC-1 level (equivalent to ERPG-1) but below the PAC-2 level (equivalent to ERPG-2). ERPG-1 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or perceiving a clearly defined objectionable odor. Exposure below the PAC-2 level (equivalent to ERPG-2) would not likely result in experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects of symptoms that could impair an individual's ability to take protection action (i.e., seek shelter or evacuate to a location further away from the proposed SHINE facility). The NRC staff concludes that the impacts to the MOI from the potential uncontrolled release of hazardous chemicals under accident conditions from the proposed SHINE facility may include mild transient adverse health effects but would not include serious irreversible health effects. Further, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the health impacts to the public from a chemical accident. The NRC will document the independent evaluation in its SER. If the NRC staff determines in the SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 70.61 and if SHINE meets all the performance requirements in 10 CFR 70.61, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential chemical accidents would be SMALL. 4.12 Environmental Justice This section describes the potential human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on minority and low-income populations living near the proposed site. The NRC strives to identify and consider environmental justice issues in agency licensing and regulatory actions primarily by fulfilling its NEPA responsibilities for these actions. Under Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629), Federal agencies are responsible for identifying and addressing, as appropriate, potential disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. In 2004, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states that "[t]he Commission is committed to the general goals set forth in EO 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of its NEPA review process." The CEQ provides the following definitions to consider when conducting environmental justice reviews within the framework of NEPA in Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997): Environmental Impacts 4-53 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. Adverse health effects are measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer fatalities, as well as other fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. A disproportionately high environmental impact that is significant (as employed by NEPA) refers to an impact or risk of an impact on the natural or physical environment in a low-income or minority community that appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts. An adverse environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both harmful and significant (as employed by NEPA). In assessing cultural and aesthetic environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian tribes are considered. The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations that could result from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. In assessing the impacts, the following definitions of minority individuals and populations and low-income population were used (CEQ 1997): Minority individuals. Individuals who identify themselves as members of the following population groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races-meaning individuals who identified themselves on a Census form as being a member of two or more races (e.g., Hispanic and Asian). Minority populations. Minority populations are identified when the minority population of an affected area exceeds 50 percent or the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. Low-income population. Low-income populations in an affected area are identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the [U.S.] Census Bureau's Current Population Reports, Series P60, on Income and Poverty. Methodology for Assessing Environmental Justice Impacts The NRC normally addresses environmental justice issues and concerns by first identifying potentially affected minority and low-income populations and then determining whether there would be any potential human health or environmental effects and whether these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse. Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to impacts or risks of impacts on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income community that are significant and that appreciably Environmental Impacts 4-54 exceed the environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Consistent with the Commission's Policy Statement (69 FR 52040), affected populations are defined as minority and low-income populations who reside within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility site. Data on minority and low-income populations are usually collected and analyzed at the Census tract or Census block group level. The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) compiles demographic information at the Census tract and block group levels in small geographic areas. A Census tract is a small area that is a statistical subdivision of a county or statistically equivalent entity. A block group is a statistical subdivision of a Census tract. A Census block is the smallest geographic entity for which the USCB collects and tabulates data. Minority population data were available for Census block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius around the proposed site. Low-income population data were only available at the Census tract level because of the limited availability of poverty data at the block group level. To protect confidentiality, USCB does not publish information about small geographic areas if the population size is too small. The NRC staff used race and ethnicity and poverty Census data to identify the location of minority and low-income populations near the proposed site. If the Census tract and block group boundaries crossed the 5-mi (8-km) radius boundary, the entire Census tract or Census block group data were used. Geographic information system software was used to create the maps. Minority Population According to the 2010 Census, approximately 12 percent of the City of Janesville population (which includes more than one Census tract and block group) identified themselves as minority. In Rock County, approximately 15 percent of the population identified themselves as minority (UCSB 2014a). Within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park, 12.5 percent of the population identified themselves as minority individuals (Table 4-14) (UCSB 2014a). The largest minority group was Hispanic or Latino (of any race) at 6 percent, followed by Black or African American at 3 percent (USCB 2014a). Figure 4-2 shows minority population block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility site. Census block groups were considered minority population block groups if the percentage of the minority population within any block group exceeded 12.5 percent. Eleven of the 25 Census block groups were found to have meaningfully greater minority populations. The proposed SHINE facility site is located in Census Tract 14, Block Group 3, with a minority population of 17.6 percent. This block group is considered a minority population block group because it has a greater percentage of minority people than that in the 5-mi (8-km) radius. Environmental Impacts 4-55 Figure 4-2. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site in Janesville Source: Modified from UCSB 2014a Environmental Impacts 4-56 Table 4-14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site in Janesville Census Tract Block Group Total Population(a) Percent Minority Total Minority Population(a) Hispanic or Latino Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Two or More Races 2 3 1,206 12.4 150 74 31 5 13 0 27 3 1 863 23.8 205 100 65 3 14 0 23 3 2 1,079 30.2 326 147 82 7 54 0 36 3 3 763 19.7 150 45 32 3 55 0 15 4 4 1,060 21.4 227 153 19 4 31 0 20 10 1 1,534 12.6 193 100 41 10 16 0 26 10 2 1,745 14.9 260 196 28 5 11 0 20 11 1 1,610 7.1 115 48 28 2 17 0 20 11 2 779 9.1 71 30 10 1 12 1 17 11 3 1,128 19.9 225 107 78 1 9 0 30 11 4 1,021 6.5 66 30 9 3 6 0 18 11 5 941 16.7 157 108 26 2 11 0 10 12.01 2 1,515 4.8 72 39 17 1 4 0 11 12.01 3 2,728 4.9 135 48 11 11 22 1 42 13.02 3 972 7.7 75 26 33 0 9 0 7 13.02 4 609 2.6 16 7 3 0 0 0 6 14 1 574 4.7 27 6 6 3 7 0 5 14 2 1,287 15.5 200 136 49 3 1 0 11 14 3 1,224 17.6 215 133 38 4 20 3 17 14 4 2,725 7.4 203 112 42 6 15 0 28 22 2 1,186 6.2 73 24 13 7 5 0 24 24 1 1,641 10.0 164 53 60 1 29 0 21 24 2 1,168 10.1 118 59 38 2 10 0 9 26.01 1 1,637 28.2 461 180 230 1 19 0 31 26.02 1 1,648 11.0 182 74 65 1 28 0 14 (a) Total population includes all minority and nonminority groups. Source: USCB 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table P9, Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race Environmental Impacts 4-57 Low-Income Population According to 2006-2010 American Community Survey estimates, an average of 10.7 percent of families and 14.3 percent of all people residing in Rock County were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold. In addition, the City of Janesville had an average of 11.4 percent of families and 14.8 percent of all people identified as living below the Federal poverty level. The 2010 Federal poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four (USCB 2014b). Table 4-15 lists low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility site; 13.5 percent of the total population within that radius was identified as living below the Federal poverty level (USCB 2014b). Census tracts were considered low-income population Census tracts if the percentage of individuals living below the Federal poverty threshold exceeded 13.5 percent. Figure 4-3 shows low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility site. Four of the 11 Census tracts were found to have meaningfully greater low-income populations. These Census tracts are concentrated north of the proposed SHINE facility site near the City of Janesville. The existing industrial park and proposed SHINE facility site are located in Census Tract 14 with an estimated 11.2 percent of its population living below the poverty level (USCB 2014b). Figure 4-3. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville Source: Modified from UCSB 2014b Environmental Impacts 4-58 Table 4-15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville Census Tract Census Tract Total Populations Number of People Below Poverty Level for Census Tract Percentage Below Poverty Level for All People (Estimated) 3 2,955 1,489 50.4 4 3,207 824 25.7 10 3,022 453 15.0 11 5,625 793 14.1 12.01 5,378 231 4.3 13.02 7,178 516 7.2 14 5,917 662 11.2 22 2,521 274 10.9 24 3,678 305 8.3 26.01 5,808 679 11.7 26.02 3,599 388 10.8 Sources: USCB 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics; USCB 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B01003 Total Population (USCB 2014b) Impact Analysis As previously discussed, the environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. Some of these potential effects have been described in the other resource areas discussed in this EIS. Chapter 4 presents the assessment of environmental and human health impacts for each environmental resource area. In the impact analysis, the NRC first identified all potential human health and environmental effects and then determined the significance of the impact and whether or not minority or low-income populations would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. The NRC then considered whether the radiological or other health effects were significant or above generally accepted norms, whether the risk or rate of hazard was significant and appreciably in excess of the general population, and whether the radiological or other health effects would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards. The NRC determined whether the following human health and environmental effects have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living near the proposed SHINE facility site: (1) radiological human health impacts (Sections 4.8.1.1, 4.8.2.1, and 4.8.3.1); (2) nonradiological human health impacts (Sections 4.8.1.2, 4.8.2.2, and 4.8.3.2); (3) noise impacts (Section 4.2.2.2); and (4) traffic impacts (Section 4.10.2). The NRC also considered whether there would be an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly and adversely affects a particular group, whether there would be any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or (are) likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population, and whether environment effects would occur in Environmental Impacts 4-59 populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from an environmental hazard. Construction Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental effects during construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities (Section 4.2). Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic. However, because of the temporary nature of construction, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited time period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of construction workers and the likelihood that most of them would already reside within the ROI (Rock County), workers would likely commute to the construction site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing. Operations Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations during SHINE facility operations would mostly consist of radiological and nonradiological human health and environmental (e.g., noise and traffic) effects. Everyone living near the existing industrial park and proposed SHINE facility site would be exposed to the same potential operational effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change from current environmental conditions. As discussed in Section 4.8.2.1 of this EIS, the level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory limits. As a result, minority or low-income populations and the general population living near the proposed SHINE facility site would not be adversely affected by radiation exposure during facility operations. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are also expected to be within regulatory standards (Section 4.2.2.1). As discussed in the Section 4.2.2.2 of this EIS, noise emissions during SHINE facility operations would occur because of increased commuter traffic on U.S. Highway 51. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE facility buildings at the site. However, additional noise emissions caused by worker vehicles would be minor (1 dBA), and noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels beyond current airport operations across the street. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic during facility operations. However, as discussed in Section 4.10.2 of this EIS, the only appreciable impact would be a "slight degradation of service" (i.e., traffic delays) at the intersection of westbound SH 11 onto southbound U.S. Highway 51 during the morning peak hour (SHINE 2013a). The overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility would increase slightly during facility operations but would not be of an appreciable nature when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility as discussed in Section 3.9.1. Therefore, offsite noise and traffic impacts caused by the proposed SHINE facility operations would be SMALL for both these resource areas. Based on this information, neither minority nor low-income populations, nor the general population living near the proposed SHINE facility site, would be adversely affected by noise and traffic during facility operations. Environmental Impacts 4-60 Decommissioning Similar to construction impacts, potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects during decommissioning (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during the decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities (Section 4.2). Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust during decommissioning. However, because of the temporary nature of decommissioning, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited time period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for rental housing during decommissioning could cause rental costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of decommissioning workers and the likelihood that most of them would already reside within the ROI, workers would likely commute to the site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing. In addition, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL for all resource areas. There is no evidence that impacts from decommissioning would be disproportionately high and adverse on minority or low-income populations. Subsistence and Special Conditions The special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the environmental justice analysis because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area, such as migrant workers or Native Americans. Section 4-4 of EO 12898 directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and appropriate, to collect, maintain, and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations that rely principally on fish or wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these consumption patterns to the public. In this EIS, the NRC considered whether there were any means for minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by examining impacts to American Indians, Hispanics, migrant workers, and others with traditional lifestyle special pathway receptors. Based on the air- and water-quality discussions and the discussion of human health effects in this EIS, the NRC finds it unlikely that there would be any disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, and wildlife. Thus, the operation of the SHINE facility would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on these populations. Summary Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the proposed site could be affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicle traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations would not adversely affect minority and low-income populations living near the proposed SHINE facility site. The level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income populations residing near the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park would not experience disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects from the proposed action. Environmental Impacts 4-61 4.13 Cumulative Impacts The NRC staff considered potential cumulative impacts in the environmental analysis of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the potential SHINE facility. Cumulative impacts may result when the environmental effects associated with the proposed action are overlaid or added to temporary or permanent effects associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. An impact that may be SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE cumulative impact when considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it contributes to, or accelerates, the overall resource decline. For the purposes of this cumulative analysis, past actions are those before the receipt of the SHINE application. Present actions are those related to the resources at the time of construction of the SHINE facility, and future actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of operation and decommissioning. The geographic area over which past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would occur depends on the type of action considered and is described below for each resource area. To evaluate cumulative impacts, the incremental impacts of the proposed action, as described in Sections 4.1 to 4.12, are combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. The NRC staff used the information provided in the ER; responses to requests for additional information; information from other Federal, State, and local agencies; scoping comments; and information gathered during the visits to the potential SHINE facility site to identify other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Table 4-16 identifies recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic extent of analysis. To be considered in the cumulative analysis, the NRC staff determined whether the project would occur within the noted geographic areas of interest and within the noted timeframes, whether it was reasonably foreseeable, and whether there would be potential overlapping effects with the proposed project. For past actions, consideration within the cumulative impacts assessment is resource- and project-specific. In general, the effects of past actions are included in the description of the affected environment in Chapter 3, which serves as the baseline for the cumulative impacts analysis. However, past actions that continue to have an overlapping effect on a resource potentially affected by the proposed action are considered in the cumulative analysis. Table 4-16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Project Name Summary of Project Location Status Energy Projects Alliant Energy Generation Facility Existing power generation facility 3.2 mi (5.1 km) south of site Existing operating facility, stack visible in site viewshed (WDNR 2013b) Industrial Parks and Manufacturing Facilities NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes Medical radioisotope facility 7.7 mi (12 km) south of site Construction began in 2014 (NorthStar 2014) Environmental Impacts 4-62 Project Name Summary of Project Location Status TIF District No. 35 Two parcels zoned for industrial use as a TIF district The first parcel is just north of the site. The second parcel includes the site. Approved by City of Janesville (City of Janesville 2012); potential construction of a large distribution center in late 2015, with operations beginning in 2016 (NRC 2013f, 2015a) TIF District No. 34 Area that encompasses the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport 1.0 mi (1.6 km) southwest of site Approved by City of Janesville (City of Janesville 2009); no reasonably foreseeable projects other than SHINE (NRC 2013f, 2015a, 2015b) United Ethanol Facility upgrades at an ethanol production plant 11 mi (18 km) northeast of site Existing operation with new construction permitted to start in 2014 (WDNR 2014) Medical Facilities Mercy Clinic South Medical services facility 1.8 mi (2.9 km) north of site Operational (Mercy Health System 2014a) Mercy Hospital Medical services facility 4.4 mi (7.1 km) north of site Operational (Mercy Health System 2014b) Other Projects/Actions Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport Public airport 1.0 mi (1.6 km) southwest of site Operational; ongoing improvements through 2015 (SWRA 2012) Glen Erin Golf Course 7,000-yd public golf course 1.6 mi (2.6 km) southwest of site Operational (Wisconsin Golf Courses 2013) 4.13.1 Land Use and Visual Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 3.1 serves as baseline conditions for the land use and visual resources cumulative impact assessment. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.1. 4.13.1.1 Land Use Resources The projects and activities described in Table 4-16 would result in minimal changes to existing land uses because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas currently zoned for industrial use. For example, in 2012, the City of Janesville approved a new industrial park within TIF District No. 35 (City of Janesville 2012). The proposed SHINE facility is part of this larger development project. TIF District No. 35 has been zoned for light industrial use and is "shovel ready" for future development. As of August 2015, a large distribution center has expressed interest in a plot of land in TIF District No. 35. If TIF District No. 35 were to be selected as the preferred site, the distribution center would be constructed and operated on a 124 ac (9.7 ha) parcel of land (NRC 2015). Given that TIF District No. 35 is currently zoned for light industrial use, any new development within this area would be compatible with current land use plans and zoning requirements. Environmental Impacts 4-63 Future urbanization and global climate change could contribute to additional decreases in agricultural lands, forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Urbanization in the vicinity of the proposed site would alter important attributes of land use. Urbanization would reduce natural vegetation and agricultural fields, resulting in an overall decline in the extent and connectivity of wetlands, forests, grasslands, and wildlife habitat. Global climate change could reduce crop yields and livestock productivity (USGCRP 2014), which may change portions of agricultural land uses. However, existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas. In addition, zoning laws and comprehensive land use plans would help ensure a proper balance of development (Rock County 2009). Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) and its implementing regulations, the presence of important farmland soils (7 CFR 657.5), including prime farmland, was included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Development projects listed in Table 4-16 would incrementally and cumulatively add to the loss of important farmland soils, including prime farmland soils, in the region surrounding the proposed site and across Rock County. With respect to the build-outs of TIF District Nos. 34 and 35, the City of Janesville has committed the districts to developed nonfarming uses. Otherwise qualifying farm lands in or already committed to urban development; lands acquired for a project on or before August 4, 1984; and lands acquired or used by a Federal agency for national defense purposes are exempt from Farmland Protection Policy Act provisions (7 CFR 658.2 and 658.3). Because the proposed TIF Districts Nos. 34 and 35 have been committed to development, the sites do not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial use, cumulative land use impacts would be SMALL. 4.13.1.2 Visual Resources The projects and activities described in Table 4-16 would result in minimal changes to the existing viewshed because most new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial use. Furthermore, the viewshed within the vicinity of the proposed site is agricultural, light industrial, or residential. Within nondeveloped areas, where a new structure would change qualities of the existing landscape, the viewshed is generally of low scenic quality because of a lack of notable features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, and mute colors. Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial use and of low scenic quality, cumulative visual impacts would be SMALL. 4.13.2 Air Quality and Noise This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality and noise when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 3.2 provides baseline conditions for the assessment of cumulative impacts on air quality and noise. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality and noise would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.2. 4.13.2.1 Air Quality As described in Section 3.2.2, the ROI considered for the air quality analysis of the proposed SHINE facility is defined as Rock County. The ROI considered in the cumulative air quality Environmental Impacts 4-64 analysis is also Rock County because air quality designations for criteria air pollutants are generally made at the county level. The incremental impact on air quality from construction, operations, and decommissioning activities from the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Present-day activities in Rock County that could potentially result in cumulative impacts include 12 major sources of air emissions identified on EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) air data search tool (EPA 2014). Minor sources of air emissions are also present in Rock County; however, a minor source classification typically indicates that the facility has little to no potential for significantly affecting air quality or interfering with plans to achieve compliance with NAAQS (EPA 2014). Classification as a major source requires a permit that will include provisions on how much and what is allowed to be emitted. Because major sources must meet permitting requirements, this minimizes cumulative impacts on air quality. Additional activities near the proposed SHINE facility that could potentially result in cumulative impacts on air quality include other present-day construction activities, seasonal agricultural activities, and future projects within the county (Table 4-17); however, as noted in Table 4-17, the impacts are minimal because of low emissions, short term/temporary duration of activities, and/or the distance from the proposed SHINE facility. Cumulative impacts to air quality could occur if project schedules overlap. For example, operation of the proposed SHINE facility and the planned NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility approximately 7.7 mi (12 km) south could overlap. However, both projects must meet the permitting and licensing requirements, which would minimize cumulative impacts. Climate change can affect air quality as a result of changes in meteorological conditions. The formation, transport, dispersion, and deposition of air pollutants depend, in part, on weather conditions (IPCC 2007). Air pollutant concentrations are sensitive to winds, temperature, humidity, and precipitation (EPA 2009a). Ozone levels have been found to be particularly sensitive to climate change influences (IPCC 2007; EPA 2009b). Ozone is formed, in part, as a result of the chemical reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of heat and sunlight. Sunshine, high temperatures, and air stagnation are favorable meteorological conditions leading to higher levels of ozone (IPCC 2007; EPA 2009b). Climate model simulations (from 2021 to 2050 relative to the reference period (1971 to 1999)) indicate an increase in the annual mean temperature in the midwestern region from 2.5 to 3.5 °F (NOAA 2013). The predicted increase in temperature during this time period occurs for all seasons with the largest increase occurring in the summer months (June, July, and August). Although surface temperatures are expected to increase in the midwestern region, ozone levels would not necessarily increase because ozone formation also depends on the relative amount of nitrogen oxides and VOC precursors available (NASA 2004). The combination of higher temperatures, stagnant air masses, sunlight, and emissions of precursors may make it difficult to meet ozone NAAQSs (USGCRP 2014). However, states must continue to comply with the Clean Air Act and must ensure that air quality standards are met. Overall, the potential cumulative air quality impact associated with SHINE operations in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects is considered SMALL, primarily because any of the projects with overlapping impacts with the proposed SHINE facility would have low-emission rates and sufficient distance between the two facilities. Environmental Impacts 4-65 Table 4-17. Cumulative Air Emission Effects Summary During SHINE Operation Project Name Emissions (Annual) Impacts TIF District No. 35 Air emissions from construction activities would be limited, local, and temporary. Air emission sources during operations of the distribution center would include vehicles (approximately 100 truck trips per day). Potential construction of a large distribution center in late 2015, with operations beginning in 2016. Alliant Energy 15 tons of NOx (WDNR 2013b) Operation would overlap with all phases of the SHINE project, but the cumulative impact is considered minimal because of the low-emission rate. NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes 6.5 tons of CO 8.7 tons of NOx 0.3 tons of PM10 0.7 tons of VOC 0.01 tons of SO2 40,000 tons of CO2 (DOE 2012b) Operation is expected to overlap with SHINE, but the cumulative impact is considered minimal because of the low-emission rates and the distance between facilities. United Ethanol 13 tons of CO 52 tons of NOx 56 tons of PM10 7.2 tons of hydrocarbons 0.2 tons of SO2 39,000 tons of CO2 (WDNR 2013b) Operation is expected to overlap with SHINE, but the cumulative impact is considered minimal because of the low-emission rates and the distance between facilities. 4.13.2.2 Noise The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the proposed SHINE facility. Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When distance is doubled from a point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (MPCA 2014). Generally, a 3-dBA change over existing noise levels is considered to be a "just noticeable" difference, and a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (NWCC 2002). Potential cumulative noise impacts could occur during the construction or decommissioning phases in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable activities occurring within a few hundred feet of the proposed SHINE facility. Primarily, these activities would be transportation-related noise from aircraft traffic at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and from traffic on U.S. Highway 51. Occasional noise from farming equipment on nearby agricultural fields also may coincide with the proposed SHINE construction noise. In addition, noise from a future industrial development in the TIF District No. 35 area could occur simultaneously with the proposed SHINE construction or decommissioning operations. Construction of the large distribution center in TIF District No. 35 would not overlap with construction of the proposed SHINE facility, given that construction of the distribution center would occur in late 2015. Additional vehicle noise would result from operations of the distribution center in TIF District No. 35 (approximately 100 truck trips per day), but the additional noise should not cause an appreciable increase in noise levels given current traffic volumes from nearby roads and highways (see Section 3.9.1). Environmental Impacts 4-66 The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport currently operates approximately 105 flights per day. Flight operations may increase because of the demand to transport materials to and from the proposed SHINE facility and the planned NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility. Up to 468 medical shipments associated with the proposed action would occur each year with most being air transported (SHINE 2015a). However, these increases are not anticipated to cause an appreciable increase in noise above the current operations. As a result, the cumulative noise impacts would be SMALL. 4.13.3 Geologic Environment This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on the geologic environment when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts on the geologic environment primarily relate to land disturbance, the potential for soil erosion and loss, and the projected consumption of geologic resources. The description of the affected environment in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 (Site Geology and Soils, respectively) serves as the baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of the geologic environment. The geographic area of analysis for evaluation of cumulative impacts on soil resources includes the 5-mi (8-km) vicinity surrounding the proposed site. For geologic resources, the extent of the geologic area of analysis has been expanded to all of Rock County to encompass potential commercial sources of rock and mineral resources to support construction activities at the proposed site and vicinity. Because the aspects of land disturbance and conversion are addressed separately in Section 4.13.1.1, the cumulative impacts analysis here will focus on soil loss, including the loss of prime farmland soils and other important farmland soils, and the consumption of geologic resources. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on the geologic environment, including geologic and soil resources, would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.3. Soil Resources New construction projects identified in Table 4-16 within the immediate 5-mi (8-km) radius would result in the conversion and loss of soils, including important farmland soils, caused by land use conversion and soil erosion. However, in accordance with State and local requirements, development activities would be subject to BMPs for soil erosion and sediment control, which would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss. Some topsoil removed by ground-disturbing activities would likely be reclaimed for use at the proposed site of disturbance or reused elsewhere. Following the completion of construction activities, continued soil loss would be minimal as the remaining soils would lie beneath impervious surfaces or would have been revegetated. Although developed land areas could be reclaimed and sufficiently restored to support certain agricultural and nondevelopment uses at some point in the future, such lands and associated soils would not be restorable to prime or other important farmland status. Based on the foregoing, cumulative impacts on soil resources would be SMALL. Geologic Resources New facility construction and expansion (Table 4-16) would specifically require the use and consumption of geologic resources, including rock and mineral assets, such as ore and aggregate materials (e.g., sand and gravel). Construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would use many of the same materials, including concrete, gravel, and sand (Section 3.4.1) required for the other identified projects. As noted in Section 3.3.1, construction aggregate is widely available throughout Rock County and the greater southeastern Wisconsin Environmental Impacts 4-67 region. Likewise, products derived from geologic materials, including concrete and asphaltic materials used in construction, are widely available on a regional basis. It is not likely that the geologic resource requirements to construct the proposed SHINE facility or the resource requirements of other identified projects are of such a scale as to affect regional sources and supplies of the identified resources. In addition, there are no developed geologic assets (mines or quarries) at or near the proposed SHINE facility site that would be rendered inaccessible for future use as a result of the proposed projects. In total, cumulative impacts on geologic resources would be SMALL. 4.13.4 Water Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on water resources when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts on surface-water resources include issues concerning water use, water quality, and potential climate change and specifically include issues related to water withdrawal, effluent discharges, accidental spills and releases, and stormwater drainage and runoff. The description of the affected environment in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 (Surface Water Resources and Groundwater Resources, respectively) serves as a baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of water resources. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on the geologic environment includes the 91-ac (37-ha) area within the site boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility. For surface-water resources, the extent of the geologic area of analysis has been expanded to include the Lower Rock River Basin within Rock County and downstream of the proposed site. For groundwater resources, the area considered encompasses the local groundwater basin in which groundwater is recharged and flows to discharge and those aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn through wells. Specifically, the cumulative impacts analysis focuses on those projects and activities, when combined with the proposed action, that would (1) withdraw water from, or discharge wastewater to, the segment of Rock River downstream of the proposed site or (2) would use groundwater or could otherwise affect the same aquifers that would supply water to the proposed site. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on surface-water and groundwater resources would be SMALL, as described in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2, respectively. The proposed SHINE facility site and adjoining areas at the center of the geographic area of analysis for the analysis of cumulative impacts are encompassed by the local watershed that contributes drainage to Rock River, as described in Section 3.4.1 (Figure 3-8). The State has established water-quality standards and numeric criteria for Rock River. The main stem of Rock River is regulated in accordance with established uses for waste assimilation, recreation, fish and aquatic life, irrigation, stock and wildlife watering, and hydropower, as further described in Section 3.4.1. Rock River is not a major source for water supply. The source of water for the municipal water supply and for individual property owners in Rock County is groundwater. Likewise, the extensive surficial aquifer system and portions of the underlying bedrock aquifers in Rock County provide base flow to Rock River. As a result of climate change, shifts in the timing, intensity, and distribution of precipitation would be likely to result in changes in surface-water runoff affecting water availability across the Midwest. The Midwest may continue to experience an increase in annual precipitation, with much of the increase attributable to an increase in the frequency of heavy rainfall. Runoff and streamflow at a regional scale for the midwestern region indicate no clear trend during the last half century. However, annual runoff and river flow are projected to increase in the upper Environmental Impacts 4-68 Midwest, and soil moisture increased in most seasons in the upper and eastern Midwest between 1998 and 2010 (despite an increase in average temperature) (USGCRP 2014). Climate change impacts on groundwater availability depend on basin geology, frequency and intensity of high rainfall periods, recharge, soil moisture, and interactions between groundwater and surface water. Precipitation and evapotranspiration are key drivers in aquifer recharge (USGCRP 2014). Surface-Water and Groundwater Resources No surface water would be used for the construction, operations, or decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility; therefore, there would be no incremental contribution to cumulative effects of surface-water use. Existing water quality within the main stem of Rock River and throughout the Lower Rock River Basin is the result of historic land use changes and current land uses (e.g., urban, agricultural, and mining) and its associated development activities. As discussed in Section 3.4.1, the Federal Clean Water Act requires states to identify all waters for which effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water-quality standards in such waters and establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to ensure future compliance with water-quality standards. EPA delegated the authority for issuing NPDES permits in the State of Wisconsin to the WDNR. Because of total suspended solids and total phosphorous, the 12.4-mi (20-km) segment of Rock River between the Janesville WTP and the Illinois State line is listed as impaired, and TMDLs have been established. It is this segment that receives drainage from the proposed SHINE facility site and its local watershed. As noted in Section 4.13.1.1 and listed in Table 4-16, the proposed SHINE facility is part of a larger development, TIF District No. 35. Development projects disturbing greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha) of land, such as the proposed SHINE facility and the potential distribution center, have to obtain and comply with the provisions of WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4. As discussed in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1, the permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific construction site erosion control plan, including specific BMPs, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management). Permits issued to all new stormwater and industrial wastewater dischargers would include provisions to comply with the wasteload allocation established for downstream receiving waters. Beyond the activities listed in Table 4-16, future industrial development or major expansion projects also would be subject to NPDES permitting requirements within the ROI and Lower Rock River Basin. The proposed SHINE facility is not expected to require either a permit to authorize the discharge of stormwater associated with industrial activity to support operations or an NPDES individual permit for industrial (process) wastewater discharges to surface water. Further, there are few large industrial wastewater dischargers with NPDES permits immediately upstream or downstream of the local watershed encompassing the SHINE facility site. The closure of the General Motors assembly plant in Janesville eliminated one such industrial wastewater point source to Rock River. As part of the build-out of TIF District No. 35, the resulting growth district will be served by the extension of public infrastructure by the City of Janesville, including public water and sanitary sewer service. These utility systems would also provide for sanitary sewer service and a potable water supply to the proposed SHINE facility. Operation of the SHINE facility would produce an estimated 5,850 gpd (22,145 Lpd), or about 0.006 mgd (23 m3/day) of sanitary and some industrial wastewater (Section 4.4.1.2). No radiological effluent would be discharged. All wastewater conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP also would have to meet influent acceptance requirements for industrial users. Such acceptance standards and any necessary Environmental Impacts 4-69 pretreatment requirements are imposed, in part, so that the WTP can comply with the WPDES permit effluent limitations imposed on its discharges to Rock River and on waste load allocations (TMDLs) established by the WDNR. The WTP has a treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd (72,290 m3/day) with an average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd (54,900 m3/day). Thus, the incremental contribution of influent from the proposed SHINE facility is a very small percentage (i.e., 0.13 percent) of the available treatment capacity and would not affect the WTP's ability to provide for the treatment of other current or reasonably foreseeable residential, commercial, and industrial dischargers to the WTP. Wastewater generated by the proposed SHINE facility and conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP would contribute very little to the facility's treatment burden with negligible impacts on receiving water quality. Therefore, the cumulative impacts on surface-water use and quality would be SMALL. Groundwater Resources Groundwater is the source of water supply for municipal water suppliers and individual users in Rock County. The City of Janesville Water Utility provides water service to connected customers within the city's developed areas and growth boundaries. Section 3.4.2 provides a detailed discussion of the City of Janesville Water Utility capacity wells, groundwater basin, and aquifer system. As noted previously, water service would be extended to the proposed SHINE facility site and other properties within TIF District No. 35. In total, the City of Janesville's groundwater supply system has a capacity of approximately 32 mgd (121,100 m3/d) and the current demand is approximately 10 mgd (37,900 m3/d) (City of Janesville 2013). The city's groundwater production (pumpage) peaked in 2000, averaging 13.9 mgd (52,600 m3/d). However, overall groundwater demand within the City of Janesville is projected to increase by 50 percent by 2030 with a similar increase countywide. Although the City of Janesville Water Utility has enjoyed stable water levels, other municipalities in the basin have seen declines. Consequently, the city has developed a water conservation plan in anticipation of future growth (City of Janesville 2010). Operation of the SHINE facility is estimated to require a total of about 6,073 gpd (22,990 Lpd), or 0.006 mgd (23 m3/day), of water. This incremental water requirement is a very small percentage of the available groundwater supply capacity (0.03 percent) of the City of Janesville Water Utility. This additional demand, combined with current and forecast demands and considering the potential for climate-change-related impacts, would not be expected to affect the utility's ability to provide adequate water supplies and would not be likely to affect regional groundwater conditions. Taken together, the cumulative impacts on groundwater resources would be SMALL. 4.13.5 Ecological Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on ecological resources when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 3.5 serves as a baseline for the ecological cumulative impact assessment. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on ecological resources includes the Rock River watershed in the vicinity of the proposed site. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.5. Before European settlement, the main land cover types within the Rock River watershed included prairies, forests, and wetlands (WDNR 2002; USDA 2007). Since that time, these habitats have been greatly reduced, by at least 50 to 80 percent and converted into agricultural fields, industrial uses, and residential and commercial areas, as described in Section 3.5. The Environmental Impacts 4-70 remaining tracts of grasslands, forests, and wetlands tend to be relatively small and isolated, which provides lower quality habitats than large tracts of habitat because of the different biological and physical characteristics along the edge of a habitat patch (WDNR 2013c). Environmental management practices over the past few decades have slightly increased the quality and extent of terrestrial and aquatic habitats. For example, the amount of forested habitats has increased because of changes in land management and forestry laws. Water quality in streams has increased primarily because of more effective treatment at WTPs (WDNR 2002). Current threats to terrestrial and aquatic habitats include increased soil, nutrients, and other pollutants washing into streams and lakes from urban and agricultural stormwater runoff, continued conversion and fragmentation of wildlife habitat from development, and the introduction of invasive species (WDNR 2002, 2013c). These activities will likely decrease the overall availability and quality of forested, grassland, and wetland habitats. Species with threatened, endangered, or declining populations are likely to be more sensitive to declines in habitat availability and quality and the introduction of invasive species. New development projects identified in Table 4-16, such as the potential distribution center, are likely to have minimal impacts on ecological resources because all the projects are sited within areas that are currently agricultural land, open space, or developed. These types of land covers provide low-quality habitats for wildlife, birds, and aquatic resources. State parks and wildlife refuges located near the proposed site provide valuable habitat to native wildlife and migratory birds. As agricultural activities, development, and urbanization increase habitat conversion and fragmentation, these protected areas will become ecologically more important because they provide continuous areas of minimally disturbed habitat. Climate change in the midwestern United States is likely to include an increase in the annual mean temperature combined with an increase in the frequency, duration, and intensity of droughts (USGCRP 2014). As the climate changes, ecological resources will either need to be able to tolerate the new physical conditions, such as less water availability, or to shift their population range to new areas with a more suitable climate. Some species may be more prone to changes in climate. For example, migratory birds that travel long distances may not be able to pick up on environmental clues that a warmer, earlier spring is occurring in the United States, while the birds are still overwintering in the tropics. Fraser et al. (2013) found that songbirds overwintering in the Amazon did not leave their winter sites earlier, even when spring sites in the eastern United States experienced a warmer spring. As a result, the song birds missed periods of "peak food" availability. Climate changes could also favor nonnative invasive species and promote population increases of insect pests and plant pathogens, which may be more tolerant to a wider range of climate conditions (USGCRP 2014). Physiological stressors associated with climate change may also exacerbate the effects of existing stresses in the natural environment, such as those caused by habitat fragmentation, invasive species, nitrogen deposition and runoff from agriculture, and air emissions. Section 4.5 of this EIS concludes that the impact from the proposed facility construction, operations, and decommissioning would not noticeably alter the terrestrial and aquatic environment and, thus, would be SMALL. However, as environmental stressors, such as runoff from agricultural fields and urban areas and climate change, continue over the proposed construction, operational, and decommissioning periods, certain attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (such as habitat quality) are likely to noticeably change. The staff does not expect these impacts to destabilize any important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment because such impacts will cause gradual change, which should allow the terrestrial and aquatic environment to appropriately adapt. The staff concludes that the cumulative Environmental Impacts 4-71 impacts of the proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions would result in MODERATE impacts to terrestrial and aquatic resources. 4.13.6 Historic and Cultural Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on historic and cultural resources. The geographic area considered in this analysis is the APE associated with the proposed SHINE facility, the Janesville site, and its immediate vicinity. As discussed in Section 4.6, the impacts to historic and cultural resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility would be SMALL. The archaeological record for the region indicates prehistoric and historic occupation; the APE and its immediate environs appear to have been traditionally used as agricultural fields from the protohistoric period onward. Historic land development and prolonged agricultural use of the APE resulted in impacts on, and the loss of, cultural resources in the APE and its immediate vicinity. As described in Section 3.6.2, no known historic or cultural resources or historic properties are present within the APE, and the closest historic property is approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) to the northeast of the proposed site. However, there remains the possibility for inadvertent discovery of historic and cultural resources within the APE. Direct impacts would occur if newly discovered historic and cultural resources were to be physically removed or disturbed. Indirect visual (viewshed) impacts could occur from new construction within the APE. The only foreseeable project within the APE is the SHINE facility and the potential discovery of historic and cultural resources on the proposed site. Should they be discovered, any cultural resources would be managed using SHINE's BMPs (e.g., cultural resource management procedures and training) (SHINE 2013). Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed SHINE facility, combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities on historic and cultural resources, would be SMALL. 4.13.7 Socioeconomics This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on current socioeconomic conditions within the ROI. The description of the affected environment in Section 3.7 serves as a baseline for the cumulative socioeconomic impact assessment. The geographic area of analysis is the ROI, Rock County. Section 4.7 found that socioeconomic impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Table 4-16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Relevant "other actions" that are considered in this cumulative impacts analysis are future construction within TIF District No. 35 (including utility lines for the proposed SHINE facility) and the construction and operation of the NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility. The proposed SHINE facility is located in TIF District No. 35, an area on the south side of Janesville designated for light industrial use. TIF District No. 35 is large enough for the construction and operation of several industries. A large distribution center has expressed interest in a 124-ac (9.7-ha) plot of land in TIF District No. 35 (NRC 2015). If the site is selected, construction would occur in late 2015, which would not overlap with construction of the Environmental Impacts 4-72 proposed SHINE facility. Demand for construction workers and other labor would not create a shortage because Rock County has sufficient labor to meet the needs for both facilities, especially given that the construction schedules would not overlap (Table 3-7). The NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility being constructed in Beloit, Wisconsin, 13 mi (21 km) to the south of Janesville would likely compete for some of the same skilled labor as the proposed SHINE facility. In the Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99, an estimated 150 operations workers would be needed (DOE 2012b). However, this demand for skilled labor would not create a shortage because Rock County has sufficient skilled labor to meet the needs for both facilities (Table 3-7). Construction and operation of the NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility could cause an increase in population, employment, and tax revenue and an increased demand for public services in the ROI. However, this increase is likely to be small because most of the construction and operations workers would likely already reside within the ROI. The overall contributory socioeconomic effect of this action would be small. Therefore, the contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility, when added to the operation of the NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities, would be SMALL. 4.13.8 Human Health The geographic region of interest for the evaluation of cumulative effects on human health is that within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility. Within this ROI, there are no nuclear power plants that would contribute to radioactive or nonradioactive exposure. As discussed in Section 4.8.2, the NRC reviewed the information provided by SHINE regarding the proposed radiological and nonradiological safety programs that would be implemented to protect the workers and members of the public from operations at the proposed SHINE facility. In Section 4.8.2, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from operations at the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. For this evaluation of cumulative impacts, the NRC staff considers the impacts in the ROI associated with the operations of other facilities using radioactive and nonradioactive material in the recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future. This assessment evaluates the potential cumulative impacts from the proposed SHINE facility, the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility, and two medical facilities located in Janesville, Wisconsin: the Mercy Clinic South and the Mercy Hospital. Mercy Clinic South provides imaging services to patients. Mercy Hospital provides medical services to patients that include imaging services, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine (SHINE 2015a). A third medical facility within the ROI, First Choice Women's Health Center, does not use radioactive material and is not considered in this evaluation. The SHINE and NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities are proposed future actions, whereas the hospital and clinic are operating. In its environmental assessment for the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility, DOE stated that no radioactive emissions are expected during operation. DOE stated that the design of the proposed NorthStar facility is expected to control radioactive and nonradioactive effluent releases to negligible amounts and are not expected to violate Federal or State criteria applicable to facility workers or members of the public. Additionally, liquid waste generated during operations at the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility would be collected, temporarily stored on site, and sent off site for treatment and disposal in accordance with the Federal and State of Wisconsin regulations (SHINE 2013a; DOE 2012b). DOE also stated that operations at the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes production facility would be Environmental Impacts 4-73 conducted in accordance with State of Wisconsin regulatory limits (DOE 2012b). Further, the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility would be approximately 7.7 mi. (12. km) from the SHINE facility, which would minimize the potential cumulative radiological exposure because there would be sufficient distance between the two facilities. Given that the expected radiological and nonradiological impacts from each facility would be limited, the NRC staff does not expect that the combined operation of these facilities would result in a cumulative impact to the workers or members of the public in excess of NRC or State of Wisconsin regulatory limits. Mercy Clinic South and Mercy Hospital in Rock County, Wisconsin, provide imaging services to patients that include radiation oncology and nuclear medicine. Both facilities are within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed SHINE facility. Mercy Clinic South is approximately 1.6 mi (2.6 km) away, and Mercy Hospital is approximately 4.4 mi (7.1 km) away. SHINE (2013a) determined that radiological exposure to members of the public outside these facilities is negligible. Based on the low levels of radiation exposures from these medical facilities and the proposed SHINE facility, and factoring in the distance between the medical facilities and the proposed SHINE site, the NRC staff does not expect the cumulative impacts to workers at the SHINE facility or members of the public would be in excess of NRC or State of Wisconsin regulatory limits. As discussed in Section 4.8.2.2 of this EIS, the NRC staff concluded that the nonradiological impacts from the proposed SHINE facility to workers and members of the public would be SMALL. Given that the nonradiological impacts from the facilities listed in Table 4-16 would be within regulatory limits of the State of Wisconsin and the distance between the facilities and the proposed SHINE facility, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impact to workers and members of the public would be SMALL. The NRC staff is currently conducting a thorough independent safety evaluation to verify that the radiological exposure to the members of the public would be below regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20. If the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative dose to workers and the public would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts would be SMALL. 4.13.9 Waste Management The geographic region of interest for the evaluation of cumulative impacts from the disposal of radioactive and nonradioactive waste is that area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility. Table 4-16 lists the facilities considered within this ROI. There are no nuclear power plants that would contribute to radioactive or nonradioactive exposure. There are two medical facilities: Mercy Clinic South and Mercy Hospital. In Section 4.9, the NRC staff reviewed SHINE's radioactive and nonradioactive management programs for the safe handling and disposal of its waste. Based on information provided by SHINE in its ER, the NRC staff found that the expected design features and management programs (i.e., temporary storage, packaging, transportation, and disposal) would adequately control radioactive and nonradioactive waste. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts would be SMALL. This evaluation considers the cumulative impacts within the ROI associated with the operations of other facilities using radioactive and nonradioactive material in the recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future. This cumulative impact assessment is based on the proposed SHINE facility and the facilities listed in Table 4-16, including the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility and two medical facilities located in Janesville, Wisconsin: the Mercy Clinic South and the Mercy Hospital. The proposed SHINE and NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities are proposed Environmental Impacts 4-74 future actions, whereas the two medical facilities are operating. Radioactive and nonradioactive waste are and would be generated as part of the operation of many of the facilities listed in Table 4-16. The waste from these facilities, in some cases, are and would likely go to the same waste disposal sites. For radioactive waste, two facilities are available for the disposal of low-level waste from the proposed SHINE facility and the medical facilities: EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah, and Waste Control Specialists in Andrews County, Texas. EnergySolutions is authorized to dispose of only Class A low-level waste, whereas WCS is authorized to dispose of Class A, B, and C low-level waste (SHINE 2015a). In the event that SHINE loses access to a low-level waste disposal facility, the NRC staff expects that any low-level waste would have to be stored either within the facility or in a new storage facility constructed either on site or at an offsite location. The storage of low-level waste would continue until a low-level waste disposal facility is available. Low-level waste, regardless of its location, must be stored in accordance with Federal and State requirements to ensure the safety of workers and members of the public. As discussed in Section 4.9, multiple physical barriers (i.e., shielded walls, hot cells, shielded storage containers, protective equipment, and ventilation systems) and administrative controls (i.e., procedures and training) would be used to limit the impacts to workers and members of the public from radioactive material in the proposed SHINE facility. The NRC staff expects that similar facility design and management programs would be used to ensure safety during the temporary storage of low-level waste at NorthStar and the medical facilities. A provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) states that DOE would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE or NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities) does not have access to a disposal path. For example, if a disposal pathway for greater than Class C waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its disposal. As discussed in Section 4.4, nonradioactive wastewater from the proposed SHINE facility would be sent to the Janesville municipal sanitary system. The NRC staff expects that most of the facilities listed in Table 4-16 would also send their wastewater to the Janesville municipal sanitary system. The WTP has a treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd (72,290 m3/day), with an average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd (54,900 m3/day). The average daily treatment and discharge flow includes the operating Mercy Clinic South and Mercy Hospital (SHINE 2013). Sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment for the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility would be provided by the City of Beloit (DOE 2012b). Based on the capacity of the Janesville municipal sanitary system, the NRC staff concludes that there would be adequate capacity to process wastewater from the proposed facility, in addition to existing and reasonably foreseeable residential, medical, and commercial facilities. Solid nonradioactive waste, such as general office trash and industrial waste generated during the operation, maintenance, and day-to-day office operations of the proposed facility, would be handled by the City of Janesville's sanitation department (SHINE 2013b). Rock County has a State-licensed landfill (License No. 3939) authorized to receive the following materials: asbestos, contaminated soil, demolition, garbage, noncombustible material, refuse, and shredder fluff (WDNR 2013d). The NRC staff reviewed information on solid-waste management on the WDNR and EPA Web sites; no known capacity constraints exist for the disposal of such waste either within Wisconsin or the Nation as a whole (WDNR 2013d; EPA 2013). Environmental Impacts 4-75 As discussed in Sections 2.7 and 4.9 of this document, SHINE would have waste management systems and programs to control, handle, process, store, and transport the types and quantities of nonradioactive waste expected to be generated by the medical radioisotope production process. The waste management systems and programs are expected to ensure that the radioactive wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance with the regulatory requirements of the NRC, DOT, and the State of Wisconsin. The NRC staff expects that nonradioactive waste generated by the facilities listed in Table 4-16 will be managed in accordance with the State of Wisconsin requirements. Based on the information on waste disposal in Wisconsin and the United States, the NRC staff concludes that there would be adequate disposal space on a State and national level for radioactive and nonradioactive waste from multiple current and reasonably foreseeable sources and that the waste would be handled and disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and local requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts would be SMALL. 4.13.10 Transportation This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on transportation infrastructure. The geographic area of analysis for evaluation of cumulative impacts on transportation is primarily the same as that used in Section 4.10 and includes the 91 ac (37 ha) within the site boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility. However, the roads for routes that could be used for delivery of medical isotopes (if air transport is not possible) or disposal of wastes were also considered. Transportation infrastructure includes roadways, rail lines, airports, and traffic control devices. As discussed in Section 4.10, the traffic impacts would be MODERATE during construction and decommissioning and SMALL to MODERATE during operations. Construction projects in Table 4-16 could produce an increase in vehicle traffic on roads within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE site. For example, the NorthStar medical radioisotope project would involve the construction of a facility and would add additional employees commuting on roads near the SHINE site. In addition, new construction projects could occur within TIF Districts Nos. 34 and 35. A large distribution center has expressed interest in a 124-ac (9.7-ha) plot of land in TIF District No. 35 (NRC 2015). If the site is selected, construction would occur in late 2015, which would not overlap with construction of the SHINE facility. During operations, associated activities could include approximately 100 truck trips per day. Overlap with the SHINE project during operations of the distribution center could increase traffic impacts on access roads. Most existing roads would be sufficient to handle the project transportation activities, and alternative routes could be used to minimize transportation impacts. In some cases, however, a noticeable increase in traffic could occur, especially if SHINE construction workers and vehicles used the same roads as the trucks leaving the distribution center. Traffic from facilities, such as the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, Glen Erin Golf Course, Mercy Clinic, Mercy Hospital, and Alliant Energy Generation Facility, would not likely have a noticeable impact on transportation, given that the facilities are currently operating and that a need for additional transportation infrastructure has not occurred. Therefore, depending on whether increased vehicular activity from workers or residents on roads near the proposed SHINE site had a noticeable impact on traffic volumes, the cumulative effect of transportation-related traffic impacts during SHINE facility construction, operations, and decommissioning would be SMALL to MODERATE. Environmental Impacts 4-76 4.13.11 Environmental Justice The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential contributory human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on minority and low-income populations and whether these effects might be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing near the Janesville site in the existing industrial park, and everyone would be exposed to the same environmental effects generated by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. The geographic area of analysis is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site. As discussed in Section 4.12, the proposed SHINE facility site and industrial park are located in a minority population block group because it has a greater percentage of minority people than the 5-mi (8-km) radius. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicle traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Janesville site would not have high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. As a result, minority and low-income populations residing near the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park would not experience disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects from the proposed action. Table 4-16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic area of analysis that could contribute cumulative human health and environmental effects. Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would mostly consist of environmental effects caused by construction and operations of new commercial and industrial developments (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, noise and dust impacts during construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by commuter vehicle and truck traffic. However, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited time period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the availability of workers and the likelihood of workers commuting to the construction site, the need for rental housing would be reduced. Operational emissions from commercial or industrial facilities could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living near the new commercial and industrial facility. However, everyone would be exposed to the same potential contributory effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions. Permitted air emissions from all commercial and industrial facilities, including the contributory effects from the proposed SHINE facility, would be expected to remain within regulatory standards. Based on this information and the analysis of human health and other environmental impacts presented in this EIS, the contributory effects of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SHINE facility are not likely to create high and adverse cumulative human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living near the Janesville site. Environmental Impacts 4-77 4.13.12 Summary Table 4-18 summarizes the cumulative impacts in all resource areas. Cumulative impacts would range from SMALL to MODERATE depending on the resource area. Specifically, these cumulative impacts would be SMALL for all resource area components other than ecological resources and transportation. Table 4-18. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of the Proposed Project Resource Category Cumulative Impact Level Description of Impacts Land Use and Visual Resources Land Use SMALL New construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial use. Visual Resources SMALL New construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial use and of low scenic quality. Air Quality and Noise Air Quality SMALL Other sources of air emissions in Rock County are too small or are located too far away to have any significant cumulative effects. Noise SMALL Noise levels associated with the proposed SHINE facility would be localized and restricted to within a few hundred feet of the proposed SHINE facility. Geologic Environment SMALL Important farmland soils would be lost but would primarily occur in areas committed to development. Consumption of rock and mineral resources would not affect regional availability of the materials. Water Resources SMALL Projected water use and wastewater generation would be within the capabilities of the affected utility systems to provide adequate service. Ecological Resources MODERATE As climate change and runoff from agricultural fields and urban areas continue over the proposed construction and operational period, certain attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (such as habitat quality) are likely to noticeably change. No impacts are expect to destabilize any important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment because changes will be gradual, thus allowing the terrestrial and aquatic environment to appropriately adapt. Environmental Impacts 4-78 Resource Category Cumulative Impact Level Description of Impacts Socioeconomics SMALL Most of the construction and operations workers already reside within the ROI. Therefore, the cumulative effects from the construction and operation of the proposed SHINE facility in TIF District No. 35, combined with the construction and operation of the NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility in the ROI, would result in little, if any, change in population or increased demand for housing and public services. The combined effect would create minimal socioeconomic impacts. Historic and Cultural Resources SMALL No ground-disturbing activities would occur within the APE besides the proposed SHINE facility. BMPs would be employed in case of any future inadvertent discoveries of historic and cultural resources on SHINE property. Human Health SMALL Radiological doses and nonradiological exposures would be within NRC and the State of Wisconsin's limits. Waste Management SMALL Adequate radioactive and nonradioactive disposal space occurs on a state and national level and waste would be handled and disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and local requirements. Transportation SMALL TO MODERATE Commercial development within the ROI has not resulted in the need for additional transportation infrastructure improvements. Current infrastructure is sufficient to handle the projected growth in TIF Districts Nos. 34 and 35, but traffic monitoring as development progresses would identify potential problem areas and could point to traffic control improvements that could alleviate episodic or peak traffic congestion. Cumulative transportation impacts would be MODERATE during construction and decommissioning and SMALL during SHINE facility operations. Environmental Justice - - Cumulative human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations are not expected to be disproportionately high and adverse. Environmental Impacts 4-79 4.14 References 7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, "Important farmlands inventory." 7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, "Farmland and protection policy act." 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." 10 CFR Part 30. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 30, "Rules of general applicability to domestic licensing of byproduct material." 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, "Domestic licensing of source material." 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." 10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, "Domestic licensing of special nuclear material." 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and transportation of radioactive material." 36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 60, "National Register of Historic Places." 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 800, "Protection of historic properties." 40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, "Standards of performance for new stationary sources." 40 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 63, "National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for source categories." 40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112, "Oil pollution prevention." 40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, "EPA administered permit programs: The national pollutant discharge elimination system." 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1508, "Terminology and index." 49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, "Hazardous materials table, special provisions, hazardous materials communications, emergency response information, training requirements, and security plans." 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, "Shippers-general requirements for shipments and packaging." 59 FR 7629. Executive Order No. 12898. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." Federal Register 59(32):7629-7633. February 16, 1994. Environmental Impacts 4-80 69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register 69(163):52040-52048. August 24, 2004. 75 FR 31514. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule [Final rule]." Federal Register 75(106):31514-31608. June 3, 2010. 78 FR 73698. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers-Significant Impact Levels and Significant Monitoring Concentration: Removal of Vacated Elements [Final rule]." Federal Register 78(236)73698-73702. December 9, 2013. [AIHA] American Industrial Hygiene Association. 2012. AIHA Emergency Response Planning Committee. Available at <https://www.aiha.org> (accessed 15 January 2015). [BLS] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Available at <www.bls.gov> (accessed 12 August 2013). Cai H, Burnham A, Wang M. 2013. Updated Emission Factors of Air Pollutants from vehicle Operations in GREET Using MOVES. Available at <file:///C:/Users/NXM5/Downloads/Updates%20to%20Vehicle%20Operation%20Emission%20Factors%20in%20GREET1_2013%20(4).pdf> (accessed 15 September 2014). [CEQ] Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/ resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf> (accessed 22 May 2012). ADAMS No. ML082520150. City of Janesville. 2009. Economic Development Memorandum-Action on a Resolution Approving the Project Plan for and Establishing the Boundaries for Tax Increment Finance District No. 34 at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport (File Res. No. 20090577). Available at <http://cms.ci.janesville.wi.us/WebLink8/0/doc/195551/Page31.aspx> (accessed 1 September 2014). City of Janesville. 2010. Water Utility, Water Conservation Plan. April 2010. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=573> (accessed 20 December 2013). City of Janesville. 2012. Tax Increment Finance District No. 35, Project Plan, Amendment No. 1. City of Janesville, WI: Economic Development Agency, Accounting Division. February 13, 2012. Available at <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1463> (accessed 25 June 2013). City of Janesville. 2013. Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville, Title 13, Water and Sewers, 13.16, Wastewater Facilities and Sewer Ordinance. Updated November 2005. Available at <http://cms.ci.janesville.wi.us/weblink8/Browse.aspx?dbid=0> (accessed 20 December 2013). Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2008. DOE Handbook: Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits for Chemicals: Methods and Practice. DOE-HDBK-1046-2008. August 2008. Environmental Impacts 4-81 [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2012a. Protective Action Criteria (PAC): Chemicals with AEGLs, ERPGs, and TEELs. Revision 27, February 2012. Available at <http://www.atlintl.com/DOE/teels/teel.html> (accessed 2 December 2014). [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. 2012b. Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99 (DOE/EA-1929). Available at <http://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/ea-1929-final-environmental-assessment> (accessed 8 May 2013). [DOL] U.S. Department of Labor. 2013. Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses-2012. Available at <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh.pdf> (accessed 29 January 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. An Update on the Use of Particulate Ratios to Assess Likely PM10 Attainment Status. [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Clarification of Prevention of Significance Deterioration (PSD) Guidance for Modelling Class I Area Impacts. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr/gen/u3-11.txt> (accessed 14 August 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 3.3 Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/> (accessed 14 October 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Finding for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009b. Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone. [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Available at <http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html> (accessed 31 October 2013). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Acute Exposure Guidelines (AEGL). Available at <http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/> (accessed 2 December 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Municipal Solid Wastes in the United States: 2012 Facts and Figures Fact Sheet. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm> (accessed 24 March 2014). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO). Available at <http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/> (accessed 10 October 2014). [EPA/NOAA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA), Version 5.4.3. March 2012. [FAA] Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. National Based Aircraft Inventory. Available at <http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=JVL&AptSecNum=2> (accessed 14 October 2014). Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq. Forest County Potawatomi. 2013. Letter from Cook M, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, to Wong MC, NRC.

Subject:

Request for scoping comments concerning the SHINE Medical Technologies radioisotope production facility. July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13224A164. Environmental Impacts 4-82 Fraser J, Silverio C, Kramer P, Mickle N, Aeppli R, Stutchbury BJM. 2013. A trans-hemispheric migratory songbird does not advance spring schedules or increase migration rate in response to record-setting temperatures at breeding sites. PLoS ONE 8(5):e64587. Homann Associates, Inc. 2007. EPIcode Based on Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis- Emergency Planning for Extremely Hazardous Substances, U.S. EPA, FEMA, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Version 7.0. 2007. [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, and Miller HL (editors)). Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York: Cambridge University Press, 996 p. Mercy Health System. 2014a. Mercy Clinic South. Available at <http://mercyhealthsystem.org/location/mercy-clinic-south/> (accessed 17 December 2014). Mercy Health System. 2014b. Mercy Hospital and Trauma Center. Available at <http://mercyhealthsystem.org/location/mercy-hospital-and-trauma-center/> (accessed 17 December 2014). [MPCA] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2014. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota. Available at <http://www.nonoise.org/library/sndbasic/sndbasic.htm> (accessed 24 February 2014). [MRI] Midwest Research Institute. 2006. Background Document for Revisions to Fine Fraction Ratios Used for AP-42 Fugitive Dust Emission Factors. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/bgdocs/b13s02.pdf> (accessed 10 October 2013). [NASA] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2004. Tango in the Atmosphere: Ozone and Climate Change. Available at <http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200402_tango/> (accessed 30 September 2013). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321, et seq. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §470, et seq. [NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 3. Climate of the Midwest. NOAA Technical Report NESDID 142-3. [NorthStar] NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes, LLC. 2014. NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes Breaks Ground for New Facility in Beloit, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.northstarnm.com/news/groundbreaking> (accessed 18 August 2014). [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. 1998. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. NUREG/CR-6410. March 1998. ADAMS No. ML072000468. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors, and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. October 17, 2012. ADAMS Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075. Environmental Impacts 4-83 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 1, Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. NUREG-1437. June 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13107A023. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013b. Letter from Wong MC, NRC, to Nelson R, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Subject:

SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production Facility Application Review. July 1, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13136A011. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013c. Letter from Wong MC, NRC, to Born E, Wisconsin Historical Society.

Subject:

SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production Facility Application Review. July 1, 2013. ADAMS No. ML3135A365. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013d. Meeting Summary: NRC Visit to Wisconsin Historical Society on July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13226A537. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013e. Letters from Wong MC, NRC, to 13 Tribes.

Subject:

Request for Scoping Comments concerning the SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production Facility Application Review. July 1, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13136A014. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013f. Meeting Summary: NRC Visit to Janesville Community Development Department on July 18, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13247A400. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. Telephone Summary: NRC Teleconference with Janesville Community Development Department on July 7, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15236A331. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Web Soil Survey, Soil Map-Rock County, Wisconsin. (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit description; suitabilities and limitations for use, building site development). Updated February 15, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. Available at <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app> (accessed 20 December 2013). [NWCC] National Wind Coordinating Committee. 2002. Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: A Handbook. NWCC Siting Subcommittee, Washington, DC. Available at <http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/permitting2002.pdf> (accessed 13 February 2015). Ogden, LJ. 1996. Collision Course: The Hazards of Lighted Structures and Windows to Migrating Birds. Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP). Paper 3. Available at <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/flap/3?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fflap%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages> (accessed 31 January 2014). Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. Rock County. 2009. Rock County Comprehensive Plan 2035. Janesville, WI: Rock County Planning, Economic and Community Development Agency. September 10, 2009. Available at <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/planning-comprehensive-plan-2035> (accessed 20 December 2013). [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189. Environmental Impacts 4-84 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 13, "Accident Analysis," and Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015c. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. March 23, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15092A397. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015d. Letter from Vann Bynum R, SHINE, to NRC, Document Control Desk.

Subject:

SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Revision to Sections 13b.3 and 19.4 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A131. [SWRA] Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. 2012. Airport Investments. Available at <http://jvlairport.com/NewsUpdates/CapitalImprovementPlans.aspx> (accessed 29 August 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 American Community Survey Demographic Profile, Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. American FactFinder, 2010 American Community Survey and Data Profile Highlights Information on Rock County, City of Janesville, and Block Groups within Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. American FactFinder, 2006-2010 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey Data Profile and Highlights Information on Rock County, City of Janesville, and Census Tracts within Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USDA] United Stated Department of Agriculture. 2007. Rapid Watershed Assessment Lower Rock River. October 2007. Available at <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_020057.pdf> (accessed 28 January 2014). [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013. Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Available at <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Wisconsin/st55_2_025_025.pdf> (accessed 4 October 2013). [USGCRP] U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2014. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. (Melillo JM, Richmond TC, and Yohe GW (editors)). New York: Cambridge University Press. Available at <http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/> (accessed 25 November 2014). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. National Land Cover Database. ESRI ArcGIS 9.3.1 software. Available at <http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer> (accessed 4 October 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 151. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation Chapter NR 151. Runoff Management. Revised May 2013. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/nr> (accessed 3 January 2013). Environmental Impacts 4-85 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 216. Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Chapter NR 216. Storm Water Discharge Requirements. Revised April 2013. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/nr> (accessed 3 January 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406. Construction Permits. March 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/406.pdf> (accessed 13 February 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 460. Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories-General Provisions. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/460/Title> (accessed 17 January 2014). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code. Chapter DHS 157. Radiation Protection. Available at <http://dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/P4/P45059.pdf> (accessed 17 January 2014). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326. Motor Carrier Safety Requirements for Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/326> (accessed 17 November 2014). [WCMP] Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 2007. Wisconsin Coastal Management Program: A Strategic Vision for the Great Lakes. Madison, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Documents/DIR/Coastal%20Management/Program%20Docs/WCMP%20Strategic%20Vision%20for%20Great%20Lakes%202007.pdf> (accessed 1 October 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Watershed-Rock River-Milton (LR04). Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/watershedDetail.aspx?code=LR04&Name=RockRiver-Milton> (accessed 29 January 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. Construction Site Storm Water Permit Overview. Web page updated November 12, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Stormwater/construction/overview.html> (accessed 3 January 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013b. Air Management Program Permit Tracking Tool. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTrackingSearch.aspx> (accessed 9 October 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013c. South Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=9> (accessed 23 December 2013. [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013d. Wisconsin Solid Waste Management. Available at <http://www.dnr.wi.gov/topic/Waste/Solid.html> (accessed 24 March 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014. Air Management Program Permit Tracking Tool. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=19955911> (accessed 21 November 2014). Environmental Impacts 4-86 [WDOR], Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2014. County and Municipal Revenues and Expenditures 2012. Bulletin No. 112, January 2014. Available at <http://www.revenue.wi.gov/slf/cotvc/cmreb12.pdf> (accessed 27 February 2014). [WHS] Wisconsin Historical Society. 2015. Letter from Eisenberg L, Compliance Archeologist, to Bladey C, Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Subject:

Draft EIS for the Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Janesville, Wisconsin. June 26, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15191A323. Wisconsin Golf Courses. 2013. Glen Erin Golf Course, Janesville, WI. Available at <http://gleneringolf.com>. Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 285. Air Pollution. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/285.pdf> (accessed 15 January 2015) Wisconsin Statute 157.70. Burial Sites Preservation. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/157/III/70> (accessed 15 January 2015) 5-1 5.0 ALTERNATIVES This chapter describes alternatives to granting a construction permit for the proposed SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) and the environmental impacts of those alternatives. The need to compare the proposed action with alternatives arises from the requirement in Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). NEPA states that an environmental impact statement (EIS) shall include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implements this requirement through regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51 and its Interim Staff Guidance in NUREG-1537 (NRC 2012), which state that the EIS will include an analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. The NRC standard of significance for impacts uses the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significantly" (40 CFR 1508.27). Since the significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, the NRC considered both "context" and "intensity," as defined in the CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1508.27. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects would occur. Intensity is the severity of the impact. Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. For this EIS, the NRC staff characterized impact levels for each resource area using the following three definitions of significance levels, which are presented in the Interim Staff Guidance to NUREG-1537: SMALL-environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. In assessing radiological impacts, the NRC has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the NRC's regulations are considered small. MODERATE-environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource. LARGE-environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. In this EIS, the NRC staff analyzed four alternatives to the proposed action. In Section 5.1, the NRC staff analyzed the no-action alternative or the environmental consequences if the NRC denies the construction permit. In Section 5.2, the NRC staff examined the environmental consequences if the SHINE facility were constructed and operated at an alternative location. Based on an in-depth site selection process, the NRC staff examined in depth two alternative sites, Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point. Section 5.3 examines the environmental impacts of constructing and operating a medical radioisotope production facility at the proposed SHINE site but using alternative technology. Section 5.4 describes the benefits and costs of the various alternatives. 5.1 No-Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would deny the construction permit, and the SHINE facility would not be constructed. The no-action alternative does not involve the determination of whether radioisotopes are needed or should be generated. The decision to produce radioisotopes is at the discretion of applicants (NRC 2012). Alternatives 5-2 Under the no-action alternative, no changes would occur to the proposed SHINE site in Janesville, Wisconsin. The site would remain zoned for industrial use. Therefore, impacts on all resource areas would be SMALL. The no-action alternative is the only alternative considered by the NRC that does not satisfy the purpose and need for this EIS, because this alternative does not satisfy the need for a U.S. supply of molybdenum-99. Assuming that the need for a U.S. supplier of molybdenum-99 continues to exist, another private company would likely construct and operate a medical radioisotope production facility. 5.2 Alternative Sites The NRC staff considered the environmental impacts of locating the proposed SHINE facility at alternative sites. SHINE identified and selected reasonable alternative sites, using the alternative site-selection process described below, in Section 5.2.1 (SHINE 2015a). Unless indicated otherwise, the following discussion is a summary of information presented in SHINE's Environmental Report (ER) (SHINE 2015a). 5.2.1 Description of Alternative Site-Selection Process SHINE's site-selection process assessed a variety of economic and environmental factors to determine reasonable regions, states, and, ultimately, sites to construct and operate the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE determined that proximity and access to customers was one of the most important factors in determining site location, because molybdenum-99 decays or disappears at a rate of about 1 percent per hour after production. To identify a potential region that is central to the locations of its customers, SHINE first identified the locations of their three most likely customers: Nordion Inc. in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Covidien Ltd. in St. Louis, Missouri; and Lantheus Medical Imaging Inc. in Billerica, Massachusetts. SHINE determined that locating the facility in the midwestern U.S. region provides proximity to these three customers, as well as to potential future customers, which could include hospitals and radiopharmacies throughout the country. The Midwestern States considered by SHINE included Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. SHINE also considered Louisiana because of potential financial incentives. SHINE evaluated potential Midwestern States based on their proximity to available and potential customers, financial incentives, and seismic considerations. To initially evaluate seismic concerns on a regional level, SHINE reviewed major fault-line seismic conditions within the midwestern region and determined that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Louisiana do not have any major fault lines. To better understand potential financial incentives, SHINE contacted economic development offices in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Michigan, and Louisiana. Ohio and Michigan were eliminated from further consideration because neither of the economic development offices in these States responded to SHINE's request. Wisconsin offered what SHINE considered to be a superior financial incentives package. Wisconsin is also the most centrally located State to SHINE's three prospective customers and is the home State of several project partners, including the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Morgridge Institute for Research, and Phoenix Nuclear Labs. Based on these factors, SHINE eliminated Minnesota and Louisiana from further consideration. Therefore, based on communication with economic development offices, a review of major fault lines, and the location of potential customers, SHINE determined that Wisconsin was the preferred State within the region. Alternatives 5-3 Within the State of Wisconsin, SHINE identified four locations that met certain basic geographic and infrastructure requirements for the proposed facility. Specifically, based on the relatively fast decay rate of molybdenum-99, SHINE required that sites met two fundamental criteria: (1) build-to-suit land available for development with proximity and access to an interstate highway, and (2) an airport within approximately 10 minutes of the proposed facility location, capable of handling radioisotope distribution aircraft. Based on these criteria, SHINE identified four cities for further consideration: Madison, Chippewa Falls, Janesville, and Stevens Point. Of these four cities, three city councils offered financial incentive packages to SHINE: Chippewa Falls, Janesville, and Stevens Point. No incentive package was offered for Madison and, therefore, SHINE eliminated this city from further consideration. For the remaining three cities, SHINE staff determined an approximate parcel size appropriate for the facility and requested that the city councils or other local government entities identify a potential site that met the size requirements and prepare an incentive proposal detailing the advantages of the site. SHINE developed a set of 11 criteria to score the three potential sites and to ultimately identify the site with the best economic advantage and fewest potential environmental impacts. SHINE scored each site using the following criteria: local government and community support, financial incentives, distance to the site boundary, access to a skilled workforce, proximity to potential future customers, proximity to an airport, proximity to an interstate highway, anticipated depth to the groundwater table, seismic characteristics, presence of endangered resources and wetlands, and presence of historic and archaeological resources. Local Government and Community Support SHINE determined that a supportive local government and a supportive local community are important factors in its facility site-selection process, because this support would be essential to complete the proposed construction and operations. SHINE weighted this factor (along with the financial incentives below) more heavily than the other nine factors in the scoring process because of the level of importance SHINE felt these factors would contribute to the successful construction and operation of the proposed facility. SHINE assigned these two factors a maximum score of 10. When evaluating this criterion, SHINE found that all three local governments showed an interest in the project, and it assigned all three sites a score of 10 out of 10. Financial Incentives SHINE determined that the financial incentive offered by each local government is an important factor in the site-selection process, because this support would be key to successfully completing the proposed construction and operating the facility. As with local government and Alternatives 5-4 community support, SHINE assigned this factor a possible 10 out of 10. During its evaluation, SHINE determined that all three communities provided competitive financial incentives; however, the cities of Janesville and Stevens Point provided slightly larger incentive packages than the city of Chippewa Falls. SHINE assigned the Janesville and Stevens Point sites a score of 9 out of 10 and the Chippewa Falls site a slightly lower score (8 out of 10). Distance to the Site Boundary SHINE assessed the distance from the facility to the site boundary, because a greater distance would lower the likelihood of a potential adverse impact on the public. The Janesville site had the furthest distance to the site boundary, approximately 1,000 ft (305 m) in all directions. The Stevens Point site was similar, with a minimum distance to the boundary just under 1,000 ft (305 m) in all directions. The Chippewa Falls site had a considerably smaller distance to the site boundary in some directions because of the site's smaller, oblong shape. Based on this information, SHINE assigned the Janesville and Stevens Point sites a score of 5 out of 5 and the Chippewa Falls site a slightly lower score of 4 out of 5. Access to a Skilled Workforce SHINE determined that proximity to large cities, as well as cooperation with local universities or technical colleges, was indicative of the accessibility to a skilled workforce. Proximity to large cities provides access to a diverse workforce, while relationships with local universities provide access to skilled training for the workforce. SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest score (4 out of 5), because of its proximity to Madison, Milwaukee, and Chicago. Janesville is close to Blackhawk Technical College, which would offer future training for SHINE's workforce, if the facility were located at the Janesville site. The Chippewa Falls site ranked evenly with the Stevens Point site, and SHINE assigned both sites a score of 3 out of 5. Chippewa Falls is approximately 100 mi (161 km) from Minneapolis-St. Paul, but none of the local schools offer any workforce training options, while Stevens Point is more remote than the other two sites but is in close proximity to the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, which would offer training to SHINE's workforce if the Stevens Point site were selected. Proximity to Potential Customers As described earlier in this section, SHINE determined that, because molybdenum-99 decays or diminishes at a rate of about 1 percent per hour after production, proximity to potential customers is a site-selection factor. Based on the locations of its three prospective customers (in Ottawa, Missouri, and Massachusetts) in comparison to the locations of the three potential sites, SHINE determined that radioisotopes shipped from the Janesville location have the shortest overall distance for air travel to each of SHINE's potential customers. SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest score for this category (5 out of 5), followed by the Stevens Point site (4 out of 5) and then the Chippewa Falls site (3 out of 5). Proximity to Airport SHINE determined that the closer the potential site is to the airport, the quicker its product would be delivered to the customer, and it analyzed this distance as a site-selection factor. The Janesville site is directly across the highway from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, with a distance of less than 0.5 mi (0.8 km). The Stevens Point site is approximately 4 mi (6 km) from the Stevens Point Municipal Airport. The Chippewa Falls site is approximately 10 mi (16 km) from the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport. During instances of local airport closures, radioisotopes would need to be transported by truck to the nearest secondary airport. The Janesville site is approximately 1 hour from Dane County Regional Airport in Madison and within 2 hours of both O'Hare International Airport in Chicago Alternatives 5-5 and Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee. The Chippewa Falls site is within 2 hours of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The Stevens Point site is more than 2 hours from all of these airports. Based on proximity to local and major airports, SHINE assigned the Janesville site a score of 5 out of 5, while the Stevens Point and Chippewa Falls sites received lower scores (3 out of 5). Proximity to an Interstate Highway If the local airport closes, SHINE determined that transporting radioisotopes by truck either to the closest secondary airport or directly to the customer would be necessary. To minimize travel time, SHINE made proximity to an interstate highway a site-selection factor. The Janesville site is approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) from Interstate 39. The Stevens Point site is less than 2 mi (3.2 km) from Interstate 39, and the Chippewa Falls site is approximately 18 mi (29 km) from Interstate 94. SHINE assigned the Stevens Point site the highest score in this category (5 out of 5), followed by the Janesville site (4 out of 5) and then the Chippewa Falls site (3 out of 5). Anticipated Depth to Groundwater SHINE made depth to groundwater a site-selection factor, because greater depth to groundwater would minimize facility impacts from spills, given that potential groundwater contamination from a leak or spill of oil or chemicals is less likely with further depth to the water table. Based on boreholes and wells drilled on site, SHINE determined that groundwater at the Janesville site was located 55 to 65 ft (17 to 20 m) below grade. Using records from onsite boreholes, SHINE determined groundwater to be approximately 50 ft. (15.2 m) below grade at the Chippewa Falls site. Using similar methods as at the Chippewa Falls site, SHINE determined that groundwater at the Stevens Point site was located 8.0 to 11.0 ft (2.4 to 3.4 m) below grade. SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest points for this category (5 out of 5), followed by the Chippewa Falls site (4 out of 5) and then the Stevens Point site (2 out of 5). Seismic Characteristics SHINE evaluated the seismic characteristics at each proposed site by reviewing the seismicity of the site area (based on peak ground accelerations) and historic records of seismic activity in the site area. SHINE found that the Janesville site is slightly more likely than the other two sites to experience a very weak shaking event. However, SHINE also noted that both the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point sites are located on glacial sands and may have higher amplification factors than at the Janesville site. SHINE also conducted a geotechnical investigation of the Janesville site that indicated that glacial deposits occur at the Janesville site, as well. Based on this information, SHINE assigned all three sites a score of 3 out of 5. Presence of Protected Species To score each of the three sites based on the presence of endangered resources and wetlands, SHINE requested information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) regarding the potential occurrence of Federally or State-listed species at the three sites. Because the Janesville site is an active agricultural field far from any wetlands, water, or buffer areas, WDNR and FWS determined it was an unsuitable habitat for listed species. Both the Chippewa Falls and the Stevens Point site contain forested areas, which the FWS noted is a potential habitat for migratory birds. WDNR also recommended that the small wetland community on the eastern edge of the Chippewa Falls site be protected as much as possible to avoid affecting any potential rare or declining species. FWS identified a portion of the Stevens Point site as having a high potential for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), a Federally listed endangered species in Wisconsin. Alternatives 5-6 Based on the input from WDNR and FWS, SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest score in this category (5 out of 5), and assigned the Stevens Point and Chippewa Falls sites a 2 out of 5, based on the potential habitats for protected species. Presence of Historic and Archaeological Resources To evaluate the presence of historic and archaeological resources, SHINE reviewed the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as well as the Wisconsin Historic Preservation Database. This search did not identify significant archaeological sites or other cultural resources on or near any of the proposed or alternative sites. As described in Chapter 3, SHINE completed a Phase I archaeological survey of the Janesville site. The survey did not identify any precontact or historic Euro-American archaeological sites. Based on this information, SHINE assigned all three sites a 5 out of 5. Summary SHINE assigned each site a score of either 1 to 10 or 1 to 5, based on the criteria discussed above. These scores are summarized in Table 5-1. Table 5-1. Proposed SHINE Site-Selection Scoring Criteria (Max Score) Janesville Stevens Point Chippewa Falls Local Government and Community Support (10) 10 10 10 Financial Incentives (10) 9 9 8 Minimum Distance to Site Boundary (5) 5 5 4 Access to a Skilled Workforce (5) 4 3 3 Proximity to Potential Future Customers (5) 5 4 3 Proximity to Airport (5) 5 3 3 Proximity to Interstate Highway (5) 4 5 3 Anticipated Depth to Groundwater Table (5) 5 2 4 Seismic Characteristics (5) 3 3 3 Presence of Endangered Resources and Wetlands (5) 5 2 2 Presence of Historic and Archaeological Resources (5) 5 5 5 Total 65 60 51 48 Source: SHINE 2013a Based on these scores, SHINE selected the Janesville site, with a total score of 60 out of 65, as the proposed location for the SHINE facility. SHINE determined that the Chippewa Falls site (48 out of 65) and the Stevens Point site (51 out of 65) were reasonable alternatives to the Janesville site. The NRC staff evaluated the site-selection methodology described above and concluded that the process for selecting and evaluating alternative sites, including the proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin, is reasonable and consistent with guidelines presented in NUREG-1537 and the associated Interim Staff Guidance (NRC 2012). The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impact of the two alternative sites, Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point, in the following sections. 5.2.2 Chippewa Falls Site The NRC staff evaluated the Chippewa Falls site as a reasonable alternative site. The City of Chippewa Falls is in Chippewa County in northwestern Wisconsin, approximately 13.4 mi Alternatives 5-7 (21.6 km) north of Eau Claire, Wisconsin (Figure 5-1). Specifically, the site is located in the Wissota Lake Business Park near the northern edge of the corporate boundaries of the City of Chippewa Falls in Chippewa County, Wisconsin. The site is bordered to the west by Commerce Parkway, to the north by County Highway S, to the east by State Highway 178, and to the south by forested and open land (Figure 5-2). The site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the southwest. Cropland, including corn and soybeans, comprises the majority of the site. No residences or other buildings are located on site. Figure 5-1. Population Centers and Transportation Features in Chippewa County, Wisconsin Source: SHINE 2013a Alternatives 5-8 Figure 5-2. Chippewa Falls Site Source: SHINE 2013a 5.2.2.1 Land Use and Visual Resources Land Use The Chippewa Falls site includes 76 acres (ac) (31 hectares (ha)) of land within the northern portion of the City of Chippewa Falls (Figure 5-2). The site is currently zoned for light industrial use and is part of the Wissota Lake Business Park (City of Chippewa Falls 1999; WEDC 2014a). Based on a review of the National Land Cover Database, the Chippewa Falls site is composed of 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) of cultivated agricultural land, 9.1 ac (3.7 ha) of developed land, and 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of deciduous forest (Table 5-2) (USGS 2006; SHINE 2013a). State Highway 178 borders the western boundary of the site. Warehouses and other buildings are located immediately to the west of State Highway 178. Agricultural fields surround the remaining portions of the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2015a). An abandoned railroad right-of-way runs diagonally through the southern portion of the site. Some of the land south of this right-of-way has been graded for use for the Wissota Lake Business Park. No residences, other structures, special land uses, or mineral resources are located within the Chippewa Falls site boundaries. The entire site is composed of prime farmland soils where otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013a; 7 CFR 657.5). Prime farmland is defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) as "land that has the best combination of Alternatives 5-9 physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary [of Agriculture]." The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with State and local agencies, defines and delineates the soils to consider as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance (7 CFR Part 657). However, otherwise qualifying "farmland" soils do not include those on land already in or committed to urban development or water storage, as defined in 7 CFR 658.2. Table 5-2. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the Chippewa Falls Site Land Use Category Permanently Disturbed Temporarily Disturbed Total On Site Total Within 5-mi (8-km) Radius Percentage Within 5-mi (8-km) Radius Developed Land 2.6 ac (1.0 ha) 0.01 ac (0.004 ha) 9.1 ac (3.7 ha) 8,966 ac (3,629 ha) 18 Cultivated Crops 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) 19,133 ac (7,743 ha) 38 Pasture/Hay - - - 3,237 ac (1,310 ha) 6 Grassland/ Herbaceous - - - 896 ac (362 ha) 2 Shrub/Scrub - - - 569 ac (230 ha) 1 Deciduous Forest 0.5 ac(a) (0.2 ha) 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) 7,301 ac (2,955 ha) 15 Evergreen Forest - - - 1,116 ac (452 ha) 2 Mixed Forest - - - 496 ac (201 ha) 1 Woody Wetlands - - - 1,269 ac (514 ha) 3 Emergent, Herbaceous Wetlands - - - 733 ac (297 ha) 1 Open Water - - - 6,549 ac (2,650 ha) 13 Totals 17.9 ac (7.3 ha) 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) 76.4 ac (30.9 ha) 50,265 ac (20,342 ha) 100 Notes: The footprint of the facility would permanently convert 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). In addition, up to 0.3 ac (0.1 ha) could also be cleared to comply with security requirements or other measures. Source: USGS 2006, SHINE 2013a Construction Construction at the Chippewa Falls site would permanently disturb and convert 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) of agricultural land, 2.6 ac (1.0 ha) of developed land, and 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) of deciduous forest into an industrial area (Table 5-2). If SHINE needed to clear additional portions of the site to comply with security requirements or other measures, the total amount of affected forested areas could be up to 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) (SHINE 2015a). In addition, 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) of agricultural Alternatives 5-10 land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking area and construction material staging or laydown areas. Once construction activities are complete, SHINE would likely restore temporarily affected areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie (SHINE 2015a). The remaining portion of the site would likely remain as open area, forested areas, or agricultural fields, or would be converted to cool season grasses or native prairie. The potential conversion of up to 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) currently used for agricultural and cultivated crops to other uses would be minor when compared to the 19,133 ac (7,743 ha) of agricultural land remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the site. Similarly, the conversion of up to 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of deciduous forest to industrial facilities would be minor when compared to the 7,301 ac (2,955 ha) of deciduous forest remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site. The Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations require agencies to make Farmland Protection Policy Act evaluations part of the NEPA process to reduce the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by Federal projects and programs. Construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would permanently convert 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) and temporarily convert 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) of prime farmland soils to industrial use. However, this is a small percentage of the prime farmland within the region surrounding the Chippewa Falls site. Furthermore, the Chippewa Falls site is currently zoned for light industrial uses and is part of a larger development project to create the Wissota Lake Business Park (City of Chippewa Falls 1999; WEDC 2014a). Because the Chippewa Falls site has been committed to urban development and zoned for light industrial use, the Chippewa Falls site does not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Act. Impacts on land use from construction would be SMALL, based on the relatively small amount of farmland and deciduous forest that would be permanently converted to other uses, the lack of qualifying prime farmland soils within affected areas, and the location of the proposed facility within an area zoned for light industrial use, as well as the fact that no effects were expected on special land use or mineral resources. Operations Operation of the SHINE facility would not require any new land or require land use changes beyond those required for construction. Therefore, impacts on land use during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Land requirements to perform these activities would be similar to those required during construction. After decommissioning activities are complete, the Chippewa Falls site could remain industrial or be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. Given that land requirements would be similar to those described during construction and that, after decommissioning is complete, the land would be industrial, agricultural, or open space, the NRC staff determined that the impacts on land use during decommissioning would be SMALL. Visual Resources The visual setting of the area that would be affected by the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site includes agricultural, forested, and light industrial viewsheds. The viewshed to the north, south, and east of the Chippewa Falls site is mainly flat or has slightly rolling cultivated fields. In addition, trees are visible in many directions. The viewshed to the west is a light industrial landscape, with a few warehouses and other buildings adjacent to the proposed site. Alternatives 5-11 Construction The activities associated with constructing the proposed SHINE facility (e.g., excavation, earthmoving, pile driving, and erecting the facility) would require large pieces of construction equipment, significantly altering the appearance and partially obstructing views of the existing landscape. However, the Chippewa Falls site has low scenic quality caused by a lack of notable features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, mute colors, cultural modifications to adjacent scenery, and a commonality within the physiographic province. The Chippewa Falls site also has a low-to-moderate sensitivity rating, as it is in an area with low scenic values and a lack of special natural and wilderness areas. However, several potentially sensitive viewing areas exist within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Chippewa Falls site, including the following: more than 100 residences, a hospital, nursing home, child daycare facility, adult daycare facility, several medical clinics, and two colleges. Nonetheless, trees and existing buildings would block the view from most of these locations, which would result in a partial view of the Chippewa Falls site during construction. In addition, the viewshed surrounding the Chippewa Falls site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, such as warehouses and other buildings, and agricultural fields. Based on the low scenic quality and light industrial viewshed in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site, construction-related aesthetic impacts would be SMALL during construction. Operations After the facility is constructed, the appearance of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would not change during operations, other than a small steam plume that may be visible coming from the exhaust stack. The steam plume from the exhaust stack is expected to be minimal, because opacity associated with the natural-gas-fired boiler and heaters tends to be low, as described in Section 4.2.2.1. The steam plume would be more visible during periods of cold weather, although the size of the steam plume would still be relatively small. Therefore, visual impacts during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. After SHINE completed decommissioning activities, the Chippewa Falls site could remain industrial, or be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. As the facility would be located in a district zoned for light industrial use and the viewshed surrounding the Chippewa Falls site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, the NRC staff would not expect any changes to the landscape during decommissioning to significantly affect any viewsheds. Therefore, visual impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. 5.2.2.2 Air Quality and Noise Air Quality The climate in Chippewa Falls is similar to that in Janesville, which was described in Section 3.2. According to National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) records for the years 1981 to 2010 (NCDC 2010a), the annual average temperature near Chippewa Falls was 44.8 °F (7.1 °C), annual snowfall is about 47 in. (119 cm) and average annual precipitation (rain) is 31 in. (78.8 cm). July is the warmest month of the year and January, the coldest. The NCDC records identify the following extreme weather events in Chippewa County from 1996 to 2013: thunderstorms (88 events), lightning (8 events), hail (76 events), tornadoes (2 events), heavy rain (23 events), and floods (2 events) (NCDC 2014a). Alternatives 5-12 The Chippewa Falls site is located in Chippewa County and is part of the Southeast Minnesota-La Crosse (Wisconsin) Interstate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.66). Chippewa County is designated as an attainment area for sulfur dioxide and an attainment/unclassifiable area for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter (40 CFR 81.350). Therefore, criteria pollutant concentrations in the county are lower than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or there is insufficient data to determine if the NAAQS are met. The region of influence (ROI) for the air quality analysis discussed below is Chippewa County, because air quality designations are made at the county level. The nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, about 208 mi (334 km) from the site (EPA 2014).5 Construction Sources of air pollutant emissions during construction of the Chippewa Falls site would include fugitive dust from earth-moving equipment and other vehicles, criteria pollutants from diesel engines, and exhaust gases from worker vehicles as they commute to and from the Chippewa Falls construction site. Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since construction activities and the number and type of sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel combustion). Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4-3. Construction air emissions would be temporary and localized. Chippewa County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from a facility at the Chippewa Falls site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Chippewa County's attainment/unclassifiable designation. Furthermore, SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated in the WDNR Type A Registration Construction Permit. Given the temporary nature of construction activities (18 months), the air quality designation of Chippewa County, and the pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from WDNR, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL. Operations Sources of air emissions from operating the facility would be from radioisotope production, fuel combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and vehicular traffic from workers commuting and from monthly truck shipments in and out of the facility. Air pollutants from these sources would include nitrogen oxides (from radioisotope production, fuel combustion, vehicular traffic), sulfur dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), particulate matter (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), carbon dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), and carbon monoxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic). Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since operation activities and the number and type of sources would be similar (worker vehicles, fuel combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and the production process). Chippewa County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from a facility at the Chippewa Falls site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate 5 Rainbow Lake in Wisconsin is the nearest Class 1 area (about 117 miles (188 km) from the Chippewa Falls site); however, in 1980, Rainbow Lake was excluded for purposes of visibility protection as a Class I area. Alternatives 5-13 Chippewa County's attainment/unclassifiable designation. Furthermore, SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated within the Type A Registration Operation Permit from WDNR. Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded, that the Chippewa County air quality is good, and that pollution control measures would be required in air permits from WDNR, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during operation would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities in type and duration. Sources of air emissions would be diesel equipment, vehicle worker emissions, and fugitive dust from earth-moving activities. Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), because decommissioning activities and sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel combustion). Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4-10. Air emissions from decommissioning would be temporary and localized. Chippewa County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from decommissioning at the Chippewa Falls site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Chippewa County's attainment/unclassifiable designation. Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded and the Chippewa County air quality is good, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. Noise The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the proposed SHINE facility. There are a number of noise-sensitive receptors within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the Chippewa Falls site, and the closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 2,112 ft (644 m) from the production building and approximately 530 feet (162 m) from the site boundary. As discussed above, the Chippewa Falls site is bordered to the west by Commerce Parkway, to the north by County Highway S, and to the east by State Highway 178. Existing noise sources near the proposed site include vehicular traffic on these roads. The NRC staff did not identify available noise surveys of the Chippewa Falls site and surrounding area. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.1 above, the Chippewa Falls site and surrounding area are cultivated agricultural land. Background noise levels are approximately 45 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) in agricultural cropland areas (EPA 1978). Construction Noise sources during construction of the Chippewa Falls site would include construction equipment on site and increased traffic volumes. The maximum number of worker vehicles expected on site during construction is 451. The Chippewa Falls site is bordered to the west by Commerce Parkway, to the north by County Highway S, and to the east by State Highway 178, and site access would be from Commerce Parkway. While workers would be able to access the site using a combination of routes (Section 5.2.2.10), it is reasonable to assume that Commerce Parkway, County Highway S, and State Highway 178 will experience an increase in traffic volumes. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.10, peak traffic on these roads averages around 400 vehicles per hour, similar to Highway 51 near the Janesville site. The NRC staff estimates that an increase in vehicular traffic caused by 451 peak construction workers will increase noise levels no more than 3 dBA near these roads in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. A 3-dBA Alternatives 5-14 change over existing noise levels is considered to be a "just noticeable" difference, while a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (NWCC 2002). The types of equipment that would be used on site during construction are listed in Table 4-2. Blasting and pile driving would not be required for excavation or installation of foundations (SHINE 2013a). The closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 2,112 ft (644 m) from the center of the site and approximately 530 ft (162m) from the site boundary. The NRC staff estimates noise levels of 64 dBA at the residence nearest to the Chippewa Falls site. Background noise levels are assumed to be around 45 dBA. The increase in noise levels could be noticeable to residents. Given the closeness of the nearest resident to the Chippewa Falls site and the noise levels from construction activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Operations Noise sources during operation of the Chippewa Falls site would be traffic from worker vehicles. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and is not expected to be audible outside the proposed SHINE building facility. The number of worker vehicles expected during operation is 150 (SHINE 2015a). Commerce Parkway, County Highway S, and State Highway 178 in the vicinity of the Chippewa Fall site will experience an increase in traffic volumes. The NRC staff does not expect that noise levels will increase beyond 1 dBA near these roads in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site and should not be noticeable. For this reason, the NRC staff concludes that noise impacts from facility operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Noise sources during decommissioning of the facility would include construction equipment on site and increased traffic volumes, similar to construction activities. The maximum number of worker vehicles expected on site during decommissioning is 261. Commerce Parkway, County Highway S, and State Highway 178 in the vicinity of the Chippewa Fall site will experience an increase in traffic volumes. The NRC staff does not expect that noise levels will increase beyond 2 dBA near these roads in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site and should not be noticeable. The types of equipment that would be used on site during decommissioning are listed in Table 4-9. The closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 2,112 ft (644 m) from the production building and approximately 530 ft (162 m) from the site boundary. The NRC staff estimates noise levels of about 64 dBA at the nearest residence to the Chippewa Falls site. Background noise levels are assumed to be around 45 dBA. Given the closeness of the nearest resident to the Chippewa Falls site and the noise levels from decommissioning activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. 5.2.2.3 Geologic Environment The Chippewa Falls site is located within the Wisconsin Central Plain physiographic province. This province is situated near the boundary between the Superior Upland and Central Lowland physiographic provinces of the United States (USGS 2003; SHINE 2013a). The site location is near a dividing line between areas affected by the younger Wisconsin glaciations that ended about 11,700 years ago and older glaciations of the Illinoian age (WGNHS 2011). These events are further discussed in Section 3.3.1. Alternatives 5-15 The topography of the site is relatively flat, with an average elevation of approximately 930 ft (283 m) mean sea level. During the NRC environmental site audit, evidence of earthwork and stockpiles of topsoil were observed in the central portion of the site. Geologic map coverage indicates that the site is located on a glacial outwash plain (Copper Falls outwash plain) formed by meltwater associated with the Chippewa ice lobe between approximately 26,000 and 9,500 years ago, during the latter part of the Wisconsin glaciation. The meltwater deposited sediment characterized as brown to pale brown sand, gravelly sand, and sandy gravel with developed soil profiles of 3.2- to 3.9-ft (1- to 1.2-m) thick. Depth to the uppermost bedrock surface is estimated to range from 49- to 98-ft (15- to 30-m) below ground surface (bgs) (Syverson 2007). Bedrock in the vicinity of the site is mapped mainly as Cambrian age sandstones and locally (in the Chippewa Falls area), as Precambrian granitic intrusive rocks (Mudrey et al. 1982; WGNHS 2005). A single geotechnical boring was completed in the north-central portion of the proposed site (AET 2011, SHINE 2013b). At this location, the boring encountered fill extending to a depth of approximately 3.5 ft (1.1 m) and underlain by a buried soil horizon (sandy silt) approximately 1.5-ft (0.45-m) thick. Below 5 ft (1.5 m), coarse sediments composed of poorly graded sands and gravels were found. A static water table elevation of 50-ft (15-m) bgs is inferred from the boring log. The boring was terminated in dense sandy gravel at 82-ft (25-m) bgs without encountering bedrock (AET 2011). Sand is being mined in several locations around Chippewa County (where the Chippewa Falls site is located) for use in hydraulic fracturing associated with natural gas production (SHINE 2013a; WGNHS 2014). Construction sand and gravel is also a commodity in the county (USGS 2013a), as are peat, glacial clay, and crushed Precambrian igneous or metamorphic rocks (Chippewa County 2010). Soil unit mapping by NRCS identifies natural soils across the site as consisting of Sattre loam, 0- to 3-percent slopes. This soil mapping unit is composed of well-drained loams and fine sandy loams and is found on outwash plains and stream terraces that developed from loamy glacial drift atop gravelly outwash. The profiles of these soils grade to a gravelly coarse sand or sand at depths greater than about 34 in. (86 cm). The depth to the water table in these soils is generally greater than 80 in. (200 cm) and they are not prone to ponding. The only building site limitation these soils have is that excavations tend to be very unstable because of the coarse sandy texture of subsoils and gravelly content. These soils are all prime farmland soils, where otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013a; 7 CFR 657.5). As further described in Section 3.3.3, the State of Wisconsin lays within the central portion of the stable North American craton. Regional seismicity is characterized by relatively infrequent, small-to-moderate earthquakes that are typical of much of the central and eastern United States (USGS 2013b). Similar to the Janesville site, seismic hazard estimates prepared by the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) indicate that the site is located within one of the lowest earthquake hazard areas in the conterminous United States (Petersen et al. 2011). Within a radius of 200 mi (322 km) of the Chippewa Falls site, only 2 earthquakes with a magnitude equal to or greater than 2.5 have been recorded since 1973. These events occurred in January 1988 and February 1994. The closest was a magnitude 3.6 earthquake with an epicenter approximately 140 mi (225 km) north of the site in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (USGS 2013c). Construction Ground-disturbing activities associated with facility construction would have impacts on geologic and soil resources similar to those discussed for the Janesville site (Section 4.3.1). Earthwork Alternatives 5-16 requirements and the ease of excavation would be very similar, as soils and surficial strata are comparable for the two sites. The depth to bedrock is not a concern for excavation work for the below-grade portions of the facility. As at the Janesville site, shallow excavations could be prone to slumping, caused by the texture of the soils. The potential for soil erosion and loss would be similar to that at the Janesville site. However, as described in Section 4.3.1, adherence to standard best management practices (BMPs) for soil erosion and sediment control and compliance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff (Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-S067831-4) would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss. Site work and the creation of an impervious surface would result in the irretrievable loss of prime farmland soils equal to the acreage disturbed and converted to an impervious surface. Given that the potential for soil erosion and loss is minimal and that SHINE would be required to comply with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), the NRC staff finds that the impacts on the geologic environment from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Operations There would be no additional impact on geology and soils from facility operations at the Chippewa Falls site. Land temporarily disturbed during construction within the site boundary and lying outside the facility footprint would be revegetated. Regardless of the site location, the proposed SHINE facility would be sited, designed, and constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes, which provide for the evaluation of site geologic and soil conditions, including potential seismic hazards. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that the operational impacts associated with the geologic environment at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Decommissioning Facility demolition and other ground-disturbing activities associated with decommissioning would have impacts on soils and sediments similar to those described for construction. As site activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable local, State, and other Federal regulations and permits, the NRC staff finds that the impacts on the geologic environment from facility decommissioning at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. 5.2.2.4 Water Resources Surface Water No streams or other surface-water bodies exist within the boundaries of the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2013a). The major surface-water feature in the vicinity of the site is Lake Wissota, an impoundment of the Chippewa River, located about 0.8 mi (1.3 km) east of the site. From the downstream end of the lake, the Chippewa River flows to the west immediately south of the site before taking a more southerly course toward Eau Claire (SHINE 2015a). Drainage from the site would be expected to travel south and southeast toward the Chippewa River. The Chippewa River is one of the largest rivers in Wisconsin. Within the subbasin in which the Chippewa Falls site is located, the river flows for 103 mi (166 km), extending from the Holcombe Dam in northern Chippewa and southern Rusk counties to the Mississippi River. This river section includes five flowages created by dams owned and operated by Northern States Power Company for hydropower generation and some 69 mi (111 km) of free-flowing river. The largest of these flowages (Lake Wissota) comprises 6,212 ac (2,500 ha) (WDNR 2013a). The nearest USGS gaging station on the Chippewa River is just southwest of the site in Chippewa Falls (Station 05365500). The mean annual discharge measured at the USGS gage Alternatives 5-17 for water years 1888 to 2012 is 4,974 cubic ft per second (cfs) (140.5 cubic m per second (m3/s)). The 90-percent exceedance flow, indicative of drought conditions, is 1,320 cfs (37.3 m3/s). For water year 2012, the mean discharge was 3,619 cfs (102 m3/s). The drainage area of the river upstream of the station encompasses 5,560 mi2 (14,630 km2) (USGS 2012a). No floodplains have been delineated on or near the site or within the Lake Wissota Business Park (Chippewa County 2010; SHINE 2013a; WEDC 2014a), and no tributaries to the Chippewa River originate on or near the site that could present backwater flooding concerns. The State of Wisconsin has established water-quality standards and numeric criteria and associated designated-use categories for all waters of the State, as previously described in Section 3.4.1, and in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 102 and NR 104). Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify "impaired" waters for which effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water-quality standards in such waters. The Chippewa River at Lake Wissota has a designated use for fish and aquatic life and is identified as impaired because of contaminated fish stemming from polychlorinated biphenyls and, historically, mercury (WDNR 2013a). In Chippewa County, surface water is used for self-supplied industrial and commercial uses and with minor use for irrigation, livestock watering, and mining. However, groundwater is the primary and almost exclusive source for the domestic and municipal water supply (Buchwald 2011; Chippewa County 2010). No industrial wastewater discharges have been identified in the site vicinity. Sanitary sewer service is provided to Wissota Business Park by the City of Chippewa Falls through a 24-in (61-cm) sanitary sewer line (WEDC 2014a). The Chippewa Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) has a capacity of 5.6 million gallons per day (mgd) (21,200 m3 per day (m3/d)), and demand is approximately 2.2 mgd (8,330 m3/d) (Chippewa County 2010; WEDC 2013a). Groundwater The surficial aquifer system occurs in the Chippewa River Basin and its associated drainages across Chippewa County (Olcott 1992). It is predominantly composed of Pleistocene-age glacial sediments and younger alluvial sediments that lie atop the bedrock surface (Olcott 1992). At the Chippewa Falls site, the surficial aquifer resides in the thick blanket of the Copper Falls glacial outwash identified at the site (Section 5.2.2.3). Consolidated bedrock aquifers of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system and of the Jacobsville sandstone and crystalline rock aquifers underlie the site or are present in the region. In the vicinity of the site, potential yields from wells screened in the surficial aquifer can yield up to 500 gallons per minute (gpm) (1.9 m3/min) of water (Lippelt 1988). The depth to groundwater at the site is 50 ft (15 m), as noted in Section 5.2.2.3. Groundwater beneath the site would also be expected to flow south and southeast toward the Chippewa River. No groundwater quality data are available for the surficial (sand and gravel) unit beneath the site, and no wells are known to have been drilled on the site location. Groundwater across the county is generally suitable in quantity and quality to meet domestic potable, agricultural, municipal, and industrial needs (Chippewa County 2010). The water is generally soft with local high concentrations of iron (Chippewa County 2010). Nitrate is a contamination of concern in many areas. The State of Wisconsin regulates groundwater quality and administers groundwater protection programs in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 140). As previously noted, municipalities in Chippewa County obtain potable water from groundwater sources. The Wissota Business Park, in which the Chippewa Falls site is located, would be Alternatives 5-18 served by a 16-in. (41-cm) water main with water originating from the City of Chippewa Falls (WEDC 2014a). The City of Chippewa Falls has nine wells and can supply 2.4 mgd (9,100 m3/d) of water (Chippewa County 2010). These wells are all completed in the surficial unit at depths ranging from 43 to 97 ft (13 to 30 m) (WDNR 2013b). Communities that provide water service through municipal wells must follow Chippewa County's wellhead protection plan (Chippewa County 2010). Construction Facility construction activities at the Chippewa Falls site would not have any direct impact on surface-water resources, as no streams or other surface-water bodies originate within the boundaries of the site. The major surface-water feature in the vicinity of the site is Lake Wissota, located about 0.8 mi (1.33 km) east of the site. In addition, construction and excavation activities would not be expected to have any impact on groundwater hydrology at the Chippewa Falls site, as the depth to groundwater is about 50 ft (15 m) (American Engineering Testing 2011). As discussed above (Geologic Environment) and detailed in Section 4.4.1.1 for the Janesville site, ground-disturbing activities at the Chippewa Falls site would be subject to a Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This General Permit requires the development of appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures and spill prevention and waste management practices to minimize suspended sediment, the transport of other deleterious materials, and potential water-quality impacts. No surface water would be withdrawn to support construction at the site (SHINE 2013a). The relatively small volume of water required to support construction activities (averaging about 0.012 mgd (45 m3/day)) would be supplied by the City of Chippewa Falls, which uses groundwater. Water could either be supplied by a temporary water tap or trucked to the point of use. Wastewater generation would be limited to sanitary waste from the construction workforce and would likely be accommodated through the use of portable restroom facilities. As no natural surface-water features occur on the site, SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility construction, there would be no onsite withdrawal of groundwater, and SHINE would be subject to the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface and groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water use from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Operations Normal facility operations would not have any direct impact on surface water or groundwater hydrology or quality. Compliance with the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), as described for construction, specifically requires the development of a stormwater management plan with appropriate BMPs to address runoff from buildings and other impervious surfaces. As detailed in Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.2.2 for the Janesville site, the design, construction, and operation of the proposed facility would include necessary structural controls, and operations would be subject to appropriate plans and procedures (including a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan) to prevent any spills or other releases from reaching soils or surfaces where they could be conveyed to surface waters or groundwater. Total water use is projected to be 6,073 gpd (22,990 liters per day (Lpd)), or 0.006 mgd (23 m3/day) and would be supplied by the City of Chippewa Falls by a service connection from the Wissota Business Park (SHINE 2013a, 2013b, 2014). Estimated demand is a small percentage of the City of Chippewa Falls' supply capacity. Alternatives 5-19 Operation of the proposed SHINE facility would entail no direct discharge of wastewater effluents to either surface water or groundwater. Wastewater generated by facility operations, composed primarily of sanitary waste, would be discharged to the City of Chippewa Falls WTP (SHINE 2015a). Section 5.2.2.9 discusses the management of other waste forms. Given that SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility operation and would develop and implement spill prevention and response procedures, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface and groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water use from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Decommissioning Facility decontamination, demolition, and site-restoration activities would be similar, regardless of the site, with the potential magnitude of the impacts on surface water and groundwater similar to those discussed for construction. Specifically, SHINE would conduct site activities in accordance with appropriate BMPs and would observe waste handling and pollution prevention practices and spill prevention and response procedures during decommissioning, so that no materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater, where they could contaminate water resources. Small quantities of water that may be required for dust control and soil compaction in association with site restoration activities would be supplied from municipal sources, as discussed for construction. Given that no natural surface-water features occur on the site, that water requirements would be minimal, and that SHINE would develop and implement spill prevention and response procedures as part of State permit requirements for ground-disturbing activities, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on water resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL. 5.2.2.5 Ecological Resources The Chippewa Falls site consists of 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) of agricultural land, 9.1 ac (3.7 ha) of developed land, and 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of deciduous forest (Table 5-2). As described in Section 5.2.2.1, these land use covers are based on the USGS (2006) land cover database. During a field reconnaissance survey, the SHINE staff observed a small wetland community in a narrow drainage way along the eastern edge of the site that was not included in the USGS land cover database. Plant species on the site vary depending on previous land uses. For example, actively cultivated crops on the site include corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). Fallow agricultural land on the southern portion of the site has been graded in preparation for use by the Wissota Lake Business Park. Plants in this portion of the site are typical of an old field plant community, such as goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and aster (Symphyotrichum spp.). An abandoned railroad right-of-way crosses the site and is surrounded by a few deciduous tree species (trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides and dogwoods (Cornus spp.)); a few prairie remnant species; and plants tolerant of physical disturbances. Wetland species observed in the narrow drainage way along the eastern edge of the site include common cattail (Typha latifolia), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), dock (Rumex spp.), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and spikerush (Eleocharis spp.) (SHINE 2015a). The Chippewa Falls site provides habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other wildlife tolerant of open fields, cultivated grasses, and frequent disturbances from human activity. During a reconnaissance survey, SHINE observed several birds at the Chippewa Falls site, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), and various sparrows (SHINE 2015a). Common Alternatives 5-20 mammals that inhabit the site likely include deer, raccoons, squirrels, and rabbits. Common reptiles and amphibians that inhabit the site likely include frogs and snakes. Other than the one wetland identified along the eastern edge of the site, no water bodies or aquatic habitats exist within the boundaries of the Chippewa Falls site. The closest aquatic features to the Chippewa Falls site include a wetland that is 0.25 mi (0.4 km) from the site, Lake Wissota, that is approximately 0.8 mi (1.3 km) north-northwest of the site, and the Chippewa River that is approximately 0.9 mi (1.4 km) south of the site (SHINE 2013a). Lake Wissota and the Chippewa River are important ecological habitats for fish, invertebrates, and other aquatic organisms and plants (WDNR 2014a, 2014b). In correspondence with the NRC, FWS (2013) did not identify any Federally listed species on or near the Chippewa Falls site (FWS 2013). Three species of special concern and one State-endangered fish could occur within 6 mi (10 km) of the Chippewa Falls site (Table 5-3) (SHINE 2013a; WDNR 2014a). While these species may occur within the vicinity of the site, the Chippewa Falls site provides unsuitable habitat for any of the four State-protected species (SHINE 2015a; WDNR 2014a). SHINE did not observe any Federally or State-protected species on the Chippewa Falls site during reconnaissance surveys (SHINE 2015a). Table 5-3. Federally and State-Protected Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Chippewa Falls Site Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) State Rank(b) Bird Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus bald eagle BGEPA SSC S4 Fish Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SSC S3 Insects Ophiogomphus smithi sand snaketail SSC S3 (a) BGEPA= Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; E = endangered; SSC = Species of Special Concern (b) S3 = Rare or uncommon in Wisconsin; S4 = Secure in Wisconsin with many occurrences. Sources: FWS 2013, WDNR 2014a, SHINE 2013a The FWS administers the BGEPA, which prohibits anyone from taking bald (Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus) or golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), including their nests or eggs, without a permit issued by the FWS. FWS (2013) determined that bald eagles occur within the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. The FWS also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which prohibits anyone from taking native migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The majority of the bird species that occur in Wisconsin, except for resident games birds and feral species, are protected under this Act (WDNR 2014c). In the vicinity of the site, migratory birds rely on riparian, forested, grassland, and wetland habitats as important areas for foraging, resting, avoiding predators, and, for some species, breeding. On the Chippewa Falls site, migratory birds likely use trees for resting and possibly breeding, nesting, and foraging. Construction Construction of the SHINE facility would result in permanently converting 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) of deciduous forest and 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) of agricultural fields into an industrial facility or developed open space, such as parking lots. The deciduous forest would include trees growing along the Alternatives 5-21 abandoned railroad right-of-way. The agricultural fields would include part of the cropland in the northern half of the site and part of the fallow field in the southern part of the site. In addition, 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) of cropland in the northern part of the site would be temporarily disturbed during construction. Agricultural and open fields are abundant within the region and provide relatively low-quality habitat for birds and wildlife in comparison to forests, grasslands, and wetland habitats. In addition to a loss of habitat, noise from construction activities could disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such disturbances, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity. During construction, bird collisions with construction equipment and the new facility could result in mortality from the presence of tall structures (e.g., stacks or cranes) and artificial night lighting during nighttime construction. The size of structures and the likelihood of mortality from bird collisions would be similar to that described in Section 4.5 for the proposed SHINE site in Janesville. In that analysis, the NRC staff determined that impacts from bird collisions would be negligible and unlikely to affect local or migratory populations, based on previous reviews of bird collisions at nuclear power plants that are similar or larger in height and size than the proposed SHINE facility. Construction at the Chippewa Falls site is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic resources, such as habitat loss, because no aquatic resources would be within the footprint of the proposed facility or the construction laydown areas. Runoff from the site could affect the onsite wetland or offsite aquatic resources by increasing turbidity or introducing various chemicals or other pollutants. WDNR recommended that SHINE implement strict erosion and siltation controls during the entire construction period to minimize impacts on State-protected species that could use Lake Wissota and the Chippewa River (SHINE 2015a). SHINE (2013a) stated, in its ER, that if the Chippewa Falls site were selected, SHINE would implement appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs to minimize the transport of suspended sediment and other pollutants. In response to the NRC staff's request for endangered and threatened species that could be affected by the proposed construction and operations, FWS (2013) stated that bald eagles and migratory birds could be found either on or within the vicinity of the site. FWS (2013) recommended further discussions if any active bald eagle nests are identified on the site. In addition, if the Chippewa Falls site is selected, FWS (2013) recommended that any tree removal occur before May 1 or after August 30 to minimize impacts on breeding migratory birds, which may use the trees for breeding, nesting, foraging, or resting. Given that construction would not permanently or temporarily affect any high-quality habitats, such as grasslands, undisturbed forests, or wetlands; permanently and temporarily affected habitats are abundant within the region; and mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on ecological resources during construction would be SMALL. If the Chippewa Falls site were selected, FWS (2013) recommended that SHINE survey the site for any active bald eagle nests and refrain from tree removal from May 1 to August 30. If SHINE identified active bald eagle nests at the site, or removed trees from May 1 to August 30, the impacts would be greater. Operations During operations, impacts on ecological resources could result from bird collisions, herbicide applications for landscape maintenance activities, elevated noise levels, and increased turbidity or introduction of pollutants from runoff. As described in Section 4.5, mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, given that the tallest structure would be a stack approximately 66 ft (20 m) tall. Disturbance from daily activities, herbicide applications, or elevated noise levels is likely to have minimal impacts on wildlife and plant species, given that Alternatives 5-22 the species identified at the Chippewa Falls site are generally tolerant of disturbance, because the land has been actively farmed or modified for human use over the past several decades. In response to any disturbances during operations, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity. Operation of the facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic resources, because wastewater would be discharged to the City of Chippewa Falls sanitary sewer system after being treated (SHINE 2013a). Indirect impacts during operations could include runoff that may contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or herbicides. However, as described above, impacts on aquatic resources are expected to be minimal because of the distance to Lake Wissota and the Chippewa River, and SHINE would be required, in its stormwater permit, to use appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs. Given that mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, habitat disturbances during operations would be minimal, any disturbed wildlife could find similar habitat in the vicinity, BMPs would be required in the SHINE stormwater permit, and no Federally or State-listed species occur on the SHINE site, impacts on ecological resources during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would have similar impacts on those that occur during construction of the proposed facility. For example, SHINE would use construction equipment to dismantle large buildings, which could result in disturbances to wildlife and birds and potential runoff to nearby water bodies. In addition, some land on the site could be used as staging areas for the equipment and to conduct certain dismantling activities. As described above, if noise or other activities disturb birds or wildlife, similar habitat is available in nearby offsite areas. No surface water would be used during decommissioning, and SHINE would develop and implement spill prevention and response procedures as part of State permit requirements for ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, impacts during decommissioning are expected to be SMALL. 5.2.2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources A review of databases maintained by the National Park Service indicates that there are 12 historic properties listed in the NRHP within Chippewa County (NPS 2015a). These properties reflect the historic cultural contexts for the proposed Chippewa Falls site and include buildings, structures, and districts dating from the mid-19th to mid-20th centuries. However, no historic properties are located within the area of potential effect (APE), the Chippewa Falls site, or its immediate vicinity. The closest NRHP-listed property is the Notre Dame Church and Goldsmith Memorial Chapel, approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) southwest of the Chippewa Falls site. The Church and Chapel are Romanesque in style. They are significant for their architectural design and for being the first church established in Chippewa County (NHRP 2013a). No archeological survey was commissioned by SHINE for the Chippewa Falls site. The NRC staff queried the Archaeological Sites Inventory and Architectural History Inventory, the Burial Sites Inventory, and the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS). No known historic or cultural resources or historic properties were found at the Chippewa Falls site (NRC 2013). In July 2015, the NRC received a determination from the WHS that no historic properties would be affected (WHS 2015) (see Appendix D). As there are no known historic properties, under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), or historic and cultural resources located within the APE, impacts on these resources are not likely during the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. The facility would also have little or no visual or aesthetic impact, as potential visual impacts during construction and decommissioning would be temporary. The proposed SHINE facility is a Alternatives 5-23 low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) away and is surrounded by residential and commercial properties. However, previously unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-disturbing activities associated with construction, maintenance during operations, and decommissioning. It is expected that SHINE would employ a cultural resource management plan (CRMP), similar to the one discussed in Section 4.6, to manage and protect as-yet-unidentified cultural resources. Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) CRMP procedures, and (3) cultural resource assessment and consultations, construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the possibility of the inadvertent discovery of unidentified cultural resources caused by land disturbance during construction, operations, and decommissioning, the overall impact would be SMALL. 5.2.2.7 Socioeconomics Affected Environment For the purposes of this analysis, the ROI is Chippewa County, Wisconsin, with special consideration being given to the site of the facility in Chippewa Falls. The City of Chippewa Falls is the county seat in Chippewa County. According to the 2010 Census, the total population of Chippewa Falls was 13,661 and the total population of Chippewa County was 62,415 (USCB 2014a). The population in Chippewa County steadily increased from 1970 to 2010, with a large increase of 13.1 percent from 2000 to 2010. According to the 2010 Census, there were 6,304 total housing units in the City of Chippewa Falls and 27,185 total housing units for Chippewa County. The total number of vacant housing units in the City of Chippewa Falls was 408 (6 percent) and 2,775 (10 percent) in Chippewa County (USCB 2014b). Chippewa County had the highest employment by industry in manufacturing with employment at 5,121 (26.97 percent), followed by the trades, transportation, and utilities (BLS 2013). Several industries are represented in the City of Chippewa Falls; the top employers are in the medical, education, retail, government, and manufacturing industries. The top three employers in Chippewa County were TTM Advanced Circuits Inc., Chippewa Falls Public School, and Saint Joseph's Hospital, as reported by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (WDWD) for the first quarter of 2013 (WDWD 2013). There was a slight decline in the labor force total between 2011 and 2012 in the City of Chippewa Falls. However, during this same time period, the unemployment rate in the City of Chippewa Falls dropped from 9.5 percent to 7.6 percent. In 2011, the Chippewa County unemployment rate was 6.5 percent, while the State of Wisconsin unemployment rate was 6.9 percent. Both were lower than in the City of Chippewa Falls (BLS 2013). According to the 2011 Migrant Population Report issued by the WDWD, there are no migrant workers in Chippewa County (WDWD 2014). According to 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the median family income for the City of Chippewa Falls for 2007-2011 was $51,486, while for Chippewa County, it was $58,544. The Chippewa County per capita income was $23,777 and the City of Chippewa Falls was slightly higher, with a per capita income of $23,885 (USCB 2014a). Tax rates vary by jurisdiction. The City of Chippewa Falls has a fire and emergency services department and police department and houses the Chippewa County Emergency Management Department. This Department is responsible for developing hazardous materials plans, maintaining public files for facilities storing more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kg) of hazardous materials, conducting Alternatives 5-24 disaster exercises and training activities, coordinating highway safety programs and grants, and coordinating Chippewa County radio communications (Chippewa County 2013). The City of Chippewa Falls Water Department gets its water supply from nine drilled wells. In addition to supplying water, it is responsible for preventing groundwater contamination. The Chippewa Falls Area Unified School District had a total of 5,007 students enrolled in pre-kindergarten to grade 12 for 2012-2013 in six elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and one alternative school (Chippewa Area Unified School District 2013). There are also several higher education schools in the area, including: the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Chippewa Valley Technical College, and Lakeland College-Chippewa Falls Center (Chippewa Area Unified School District 2013). The City of Chippewa Falls has a number of recreational facilities, including several trails for walking, biking, and cross-country skiing, and an ice arena. In addition, there are 31 campgrounds in the City of Chippewa Falls, numerous community parks, and 2 golf courses (WDNR undated). Cultural institutions include the Chippewa Falls Museum of Industry and Technology, the County Historical Society & Genealogical Society, the Cook-Rutledge Mansion, the Eau Claire Regional Arts Center (Eau Claire), the Fanny Hill Dinner Theater (Eau Claire), the Heyde Center for the Arts, and the Irvine Park and Zoo. Impact Analysis The estimated number of workers needed to construct, operate, and decommission the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be the same as the number of workers required for the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site. Construction The 451 workers needed to construct the proposed SHINE facility would represent 3 percent of the total population (13,661) of Chippewa Falls and less than 1 percent of the population of Chippewa County (62, 415) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Most construction workers would likely reside within the ROI and would not permanently relocate because of the relatively short duration (18 months) of construction. In addition, support infrastructure within the ROI would be able to accommodate a temporary increase in population. Since most of the 451 construction workers would likely already reside in the ROI, there would be no increase in demand for public services. Assuming that SHINE would enter into a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement with the City of Chippewa Falls, similar to the agreement with the City of Janesville, in the first 10 years of the proposed project, the TIF agreement would allow SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes to the City of Chippewa Falls. Tax payments totaling $600,000 per year would be used to offset infrastructure expenses (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would also pay property taxes, estimated to be $35,000 per year, based on the assessed property before improvements during this 10-year period (SHINE 2015a). The Chippewa Area Unified School District would receive a portion of the property tax benefits, since the Chippewa Falls site is located in that district. Sales tax revenue would also increase if materials and services were purchased within the ROI during construction. However, the total amount of tax revenue generated within the ROI during construction would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Chippewa Falls and Chippewa County; Chippewa Fall's 2012 collected taxes were approximately $7.6 million, while Chippewa County collected approximately $20.6 million in taxes in 2012 (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-25 Operations The 150 operations workers would represent 1 percent of the total 2010 population of Chippewa Falls (13,661) and less than 1 percent of Chippewa County (62,415) (USCB 2014a). It is likely that some workers would relocate to the ROI. However, the total number of operations workers would not create a significant socioeconomic impact. There is sufficient housing available in the ROI to accommodate any increase in the population from the proposed SHINE facility. There is also sufficient capacity in the public schools to accommodate the small increase in the school-age population when the proposed SHINE facility operations workers and their families relocate to the ROI. Public services, including water utilities, would be able to support the increased needs of operations workers and their families. SHINE would continue to make payments in lieu of taxes (estimated $600,000) and property taxes (estimated $35,000) during facility operations (SHINE 2015a). However, after expiration of the 10-year TIF agreement with the City of Chippewa Falls, SHINE would pay property taxes of approximately $660,000 per year (SHINE 2015a). The amount of property taxes could change, depending on the assessed value of the proposed SHINE facility. The Chippewa Area Unified School District would also continue to receive property tax revenue from SHINE during facility operations. In addition, overall sales and property tax revenues would increase within the ROI, caused by the increase in the population from operations workers relocating to the ROI. However, the total amount of tax revenue generated during this period within the ROI would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Chippewa Falls and Chippewa County. In 2012, Chippewa Falls received approximately $7.6 million in tax revenue, while Chippewa County received approximately $20.6 million (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during SHINE facility operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning The 261 decommissioning workers would represent 2 percent of the total population of Chippewa Falls (13,661) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Because of the short duration of decommissioning (6 months), workers would not likely relocate permanently to Chippewa Falls, and some of the SHINE operations workers could transition to decommissioning. Since it is likely that most decommissioning workers would already reside in the ROI, there would be little or no increased demand for public services. In addition, support infrastructure within the ROI would be able to accommodate any temporary increase in population. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during the decommissioning of the SHINE facility would be SMALL. 5.2.2.8 Human Health Construction The construction of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to that for the Janesville site. For example, there would be no significant physical differences in the design of the facility, workers would be exposed to similar construction hazards, and SHINE would implement similar construction methods and safety practices (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Operations The radiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to that for the Janesville site. Radiological exposures associated with a SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would include similar radiation sources and radioactive effluents, as well as Alternatives 5-26 implementation of a radiation protection program to minimize and ensure compliance with worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 (SHINE 2015a). The nonradiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site also would be similar to that for the Janesville site. Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive material, would be essentially the same as those for a SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from operation of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the radiological and nonradiological impacts on human health from operations at the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Decommissioning The decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to that proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the two sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2015a). After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. Facility workers would continue to receive radiation exposure during work activities relating to the cleanup, movement, storage, and disposal of radioactive material. The types and amounts of nonradioactive material generated during decommissioning would be similar to those generated at the Janesville site. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIS would be used during decommissioning to ensure that worker and public radiation doses and exposure to nonradioactive chemicals remain within NRC and State limits. In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there would be no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and operations, and radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to ensure hazards to workers and the public would be within NRC and State limits, the NRC staff concludes the impacts on human health from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. 5.2.2.9 Waste Management Construction The construction of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would generate similar types and volumes of waste to those for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from construction (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-27 Operations The radiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would generate similar types and volumes of radioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). In addition, management of the radioactive waste would be similar, regardless of the location of the proposed facility. Implementation of a radiation protection program to minimize radiation exposure from the radioactive waste and to ensure compliance with worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 would be essentially the same as those discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS for a proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). The nonradiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would generate similar types and volumes of nonradioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive material, would be essentially the same as those discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS for a proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from radiological and nonradiological waste generated during facility operations at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the radiological and nonradiological impacts on human health from waste generated from operating the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to that proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the two sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2015a). After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. The types and amounts of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes generated during decommissioning would be similar to those generated at the Janesville site. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIS would be used during decommissioning to protect workers and the public from the waste (SHINE 2013a). In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there would be no significant differences between the two sites or the facility's design and operation, and radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to protect workers and the public from the waste, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from waste during decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-28 5.2.2.10 Transportation Major roads and transportation features in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site are shown in Figure 5-1. The site lies northeast of the City of Chippewa Falls and is bordered by Commerce Parkway (Old State Trunk Highway 178) to the west, County Highway S to the north, and State Trunk Highway 178 (Seymour Cray Boulevard) to the east. Commerce Parkway is a two-lane road along which access to the site would be constructed. At the northwest corner of the site, Commerce Parkway intersects with County Highway S at a two-way stop. South of the site, Commerce Parkway intersects with County Highway I at a signalized intersection. Like Commerce Parkway, County Highway S is also a two-lane road with paved shoulders, while County Highway I is a four-lane road with curbed shoulders and a two-way turning lane as the median. The nearest major highway to the Chippewa Falls site is U.S. Highway 53, located approximately 5 mi (8 km) to the west, while Interstate 94 is located approximately 13 mi (21 km) to the south (SHINE 2013a). Annual average daily traffic volumes for various roads and locations in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site are listed in Table 5-4. Morning, midday, and evening peak hourly traffic counts for associated locations are listed in Table 5-5. Available traffic data for Commerce Parkway near the Chippewa Falls site suggests that peak traffic along this corridor averages between 200 and 300 vehicles per hour (WDOT 2011a). Table 5-4. Annual Average Daily Traffic CountsVicinity of Chippewa Falls Site Traffic Count Location Vehicles Per Day Commerce Parkway, between County Highway S & County Highway I 3,700 County Highway S, west of Commerce Parkway 4,600 County Highway S, east of Commerce Parkway 3,800 County Highway I, west of Commerce Parkway near 140th Street 3,400 County Highway I, between Commerce Parkway and State Highway 178 5,600 Interstate 39, U.S. Highway 53, north of County Highway S 11,100 Source: WDOT 2008a Table 5-5. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic CountsVicinity of Chippewa Falls SiteNumber of Vehicles WDOT Count Site # Location Year of Count A.M. Peak(a) Midday Peak(b) P.M. Peak(c) Daily Total 090200 Commerce Parkway (Old State Trunk Highway 178), south of County Highway S 2011 207 211 284 3,050 090882 County Highway S, west of State Trunk Highway 178 2011 355 344 439 5,166 090198 County Highway S, between State Trunk Highway 24 & 149th Street 2011 347 341 394 4,923 090796 County Highway I, between Scheidler Road & State Trunk Highway 178 (Seymour Cray Blvd) 2011 457 488 529 6,098 090794 State Trunk Highway 178 (Seymour Cray Boulevard), between County Highway I and Chippewa River 2011 670 656 890 9,895 Alternatives 5-29 WDOT Count Site # Location Year of Count A.M. Peak(a) Midday Peak(b) P.M. Peak(c) Daily Total (a) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 00:00 and 09:59. (b) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 10:00 and 14:59. (c) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 15:00 and 23:59. Source: WDOT 2011a Construction Given that construction at the Chippewa Falls site would be very similar to that described for the proposed Janesville site, SHINE estimated that construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would require an average of 420 deliveries per month (14 deliveries per day) and 9 offsite waste shipments per month using heavy vehicles (dump trucks/delivery trucks) (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during construction would add an estimated 451 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff similarly assumed that, with a total of 465 vehicles per day, each having an arrival and departure trip, and some vehicles making return trips during the day (e.g., offsite trips for lunch), vehicle counts immediately adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility may temporarily increase by approximately 1,000 trips per day. As with the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, no sources or routes for construction materials, including concrete, have been specified, and SHINE plans to ensure that delivery routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas associated with the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2013). SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC's regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin's Administrative Code, Chapter 326, "Transportation"; and the Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). Table 5-4 indicates that Commerce Parkway experiences approximately 3,700 vehicles per day adjacent to the Chippewa Falls site. Accordingly, the addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips per day) from SHINE construction activities would result in an increased traffic volume on Commerce Parkway of up to 27 percent. Additionally, the percentage of heavy trucks on this route would temporarily increase. However, available traffic counts do not distinguish between types of vehicles currently traveling this route, and the increase in traffic volume would be temporary and limited to the period of construction. SHINE's traffic analysis indicated that projected levels of peak construction-related traffic could noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, but these delays would not be sufficient to destabilize the transportation infrastructure (SHINE 2015a). SHINE plans to use a staggered construction work shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto Commerce Parkway and schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help mitigate the potential two-to-three-fold increases in traffic that could occur during peak periods (SHINE 2013b). Increased traffic volumes on Commerce Parkway may also merit mitigation in the form of infrastructure upgrades at its intersections with County Highways S and I. Increased traffic volumes on other roads in the vicinity are expected to be less but could still be significant (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during construction would be MODERATE. Alternatives 5-30 Operations Given that operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls sites would be very similar to that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that a maximum of 150 worker vehicles distributed over three work shifts per day would access the site using Commerce Parkway (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff estimated that each vehicle would require separate trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility, plus a number of trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility during the midshift, resulting in approximately 325 additional worker vehicle trips daily. The additional 325 vehicle trips associated with the Chippewa Falls site represents an increase of less than 10 percent of the average annual daily traffic on roads in the area. In addition to operations employees commuting to the proposed facility, SHINE estimated that additional traffic to and from the facility would also include: an average of 36 truck deliveries per month to the proposed SHINE facility, which would include both radioactive and nonradioactive materials (SHINE 2015a, 2015b); an average of 39 outbound product shipments per month through the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport (SHINE 2015b); an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year (SHINE 2015b); and an average of one shipment per month of nonradioactive domestic and industrial waste (SHINE 2015a, 2015b). SHINE's preferred method of product shipments would be to transport product by truck from the Chippewa Falls site to the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, approximately 10 mi (16 km) away, for air transport to customers. The next closest available airport for product shipment is the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, located approximately 2 hours west of the Chippewa Falls site on Interstate 94 (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility to increase slightly above current levels during operation but not to an appreciable extent when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site, as presented in Tables 5-3 and 5-4. Similar to the activities that would occur at the Janesville site, SHINE would transport radioactive waste from the Chippewa Falls site to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal facility. A common-carrier truck would likely transport the waste. SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC's regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin's Administrative Code, Chapter 326, "Transportation"; and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure public health and safety on roadways. Based on the relatively small increase in traffic compared to the average daily and annual traffic flows near the Chippewa Falls site, and because SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and the State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material, the NRC staff concludes that the impact on transportation infrastructure during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Given that decommissioning the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be very similar to that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that an average of 72 truck deliveries and 191 offsite waste shipments per month, (a total of approximately nine heavy-vehicle shipments per day) would be required (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during Alternatives 5-31 decommissioning would add an estimated 261 vehicles per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff estimates that there could be an increase of approximately 580 trips a day on local roads during the decommissioning phase, increasing average daily traffic on roads in the immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site from what was being experienced during the operations phase. Peak decommissioning-related traffic could noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, but these delays would not be sufficient to destabilize the transportation infrastructure. SHINE could use a staggered work shift schedule, similar to that employed during construction, to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto Commerce Parkway and schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013b). However, the change in average daily traffic flows in the immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site and an increase in commuter, truck delivery, as well as waste traffic directly related to decommissioning activities, could affect local commuting patterns. Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the decommissioning phase would be MODERATE. 5.2.2.11 Accidents SHINE stated, in its ER, that no conditions have been identified for the Chippewa Falls site that would significantly affect the radiological or nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents differently than at the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff considers this assumption reasonable, because the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be essentially the same as at the Janesville site since the design, construction, operations, and decommissioning are similar. In addition, the same radiological and nonradiological safety regulations applicable to the Janesville site would apply to the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.11 of this EIS, the NRC concluded that the impacts from radiological and nonradiological accidents at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Given that no significant differences exist between the two sites or their facility design and operations, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. 5.2.2.12 Environmental Justice This section describes the potential human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. The NRC addresses environmental justice issues and concerns by first identifying potentially affected minority and low-income populations and then determining whether there would be any potential human health or environmental effects and whether these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority-population data were available for Census block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius around the Chippewa Falls site. Low-income population data were only available at the Census tract level, because of the limited availability of poverty data at the block group level. To protect confidentiality, the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) does not publish information about small geographic areas if the population size is too small. Race and ethnicity and poverty Census data were used to identify the location of minority and low-income populations near the Chippewa Falls site. If the Census tract and block group boundaries crossed the 5-mi (8-km) radius boundary, the entire Census tract or Census block group data were used. Geographic information system software was used to create the maps. Alternatives 5-32 Minority Population According to 2010 Census information, 6.5 percent of the total population in the City of Chippewa Falls identified themselves as a minority. The largest minority group was Black or African American, followed by Hispanic or Latino (of any race). In Chippewa County, 5.4 percent of the total population identified themselves as a minority (USCB 2014c). Table 5-6 lists minority population block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site; 4.7 percent of the total population within that radius identified themselves as a minority (UCSB 2014a). The largest minority group was Hispanic or Latino (of any race) at 1.3 percent, followed by Asian at 1.1 percent (USCB 2014c). Figure 5-3 shows minority population block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site. Census block groups were considered minority population block groups if the percentage of the minority population within any block group exceeded 4.7 percent. Seven of the 20 Census block groups were determined to have meaningfully greater minority populations. The Chippewa Falls site is located in Census Tract 105, Block Group 4, which has the highest minority population, at 12.4 percent. Figure 5-3. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site Source: USCB 2014c, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race Alternatives 5-33 Table 5-6. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site Census Tract Block Group Total Population Percent Minority Total Minority Population Hispanic or Latino Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Two or More Races 102 1 2,312 4.2 98 30 12 14 30 0 12 102 2 2,764 6.9 191 67 16 8 72 0 28 102 3 1,691 4.6 78 28 6 10 14 0 20 103 1 729 5.8 43 16 12 4 1 0 10 103 2 791 3.7 30 14 0 5 1 1 9 103 3 754 3.3 25 4 5 4 4 0 8 103 4 944 3.8 36 13 6 7 1 0 9 103 5 1,281 3.7 48 14 4 4 14 0 12 103 6 966 5.5 54 25 1 2 19 0 7 104 1 2,340 2.2 52 22 3 7 10 0 10 104 3 1,345 5.8 79 10 5 5 57 0 2 105 1 778 3.8 30 14 7 0 4 0 5 105 2 1,076 5.6 61 11 13 1 14 1 21 105 3 1,047 5.4 57 7 6 13 6 0 25 105 4 2,477 12.4 306 55 158 36 27 1 29 107 2 2,505 2.7 69 20 7 3 18 0 21 107 3 3,760 4.2 158 43 17 16 38 0 44 110 4 1,395 2.0 28 7 1 2 6 0 12 110 5 1,403 2.4 35 6 8 2 4 0 15 112 4 1,288 1.0 13 7 1 0 3 0 2 Source: USCB 2014c, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race. Alternatives 5-34 Low-Income Population According to the 2006-2010 American Community Survey estimates, 10.7 percent of families and 14.3 percent of all people residing in Chippewa County were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold. In addition, in the City of Chippewa Falls, 11.4 percent of families and 14.8 percent of all people were identified as living below the Federal poverty level. The 2010 Federal poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four (USCB 2014d). Table 5-7 lists low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site; 9.3 percent of the total population within that radius was identified as living below the Federal poverty level (UCSB 2014d). Census tracts were considered low-income population tracts if the percentage of individuals living below the Federal poverty level exceeded 9.3 percent. Figure 5-4 shows low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site. Two of the seven Census tracts were found to have meaningfully greater low-income populations. The Chippewa Falls site is located within Census Tract 105 and has the highest percentage (15.3 percent) of population living below the Federal poverty level. Table 5-7. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site Census Tract Census Tract Total Population Estimates Number of People Below Poverty Level for Census Tract Percentage Below Poverty Level for All People (Estimates) 102 6,349 599 8.8 103 5,518 723 13.1 104 4,644 223 4.8 105 5,221 779 15.3 107 7,295 635 8.7 110 6,990 594 8.5 112 6,428 431 6.7 Source: USCB 2014d, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics Alternatives 5-35 Figure 5-4. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site Source: USCB 2014d, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics Analysis of Impacts As previously discussed, the environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. Some of these potential effects have been described in the other resource areas discussed in this EIS. Chapter 5 presents the assessment of environmental and human health impacts for each environmental resource area. In the impact analysis, the NRC first identified all potential human health and environmental effects and then determined the significance of the impact and whether or not minority or low-income populations would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. The NRC then considered whether the radiological or other health effects were significant or above generally accepted norms, whether the risk or rate of the hazard was significant and appreciably in excess of that of the general population, and whether the radiological or other health effects would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards. The NRC determined whether the following human health and environmental effects have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility site: radiological and nonradiological human health impacts (Section 5.2.2.8), noise impacts (Section 5.2.2.2), and Alternatives 5-36 traffic impacts (Section 5.2.2.10). The NRC also considered whether there would be an impact on the natural or physical environment that would significantly and adversely affect a particular group, whether there would be any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or are likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population, and whether environment effects would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from an environmental hazard. Construction Similar to constructing the SHINE facility at the Janesville site, potential impacts on minority and low-income populations residing near the Chippewa Falls site would mostly consist of environmental effects during construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads, particularly in Census Tract 105, could be disproportionately affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust from construction. However, because of the temporary nature of construction, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations within the ROI (Chippewa County), who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of construction workers and the likelihood that most workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could commute to the construction site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing. Operations Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations during SHINE facility operations at the Chippewa Falls site would mostly consist of radiological and nonradiological human health and environmental (e.g., noise and traffic) effects. Everyone living near the Chippewa Falls site would be exposed to the same potential operational effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions. As discussed in the Human Health section of this EIS (Section 5.2.2.8), the level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and State of Wisconsin regulatory limits. As a result, minority or low-income populations, as well as the general population living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility site, would not be adversely affected by radiation exposure during facility operations. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are also expected to remain within regulatory standards. As discussed in the Noise section of this EIS (Section 5.2.2.2), noise emissions from commuter traffic during SHINE facility operations would increase. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE facility buildings at the site. However, additional noise emissions from worker vehicles would be minor (1 dBA), and noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels beyond current levels. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic during facility operations. However, as discussed in the Transportation section of this EIS (Section 5.2.2.10), the only appreciable impact would be a "slight degradation of service" (i.e., traffic delays) at intersections during the morning peak hour. The overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility would increase slightly during facility operations but would not be of an Alternatives 5-37 appreciable nature when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. Therefore, offsite noise and traffic impacts caused by the proposed SHINE facility operations would be SMALL for both of these resource areas. Nevertheless, given the fact that the Chippewa Falls site is located in a designated minority block group and low-income Census tract, minority and low-income populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility during operations could be disproportionately affected. However, based on the analyses of impacts conducted for other resource areas discussed in this EIS, impacts on minority or low-income populations, as well as to the general population living in close proximity to the Chippewa Falls site, would not be considered high and adverse. Decommissioning Similar to construction impacts, potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects during decommissioning (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during the decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads, particularly in Census Tract 105, would be disproportionately affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust during decommissioning. However, because of the temporary nature of decommissioning, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for rental housing during decommissioning could cause rental costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of decommissioning workers and the likelihood that most workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could commute to the Chippewa Falls site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing. In addition, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL for all resource areas. There is no evidence that impacts from decommissioning would be disproportionately high and adverse to minority or low-income populations. Subsistence and Special Conditions As discussed in Section 4.12, the special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the environmental justice analysis, because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area, such as migrant workers or Native Americans. Based on the air and water quality discussions and the discussion of human health effects in this EIS for this alternative, it is unlikely that there would be any disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, or wildlife. The operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on these populations. Summary The Chippewa Falls site is located in the pre-existing Wissota Lake Business Park in a designated minority and low-income population block group and Census tract. Similar to the Janesville site, minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicular traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Chippewa Falls site would not adversely affect minority and Alternatives 5-38 low-income populations living near the existing business park. The level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and State of Wisconsin regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income populations residing near the existing business park and the Chippewa Falls site could experience short-term disproportionate, but not high and adverse, environmental effects during construction and decommissioning. In addition, based on the discussions of air and water quality and human health effects for this alternative, SHINE facility operations at the Chippewa Falls site would not likely cause high and adverse human health or environmental effects for minority and low-income populations. 5.2.2.13 Cumulative Impacts The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects and other actions that could result in cumulative impacts at the Chippewa Falls site were identified by reviewing published and unpublished data, including economic development plans, permit lists, news releases, and similar sources of information. Current and reasonably foreseeable activities included relevant activities conducted, regulated, approved, or proposed by a Federal agency or non-Federal entity within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site. Available information about the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and other activities is provided in Table 5-8. Table 5-8. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions Within a 5-mi (8-km) Radius of the Chippewa Falls Site Project/ Company Name Summary of Project Location Status EOG Resources Inc. Silica sand processing plant Chippewa Falls, 1.0 mi (1.6 km) southwest Operational (Chippewa Herald 2012; EOG Resources 2012) Wissota Green Housing Development Building of 120 housing unit neighborhood with an estimated capacity of 300 residents Chippewa Falls, 1.0 mi (1.6 km) southwest Initial project proposal denied by Chippewa Falls Planning Commission in 2013; developer plans to adjust design and conduct public outreach and reapply for approval (Chippewa Herald 2013) CN Railway Intermodal Facility Rail-to-truck transfer facility Chippewa Falls, 2.0 mi (3.2 km) southwest Operational (CN 2014) Chippewa Falls Irvine Park and Zoo Updates to current exhibits, such as visitor and artifact center Chippewa Falls, 2.0 mi (3.2 km) Currently operational; proposed construction to begin in 2015 after fundraising is completed (Vetter 2013) Indianhead Plating, Inc. Industrial hard-chrome plating and cylindrical grinding facility Chippewa Falls, 2.0 mi (3.2 km) Operational (WDNR 2015a) Spectrum Industries Construction of burnoff oven for paint hangers Chippewa Falls, 2.0 mi (3.2 km) Air construction permit issued in February 2011 (WDNR 2015b) Great Northern Corporation Construction of printers Chippewa Falls, 2.0 mi (3.2 km) Air construction permit issued in March 2011 (WDNR 2015c) Alternatives 5-39 Project/ Company Name Summary of Project Location Status Dairyland Power Creek Landfill Gas to Renewable Energy Station Modifications to an existing internal combustion engine and existing landfill gas to energy generating facility Eau Claire, 2.0 mi (3.2 km) Air construction permit issued in March 2011 (WDNR 2015d) Lake Wissota Business Park 200-ac (80-ha)-plus mixed-use business park available for industrial, office, and commercial uses SHINE site would occupy northern third of park Majority of site currently undeveloped; site is a Wisconsin-Certified Shovel-Ready Site, meaning Chippewa County and the State have proactively addressed major permitting and development issues (WEDC 2014a, 2014b) Land Use and Visual Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on land use and visual resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.1 serves as baseline conditions for the cumulative impact assessment of land use and visual resources. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.2.1. Land Use The projects and activities described in Table 5-8 would result in minimal changes to existing land uses, because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use. Future urbanization and global climate change could contribute to additional decreases in agricultural lands, forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Urbanization in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site would alter important attributes of land use. Urbanization would reduce natural vegetation and agricultural fields, resulting in an overall decline in the extent and connectivity of wetlands, forests, grasslands, and wildlife habitat. Global climate change could reduce crop yields and livestock productivity (USGCRP 2014), which may change portions of agricultural land uses. However, existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas. In addition, zoning laws and comprehensive land use plans would help ensure a proper balance of development (City of Chippewa Falls 1999). Pursuant to the Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations, the presence of important farmland soils (7 CFR 657.5), including prime farmland, was included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Development projects listed in Table 5-8 would incrementally and cumulatively add to the loss of important farmland soils, including prime farmland soils, in the region surrounding the proposed site and across the City of Chippewa Falls. Otherwise qualifying farm lands in or already committed to urban development; lands acquired for a project on or before August 4, 1984; and lands acquired or used by a Federal agency for national defense purposes are exempt from the Act's provisions (7 CFR 658.2 and 658.3). Because many of the proposed projects have been committed to development, the sites do not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Act. Some of the proposed projects would convert prime farmland into other uses. Regardless, the conversion of otherwise qualifying soils Alternatives 5-40 by projects within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site would have a relatively minor impact on the inventory of important farmland soils within Chippewa County. This is because approximately 60 percent of the soils in the county would be classified as important farmland soil (Chippewa County 2010). Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use, cumulative impacts on land use resources would be SMALL. Visual Resources The projects and activities described in Table 5-8 would result in minimal changes to the existing viewshed, because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use. Furthermore, the viewshed within the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site is agricultural, light industrial, or residential. Within undeveloped areas, where a new structure would change qualities of the existing landscape, the viewshed is generally of low scenic quality because of a lack of notable features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, mute colors, and a commonality within the physiographic province. Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use and of low scenic quality, the NRC staff determined that cumulative impacts on visual resources would be SMALL. Air Quality and Noise This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on air quality and noise, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.2. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on noise would be SMALL to MODERATE. Air Quality The ROI considered for the air quality analysis for a facility located in Chippewa Falls is Chippewa County, since air quality designations for criteria air pollutants are generally made at the county level. As shown in Table 5-8, the ongoing and future projects located within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site involve air permits. While these projects increase air emission concentrations within the county, the activities would need to comply with the requirements stipulated in the permit, which would minimize cumulative impacts. Therefore, these activities and projects are not expected to have significant impacts on air quality. Climate change can affect air quality as a result of changes in meteorological conditions. The combination of higher temperatures, stagnant air masses, sunlight, and emissions of precursors may make it difficult to meet NAAQSs (USGCRP 2014). States, however, must continue to comply with the Clean Air Act and ensure air quality standards are met. The NRC staff determined that the potential cumulative air quality impact associated with SHINE operations, in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would be SMALL, primarily because projects that have overlapping impacts with the proposed SHINE facility would need to comply with requirements stipulated in air permits and would have relatively low emissions. Alternatives 5-41 Noise The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site. Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When distance is doubled from a point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (MPCA 2014). For example, at half a mile distance from construction equipment with noise levels in the range of 85-90 dBA, noise levels can drop to 51-61 dBA and at a 1-mi (1.6-km) distance, noise levels drop further to 45-55 dBA. Generally, a 3-dBA change over existing noise levels is considered to be a "just noticeable" difference, and a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (NWCC 2002). Some of the projects in Table 5-8 could produce increases in ambient noise that might affect some of the same areas at the Chippewa Falls site, since they involve construction activities. However, these projects are located 1 to 2 mi (1.6 to 3.2 km) from the Chippewa Falls site and noise impacts are not expected to be significant. For instance, construction equipment can result in noise levels in the range of 85-90 dBA; however, noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance, such that at half a mile distance from construction equipment, noise levels can drop to 51-61 dBA (NRC 2002). Therefore, these projects would not be expected to have significant noise impacts. The NRC staff determined that cumulative impacts on noise levels would be SMALL to MODERATE. Geologic Environment This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on the geologic environment, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts on the geologic environment primarily relate to land disturbance and the potential for soil erosion and loss, as well as the projected consumption of geologic resources. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.3 serves as the baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of the geologic environment. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on soil resources includes the 5-mi (8-km) vicinity surrounding the proposed site. For geologic resources, the extent of the geologic area of analysis has been expanded to all of Chippewa County to encompass potential commercial sources of rock and mineral resources to support construction activities at the propose site and vicinity. As the aspects of land disturbance and conversion are addressed separately in the Land Use section above, the cumulative impacts analysis here will focus on soil loss, including the loss of prime farmland soils and other important farmland soils, and consumption of geologic resources. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on the geologic environment, including geologic and soil resources, would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.2.3. New development and expansion projects listed in Table 5-8 would consume or extract geologic resources, including rock and mineral resources, or would require materials derived from such geologic resources (e.g., concrete). However, common construction materials such as sand and gravel and crushed stone are available and widely abundant in Chippewa County (Section 5.2.2.3) or are available regionally. Neither the geologic resource requirements to construct the proposed SHINE facility nor the resource requirements of the other projects identified in Table 5-8 are on a scale that would be likely to affect the regional sources and supplies of the identified resources. Given the relatively minor impact on important farmland soils and the abundance of geologic resources regionally, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts on geologic and soil resources would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-42 Water Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on water resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts on surface-water resources relate to issues concerning water use, water quality, and potential climate change. This further encompasses water withdrawal, effluent discharges, accidental spills and releases, and stormwater drainage and runoff. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.4 serves as a baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of water resources. For surface-water resources, the extent of the geographic area of analysis has been expanded to include Lake Wissota and portions of the Chippewa River downstream of the proposed site. For groundwater resources, the area considered encompasses the local groundwater basin in which groundwater is recharged and flows to discharge points and those aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn through wells. Specifically, the cumulative impacts analysis focuses on those projects and activities that, when combined with the proposed action, would: (1) withdraw water from or discharge wastewater to the segment of the Chippewa River downstream of the proposed site or (2) would use groundwater or could otherwise affect the same aquifers that would supply water to the proposed site. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.4, impacts on water resources at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. In addition to the proposed SHINE facility, new development and expansion projects listed in Table 5-8 and disturbing greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha) of land would have to obtain and comply with the provisions of a General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific construction site erosion control plan, including specific BMPs, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management). Permits issued to all new stormwater and industrial wastewater dischargers would include provisions as part of Wisconsin-issued NPDES permits to comply with applicable water-quality-based effluent limitations and wasteload allocations established for downstream receiving waters. The proposed SHINE facility would have no direct sanitary or other wastewater discharges to surface water or groundwater. The SHINE facility and other entities within the Wissota Lake Business Park would be served by the City of Chippewa Falls WTP, which has excess treatment capacity (Section 5.2.2.4). While protection of groundwater quality in surficial aquifers and conservation of local groundwater supplies is a concern across Wisconsin, the county's groundwater supply is considered adequate to meet the domestic, agricultural, municipal, and industrial needs in the county for the foreseeable future (Chippewa County 2010). As a result of climate change, the Midwest may continue to experience an increase in annual precipitation, along with an increase in annual and seasonal temperatures. Increased precipitation, particularly during the spring and winter months, could increase groundwater recharge (USGCRP 2014). Regardless, the proposed SHINE facility and other projects within the Wissota Lake Business Park would be served by the Chippewa Falls municipal water system (Section 5.2.2.4). Furthermore, neither the proposed SHINE facility nor any of the projects identified in Table 5-8 would be expected to require substantial volumes of groundwater or surface water that would affect water availability for other potential uses or users. Given the requirements to comply with stormwater permits, the capacity of the City of Chippewa Falls WTP, and the relatively small volumes of water required for the projects listed in Table 5-8, the NRC staff finds that the cumulative impacts on water resources would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-43 Ecological Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on ecological resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.5 serves as a baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of ecological resources. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on ecological resources includes the area surrounding the Chippewa Falls site that is ecological, connected to the onsite ecological resources (e.g., the watershed surrounding the Chippewa Falls site). The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.2.5. Since European settlement, prairies, forests, and wetlands have been greatly reduced by at least 50 to 80 percent and converted into agricultural fields, industrial uses, and residential and commercial areas. Remaining tracts of grasslands, forests, and wetlands tend to be relatively small and isolated, which results in lower quality habitat than large tracts of habitat, because of the different biological and physical characteristics along the edge of a habitat patch (WDNR 2013c). Current threats to terrestrial and aquatic habitats include increased soil, nutrients, and other pollutants washing into streams and lakes from urban and agricultural stormwater runoff; continued conversion and fragmentation of wildlife habitat from development; introduction of invasive species; and climate change (WDNR 2013c; USGCRP 2014). These activities will likely decrease the overall availability and quality of forested, grassland, and wetland habitats. Species with threatened, endangered, or declining populations are likely to be more sensitive to declines in habitat availability and quality and the introduction of invasive species. New development projects identified in Table 5-8 are likely to have minimal impacts on ecological resources, because all the projects are sited within areas that are currently agricultural land, open space, or developed. These types of land covers provide low-quality habitat for wildlife, birds, and aquatic resources. However, as environmental stressors, such as runoff from agricultural fields and urban areas and climate change, continue over the next few decades, certain attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (such as habitat quality) are likely to noticeably change. The staff does not expect these impacts to destabilize any important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment, because such impacts will cause gradual change, which should allow the terrestrial and aquatic environment to appropriately adapt. The NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the SHINE facility, plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions would result in MODERATE impacts on terrestrial and aquatic resources. Historic and Cultural Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on historic and cultural resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area considered in this analysis is the APE associated with the proposed SHINE facility, the Chippewa Falls site, and its immediate vicinity. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.6, the impacts on historic and cultural resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. The archaeological record for the region indicates prehistoric and historic occupation. Historic land development and prolonged agricultural use of the APE resulted in impacts on, and the Alternatives 5-44 loss of, cultural resources in the APE and its immediate vicinity. As described in Section 5.2.2.6, no known historic or cultural resources or historic properties are present within the APE. However, there remains the possibility for inadvertent discovery of historic or cultural resources within the APE. Direct impacts would occur if historic and cultural resources in the APE were to be physically removed or disturbed. Indirect visual impacts could occur from new construction or maintenance. The only foreseeable project within the APE is the SHINE facility and the potential discovery of cultural resources on the proposed site. Should they be discovered, any cultural resources would be managed using SHINE BMPs developed for the proposed Janesville site (e.g., cultural resource management procedures and training) (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Therefore, the cumulative impact on historic and cultural resources of the proposed SHINE facility, when combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities, would be SMALL. Socioeconomics This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on current socioeconomic conditions within the ROI from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.7 serves as a baseline for the cumulative socioeconomic impact assessment. The geographic area of analysis is the ROI, Chippewa County. Section 5.2.2.7 found that socioeconomic impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Table 5-8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Relevant "other actions" that are considered in this cumulative impacts analysis are future construction projects that would bring new business and people to the ROI, such as the Wissota Green Housing Development and expansion of the Chippewa Falls Zoo. Depending on the number of workers needed to support the construction of the Wissota Green Housing Development and expansion of the Chippewa Falls Zoo, as well as the total number of units built within the Wissota Green Housing Development, there is the potential for increased population, employment, tax revenue, and demand for public services in the ROI. The Wissota Green Housing Development would house 300 residents (Chippewa Herald 2013). However, as discussed in Section 5.2.2.7, Chippewa County has adequate public services, including the water utility, to accommodate any population changes. Any increase in employment from construction or decommissioning would be temporary, while permanent job creation as a result of the Chippewa Falls Zoo expansion would have little if any socioeconomic impact. Therefore, the contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, would be SMALL. Human Health This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects on human health of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls site. In Section 5.2.2.8, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-45 St. Joseph's Hospital, which conducts radiological procedures, is within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2013a). The use of radioactive materials for medical diagnosis and treatment is regulated by the State of Wisconsin. The NRC and the Governor of Wisconsin signed an agreement transferring regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to the State of Wisconsin, which became the 33rd Agreement State, effective August 11, 2003. As an Agreement State, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services is responsible for licensing and inspecting the above-named materials, except at nuclear power plants and Federal facilities (WDHS 2014). No nuclear fuel cycle facilities occur within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls site that would contribute to the cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative radiological impacts from the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site and the potential impacts from the use of radioactive materials at St. Joseph's Hospital. Both facilities are or would be licensed and regulated, SHINE by the NRC and St. Joseph's Hospital by the State of Wisconsin; the facilities are or would be required to maintain radiation doses to their workers and members of the public within Federal and State dose limits. Also, being approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) apart, radioactive emissions within regulatory limits would be further reduced through the processes of dispersion and dilution as they travel in the atmosphere. Based on the regulatory controls that are or would be in place to control radiation exposure, the distance between the facilities, and the dilution of the radioactive materials, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts on human health would be SMALL. Table 5-8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates the use of nonradioactive materials (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at St. Joseph's Hospital and would regulate their use at the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site. As discussed in Section 4.9, the State of Wisconsin has regulations for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500 (SHINE 2015a). Both SHINE and St. Joseph's Hospital are or would be regulated by the State and are or would be required to maintain chemical exposure to their workers and members of the public within State limits. Also, being approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) apart, nonradioactive emissions that are within regulatory limits are or would be reduced as they travel in the atmosphere through the processes of dispersion and dilution. Based on the regulatory controls that will be in place to control chemical exposure, the distance between the facilities listed in Table 5-8, and the dilution of the nonradioactive materials, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative nonradiological impacts on human health would be SMALL. Waste Management This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site from radioactive and nonradioactive wastes, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls site. In Section 5.2.2.9, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from types and volumes of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-46 As described above in the Human Health section, St. Joseph's Hospital, which conducts radiological procedures, is within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the Chippewa Falls site and is regulated by the State of Wisconsin (SHINE 2013a). No nuclear fuel cycle facilities occur within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls site that would contribute to the cumulative impacts from radioactive wastes. Therefore, the NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative impacts from radioactive waste from the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site and the potential impacts from the disposal of radioactive waste at St. Joseph's Hospital. Radioactive waste at both facilities is or would be regulated, at SHINE by the NRC and at St. Joseph's Hospital by the State of Wisconsin. The facilities are or would be required to store, process, and dispose of radioactive wastes in accordance with Federal and State requirements. As discussed in Section 4.9, radioactive wastes generated by the proposed SHINE facility would be packaged and transported off site to a licensed low-level radioactive waste facility for disposal (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.9, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from radioactive wastes generated by and disposed of from the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Radioactive waste generated at St. Joseph's Hospital would also be packaged and transported off site to a licensed low-level waste facility for disposal. Based on the regulatory controls on packaging and transporting radioactive waste, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts from radioactive waste would be SMALL. Table 5-8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates the use and disposal of nonradioactive waste (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at St. Joseph's Hospital and would regulate their use and disposal at the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site. As discussed in Section 4.9, the State of Wisconsin has regulations for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500. Both facilities, SHINE and St. Joseph's Hospital, are or would be regulated by the State and are or would be required to safely store, package, transport, and dispose of nonradioactive wastes in accordance with State requirements. Based on the state's regulatory controls that are or would be in place to control nonradioactive wastes for the facilities listed in Table 5-8, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts from nonradioactive wastes would be SMALL. Transportation This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on radiological and nonradiological transportation, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on transportation is primarily the same as that used in Section 5.2.2.10 and includes the site boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls site. However, the roads for routes that could be used for delivery of medical isotopes (if air transport is not possible) or disposal of wastes were also considered. Transportation infrastructure includes roadways, rail lines, airports, and traffic-control devices. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.10, transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Construction projects in Table 5-8 could produce an increase in vehicular traffic on roads within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site. For example, the Wissota Green Housing Development would involve the construction of a new housing development for approximately 300 people, and the construction and operation of the Wissota Business Park would add employees commuting on roads near the Chippewa Falls site. Depending on the number of workers required and whether construction projects within the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site Alternatives 5-47 were occurring at the same time as the SHINE facility's construction, operations, or decommissioning, traffic on access roads would increase. Most existing roads would be sufficient to handle the construction project's transportation activities, and alternative routes could be used to minimize transportation impacts. In some cases, however, a noticeable increase in traffic could occur, especially if construction timeframes overlapped and construction workers and vehicles used the same roads. Therefore, depending on whether other construction projects overlapped with construction, operations, or decommissioning of the SHINE facility, or whether increased vehicular activity from workers or residents on roads near the Chippewa Falls site had a noticeable impact on traffic, the NRC staff concludes that cumulative transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Environmental Justice The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential contributory human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on minority and low-income populations, and whether these effects might be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing near the Chippewa Falls site, and everyone would be exposed to the same environmental effects generated by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. As discussed in Section 5.2.2, the Chippewa Falls site is located in the preexisting Wissota Lake Business Park in a block group and Census tract that exceed both geographic area averages for minority and low-income populations. The geographic area of analysis is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Chippewa Falls site would not have high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Table 5-8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic area of analysis that could contribute cumulative human health and environmental effects. Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental effects from construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, increased noise and dust during construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicular traffic during construction. However, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations that rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the availability of workers and the likelihood of workers commuting to the construction site, the need for rental housing could be reduced. Operational emissions from manufacturing or industrial facilities within the 5-mile (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility. However, everyone would be exposed to the same potential contributory effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions. Permitted air emissions from all manufacturing and Alternatives 5-48 industrial facilities, including the contributory effects from the proposed SHINE facility, would be expected to remain within regulatory standards. Based on this information and the analysis of human health and other environmental impacts presented in this section of the EIS, the contributory effects of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SHINE facility are not likely to create high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. 5.2.3 Stevens Point Site The NRC staff evaluated the Stevens Point site as a reasonable alternative. The city of Stevens Point is located in central Wisconsin, approximately 110 mi (176 km) north of Madison, Wisconsin; 215 mi (344 km) east of Minneapolis, Minnesota; and 250 mi (400 km) northwest of Chicago, Illinois (Figures 5-5 and 5-6). Specifically, the site is located adjacent to the eastern edge of the corporate boundaries of the City of Stevens Point in Portage County, Wisconsin. No public roads currently border the site. The site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the south. The site is composed of deciduous forest and cropland. No residences or other buildings occur on site. The City of Stevens Point created and recommended the Stevens Point site to SHINE. The city indicated to SHINE that, if the Stevens Point site were selected as the proposed site, the City would annex the site property and install public roads along the northern and western site boundaries. In addition, an overhead electrical line, municipal water supply pipeline, sanitary sewer pipeline, and natural gas pipeline, currently located approximately 0.3 mi (0.48 km) from the site, would need to be extended to the site. The analysis below considers the environmental impacts of building roads, electrical lines, and pipelines, because construction and operation of the SHINE facility would be dependent upon this infrastructure. Alternatives 5-49 Figure 5-5. Population Centers and Transportation Features in Portage County, Wisconsin Source: SHINE 2015a Alternatives 5-50 Figure 5-6. Stevens Point Site Source: SHINE 2013a 5.2.3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources Land Use The Stevens Point site includes 80.4 ac (32 5 ha) of land adjacent to the eastern edge of the corporate boundaries of the City of Stevens Point in Portage County, Wisconsin (Figure 5-6). Based on a review of the National Land Cover Database, the Stevens Point site is composed of 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) of deciduous forest, 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) of cultivated agricultural land, and 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) of mixed forest (Table 5-9) (USGS 2006; SHINE 2013a). Warehouses and open spaces are located west of the site. Agricultural land and forested areas surround the remaining portions of the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2015a). No residences, other structures, special land uses, or mineral resources are located within the Stevens Point site boundaries. Portage County has currently zoned the site partly for agricultural use and partly for industrial use (Portage County 2012). The City of Stevens Point has indicated to SHINE that if the Stevens Point site were selected, the City would annex the site property and zone it entirely for industrial use (SHINE 2015a). The entire site is composed of prime farmland or farmland with soils of statewide importance where otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013b; 7 CFR 657.5). As described above, otherwise qualifying "farmland" soils do not include those on land already in or committed to urban development or water storage, as defined in 7 CFR 658.2. Alternatives 5-51 Table 5-9. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the Stevens Point Site Land Use Category Permanently Disturbed Temporarily Disturbed Total Within Site Boundaries Total Within 5-mi (8-km) Radius Percentage Within 5-mi (8-km) Radius Developed land 13,555 ac (5,486 ha) 27 Cultivated Crops 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) 18,062 ac (7,310 ha) 36 Pasture/Hay 3,617 ac (1,464 ha) 7 Grassland/ Herbaceous 263 ac (106 ha) 1 Shrub/Scrub 51 ac (21 ha) <1 Deciduous Forest 13.9 ac(a) (6.5 ha) 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) 7,538 ac (3,050 ha) 15 Evergreen Forest 1,567 ac (634 ha) 3 Mixed Forest 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) 935 ac (378 ha) 2 Woody Wetlands 2,627 ac (1,063 ha) 5 Emergent, Herbaceous Wetlands 815 ac (330 ha) 2 Open Water 1,127 ac (456 ha) 2 Barren Land (Rock/Sand/ Clay) 109 ac (44 ha) <1 Totals(b) 17.5 ac (7.9 ha) 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) 80.4 ac (32.5 ha) 50,265 ac (20,342 ha) 100 Notes: (a) The footprint of the facility would permanently convert 13.9 ac (6.5 ha). In addition, up to 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) could be cleared to comply with security requirements or other measures. (b) Totals may not add due to rounding. Source: USGS 2006, SHINE 2013a Construction Construction of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would permanently disturb and convert 13.9 ac (6.5 ha) of deciduous forest and 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) of agricultural land to industrial use (Table 5-8). If SHINE needed to clear additional portions of the site to comply with security requirements or other measures, the amount of affected forested areas could be up to 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) (SHINE 2015a). In addition, 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) of agricultural land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking area and construction material staging or laydown areas. Once construction activities are complete, SHINE would likely restore temporarily affected areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie. The Alternatives 5-52 remaining portion of the site would likely remain as open area, forested areas, or agricultural fields, or would be converted to cool season grasses or native prairie. The potential conversion of up to 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) used for agricultural and cultivated crops to other uses would be minor when compared to the 18,062 ac (7,310 ha) of agricultural land remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point site. Similarly, the potential conversion of up to 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) of deciduous forest to other uses would be minor when compared to the 7,538 ac (3,050 ha) of deciduous forest remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point site. Additional forested or agricultural land adjacent to the site would be converted to a new land use to extend existing infrastructure to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. The Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations require agencies to make Farmland Protection Policy Act evaluations part of the NEPA process to reduce the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by Federal projects and programs. Construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would permanently convert 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) and temporarily convert 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) of prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance to industrial use. However, this is a small percentage of the prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance within the region surrounding the Stevens Point site. Furthermore, a portion of the site is currently zoned for light industrial use, and, therefore, this portion of the site would not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Act. Impacts on land use from construction would be SMALL, based on the relatively small amount of farmland and forested areas that would be permanently converted to industrial use, the lack of qualifying important farmland soils within a portion of the affected areas, and the lack of any effect on special land use or mineral resources. Operations Operation of the SHINE facility would not require any new land or require land use changes beyond those required for construction. Therefore, impacts on land use during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Land requirements to perform these activities would be similar to those required during construction. After decommissioning activities are complete, the Stevens Point site could remain industrial or be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. Given that land requirements would be similar to those described during construction and that, after decommissioning is complete, the land would be industrial, agricultural, or an open space, the NRC staff determined that the impacts on land use during decommissioning would be SMALL. Visual Resources The visual setting of the area that would be affected by the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site includes agricultural, forested, and light industrial viewsheds. The viewshed to the north, south, and east of the Stevens Point site is mainly flat or has slightly rolling cultivated fields and deciduous forest. The viewshed to the west is a light industrial landscape, with a few warehouses and other buildings adjacent to the Stevens Point site. Construction The activities associated with constructing the proposed SHINE facility (e.g., excavation, earthmoving, pile driving, and erecting the facility) and extending currently existing infrastructure to the site (e.g., roads, electrical lines, and pipelines) would require large pieces of construction equipment, significantly altering the appearance and partially obstructing views of the existing Alternatives 5-53 landscape. Portions of the Stevens Point site with agricultural fields have low scenic quality caused by a lack of notable features, low vegetation diversity, and mute colors. The forested portion of the site has a higher scenic quality because of its natural setting and higher diversity of vegetation. The viewshed surrounding the site also varies from low to moderate to the mixed presence of cultural modified landscapes (agricultural fields, buildings, and warehouses) along with natural wooded areas. The Stevens Point site has a low-to-moderate sensitivity rating, as it is located in an area with low scenic values resulting from a low amount of use by viewers and a lack of special natural and wilderness areas. The sensitivity rating could be moderate because several sensitive viewing areas exist within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Stevens Point site, including the following: more than 100 residences, a preschool, two child daycare facilities, a medical clinic, a city park, and an exercise track. Nonetheless, trees and existing buildings would block the view from most of these locations, resulting in a partial view of the Stevens Point site during construction. In addition, the viewshed surrounding the Stevens Point site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, such as warehouses and other buildings, and agricultural fields. If SHINE clears the majority of the onsite wooded areas, visibility of the new facility and the contrast between the surrounding landscape and the new facility would be greater. Based on the low-to-moderate scenic quality and the forested and light industrial viewshed in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site, construction-related aesthetic impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE during construction. Operations The appearance of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would not change during operation, other than a small steam plume that may be visible coming from the exhaust stack. The steam plume from the exhaust stack is expected to be minimal, because opacity associated with the natural-gas-fired boiler and heaters tends to be low, as described in Section 4.2.2.1. The steam plume would be more visible during periods of cold weather, although the size of the steam plume would still be relatively small. Therefore, visual impacts during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. After SHINE completed decommissioning activities, the Stevens Point site could remain industrial, or be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. As the facility would be located in a district partially zoned for light industrial use, and the viewshed surrounding the Stevens Point site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, the NRC staff would not expect any changes to the landscape during decommissioning to significantly affect any viewsheds. Therefore, visual impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. 5.2.3.2 Air Quality and Noise Air Quality The climate at Stevens Point is similar to that in Janesville but is colder and has more snowfall, since the site is farther north. According to NCDC records for the years 1981 to 2010 (NCDC 2010b), the average annual temperature is 44 °F (6.5 °C), average annual snowfall is 44.7 in. (114 cm), and average annual precipitation (rain) is 32.63 in. (82.8 cm). July is the warmest month of the year and January the coldest. The NCDC records identify the following extreme weather events in Portage County from 1996 to 2013: thunderstorms (56 events), lightning (11 events), hail (60 events), tornadoes (5 events), heavy rain (7 events), and floods (5 events) (NCDC 2014b). The Stevens Point site is located in Portage County and is part of Alternatives 5-54 the North Central Wisconsin Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.157). Portage County is designated as an attainment area for sulfur dioxide and an attainment/unclassifiable area for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter (40 CFR 81.350). Therefore, criteria pollutant concentrations in the county are lower than the NAAQS or there is insufficient data to determine if the NAAQS are met. The ROI for the air quality analysis discussed below is Portage County, because air quality designations are made at the county level. The nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, about 197 mi (316 km) from the site (EPA 2014).6 Construction Sources of air pollutant emissions during construction of the facility at Stevens Point site would include fugitive dust from earth-moving equipment and other vehicles, criteria pollutants from diesel engines, and exhaust gases from worker vehicles as they commute to and from the Stevens Point construction site. Air emissions from construction of the facility at Stevens Point would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since construction activities and sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel combustion). Additional air emissions would also result from the additional infrastructure needed at the Stevens Point site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4-3. Construction air emissions would be temporary and localized. Portage County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from construction activities at the Stevens Point site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Portage County's attainment/unclassifiable designation. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.2.1, SHINE may be required to obtain a Type A Registration Construction Permit from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR); SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated within the Type A Registration Construction Permit obtained from WDNR. Given the low emissions, the temporary nature of construction activities (18 months), and the pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from WDNR, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL. Operations Sources of air emissions from operating the facility would be from radioisotope production, fuel combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and vehicular traffic from workers commuting and from monthly truck shipments in and out of the facility. Air pollutants from these sources will include nitrogen oxides (from radioisotope production, fuel combustion, vehicular traffic), sulfur dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), particulate matter (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), carbon dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), and carbon monoxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic). Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since operation activities and sources would be similar (worker vehicles, fuel combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and the production process). Portage County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and therefore air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not 6 Rainbow Lake in Wisconsin is the nearest Class 1 area (about 119 mi (192 km) from the Stevens Point site); however, in 1980, Rainbow Lake was excluded for purposes of visibility protection as a Class I area. Alternatives 5-55 expect emissions from a facility at the Stevens Point site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Portage County's attainment/unclassifiable designation. Furthermore, SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated within the Type A Registration Operation Permit from WDNR. Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded, that the Portage County air quality status is good, and that pollution control measures would be required in air permits from WDNR, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during operation would be SMALL. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities in type and duration. Sources of air emissions would be from diesel equipment, vehicle worker emissions, and fugitive dust from earth-moving activities. Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since decommissioning activities and sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel combustion). Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4-9. Air emissions from decommissioning would be temporary and localized. Portage County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from decommissioning at the Stevens Point site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Portage County's attainment/unclassifiable designation. Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded, the decommissioning activities would be temporary, and the Portage County air quality is good, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL. Noise The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of Stevens Point. There are a number of noise-sensitive receptors within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the Stevens Point site and the closest noise-sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 2,060 ft (628 m) from the center point of the Stevens Point site and 1,050 ft (320 m) from the Stevens Point site boundary. The NRC staff did not identify or obtain noise surveys of the Stevens Point site and surrounding area. As discussed in Section 5.3.2.1, the Stevens Point site and surrounding area are agricultural land. Background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA in agricultural cropland areas (EPA 1978). Construction Noise sources during construction of the Stevens Point site would include construction equipment on site and increased traffic volumes. The maximum number of worker vehicles expected on site during construction is 451. The Stevens Point Site is bordered by Eisenhower Road to the west, McDill Avenue to the south, Burbank Road to the east, and Old Highway 18 to the north. The entrance road to the Stevens Point site would connect to a new road that the City of Stevens Point would construct along the northern boundary of the site (Section 5.2.3.10 below). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Eisenhower Highway and McDill Avenue will experience an increase in traffic volumes, regardless of the specific route taken to get to the site, and subsequently will see an increase in noise. Furthermore, because of the location of the entrance road, the nearest resident (approximately 1,050 ft (320 m) away) may experience increased noise levels as workers access the site. The NRC staff expects that, similar to the Janesville site, noise levels from construction traffic would increase no more than 3 dBA. Alternatives 5-56 The types of equipment that would be used on site during construction are listed in Table 4-2. The closest noise-sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 1,060 ft (320 m) from the facility site boundary and 2,060 ft (628 m) from the center point of the Stevens Point facility. The NRC staff estimates noise levels of 58 dBA at the nearest residence to the Stevens Point site. Compared to estimated background noise levels (45 dBA), noise levels from construction may be noticeable to people in the vicinity of the site. Given the distance of the nearest resident to the Stevens Point site and the noise levels from construction activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Operations Noise sources during operation would be from worker vehicular traffic. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and is not expected to be audible outside the proposed building facility. The number of worker vehicles expected during operation is 150 (SHINE 2013a). As discussed above, Eisenhower Road, McDill Road, and the entrance road will experience noise from operations worker's traffic. Additional traffic volume will increase noise levels by about 1 dBA. Given that noise emissions from operating equipment are not expected to be audible beyond the building facility and additional noise emissions from worker vehicles are minor, the NRC staff concludes that impacts from facility operation would be SMALL. Decommissioning Noise sources during decommissioning of the Stevens Point site would include construction equipment on site and increased traffic volumes, similar to construction activities. The maximum number of worker vehicles expected on site during decommissioning is 261. As discussed above, Eisenhower Road, McDill Road, and the entrance road will experience noise from operation worker traffic. Noise levels from decommissioning traffic would be similar to those during construction and would increase about 2 dBA. The types of equipment that would be used on site during decommissioning are listed in Table 4-9. The closest noise-sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 1,060 ft (320 m) from the facility site boundary and 2,060 ft (628 m) from the center point of the Stevens Point facility. The NRC staff estimates noise levels of about 52 to 58 dBA at the residence nearest to the Stevens Point site. Compared to estimated background noise levels (45 dBA), noise levels from construction may be noticeable to people in the vicinity of the site. Given the distance of the nearest resident to the Stevens Point site and the noise levels from decommissioning activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. 5.2.3.3 Geologic Environment The Stevens Point site is situated on the boundary between the Wisconsin Northern Highland and Central Plain physiographic provinces. This is between the Superior Upland and Central Lowland physiographic provinces of the United States (USGS 2003; SHINE 2013a). The site location is near a dividing line between areas affected by the younger Wisconsin glaciations that ended about 11,700 years ago and older glaciations of Illinoian age (WGNHS 2011). These events are further discussed in Section 3.3.1. The topography of the site is flat to slightly hummocky. At the time of the NRC environmental site audit, portions of the site were being actively cultivated, with the remainder in forest coverage. A center point elevation of 1,113 ft (339 m), with a general slope gradient of Alternatives 5-57 southwest was established during the Phase I site assessment of the property (GAI 2012a, 2012b). This is consistent with spot elevations taken from USGS topographic map coverage. The surficial geologic unit at the Stevens Point site is mapped as meltwater sand and gravel (glacial outwash) of the Horicon formation. This unit is extensive across the central portion of Portage County and encompasses much of Stevens Point, including the proposed site. These sediments primarily consist of gravelly sands with dolomitic pebbles and cobbles in the upper part. It was deposited directly on the land surface by shallow, braided streams emanating from the Green Bay ice lobe to the east of the site (Clayton 1986). SHINE contracted a preliminary geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation of the site, which included the installation of four monitoring wells (GAI 2012a, 2012b). Logs from the well borings revealed approximately 1 ft (0.3 m) of topsoil underlain by brown, medium-to-coarse grained-silty sand with trace gravel to a depth of 9- to 14-ft (2.7- to 4.3-m) bgs. Below this depth, the sediment consisted of medium-to-coarse grained and poorly graded sands, with silt up to 31-ft (9.4-m) deep, where the boreholes had to be terminated because of caving. All the sands were characterized as loose and wet, with no cobbles or larger fragments noted during drilling. Although not logged, an additional borehole was advanced to a depth of 140 ft (43 m) through sediments, without reaching bedrock (GAI 2012a, 2012b). As for bedrock beneath the glacial sediments, county-level geological mapping shows the site to be located near the contact between Cambrian age sandstones of the Elk Mound Group and Precambrian intrusive igneous rocks (i.e., quartz monzonite and granite) (Greenberg and Brown 1986). Construction sand and gravel is a commodity in the county (USGS 2013a). Geologic maps indicate several recent or historic quarrying operations in the vicinity of the site. Specifically, construction aggregate has been mined from large pits east and southeast of Stevens Point from glacial outwash materials (Clayton 1986). Soil unit mapping by NRCS identifies the vast majority of soils across the site as consisting of Richford loamy sand, 0- to 2-percent slopes. This soil mapping unit is composed of somewhat excessively drained loamy sands to sandy loams, with sand in the lower portion of the soil profile at 41 to 60 in. (104 to 152 cm). The soil occurs on outwash plains and developed from sandy outwash materials. The depth to the water table in these soils is generally greater than 80 in. (200 cm) and they are not prone to ponding. The only building site limitation these soils have is that excavations tend to be very unstable because of the coarse and loose sandy texture of subsoils. The southeast corner of the site is mapped as Billet sandy loam, 0- to 2-percent slopes. This soil has characteristics similar to those of the Richford loamy sand. The Richford soil is classified as farmland of statewide importance while the Billet soil is prime farmland where otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013b; 7 CFR 657.5). As further described in Section 3.3.3, the State of Wisconsin lies within the central portion of the stable North American craton. Regional seismicity is characterized by relatively infrequent, small-to-moderate earthquakes that are typical of much of the central and eastern United States (USGS 2013b). Similar to the Janesville site, seismic hazard estimates prepared by the USGS indicate that the site is located within one of the lowest earthquake hazard areas in the conterminous United States (Petersen et al. 2011). Within a radius of 200 mi (322 km) of the Stevens Point site, there have been 5 earthquakes with a magnitude equal to or greater than 2.5 recorded since 1973. The closest was a magnitude 2.6 earthquake with an epicenter approximately 180 mi (290 km) southeast of the site near Campton Hills, Illinois (USGS 2013c). The largest earthquake was a magnitude 3.8 event in the same general area of Illinois in February 2010 (USGS 2013d). Alternatives 5-58 Construction Ground-disturbing activities associated with facility construction would have impacts on geologic and soil resources similar to those discussed for the Janesville site (Section 4.3.1). Earthwork requirements and the ease of excavation would be very similar, as soils and surficial strata are comparable for the two sites. The depth to bedrock is not a concern for excavation work for the below-grade portions of the facility. As at the Janesville site, shallow excavations could be prone to slumping. In addition, the presence of loose, water-bearing soils at depths below about 10-ft (3-m) bgs could require the use of bracing in trenches and other measures (e.g., cofferdams) during construction of the below-grade portion of the facility. The potential for soil erosion and loss would be similar to that at the Janesville and Chippewa Falls sites. However, as described in Section 4.3.1, adherence to standard BMPs for soil erosion and sediment control, and compliance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss. Site work and the creation of an impervious surface would result in the irretrievable loss of important farmland soils equal to the acreage disturbed and converted to an impervious surface. However, as a result of adherence to the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4) and implementation of the associated BMPs, the NRC staff finds that the overall impacts on the geologic environment from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. Operations There would be no additional impact on geology and soils from facility operations at the Stevens Point site. Land temporarily disturbed during construction within the site boundary and lying outside the facility footprint would be revegetated and would not be subject to continued soil erosion. Regardless of the site location, the proposed SHINE facility would be sited, designed, and constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes, which provide for the evaluation of site geologic and soil conditions, including potential seismic hazards. As a result of these considerations, the NRC staff finds that the operational impacts associated with the geologic environment at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. Decommissioning Facility demolition and other ground-disturbing activities associated with decommissioning would have impacts on soils and sediments similar to those described for construction. As site activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable local, State, and other Federal regulations and permits, the NRC staff finds that the impacts on the geologic environment from decommissioning the facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. 5.2.3.4 Water Resources Surface Water No streams or other surface-water bodies exist within the boundaries of the Stevens Point site. The only major surface-water feature in the immediate vicinity of the site is McDill Pond, an impoundment on the Plover River, located approximately 2.1 mi (3.4 km) west of the site. McDill pond covers 261 ac (106 ha) and attains a maximum depth of 20 ft (6.1 m) (University of Wisconsin 2005). Outflow from the south end of the impounded Plover River at the McDill Dam enters the Wisconsin River at a point approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) southwest of the site and south of Stevens Point. Drainage from the site would be expected to travel south and Alternatives 5-59 southwest toward the Plover River drainage. The Plover and Little Plover River watershed drains an area of 202 mi2 (523 km2) (WDNR 2013a). There are no USGS gaging stations immediately downstream of the Stevens Point site. There is a USGS gaging station upstream of McDill Pond on the Plover River (Station 05400513) with a short period of record, as well as a station downstream of Stevens Point on the Wisconsin River at Wisconsin Rapids (Station 05400760). For the Plover River upstream of McDill Pond at Highway 66, the mean annual discharge measured at the USGS gage for water years 2010 to 2012 is 185 cfs (5.23 m3/s). The 90 percent exceedance flow, a measure of drought conditions, is 90 cfs (2.5 m3/s). For water year 2012, the mean discharge was 151 cfs (4.27 m3/s). The drainage area of the river upstream of the station encompasses 116 mi2 (430 km2) (USGS 2012b). No floodplains have been delineated on or near the site (City of Stephens Point 2006), and no tributaries to the Plover or Wisconsin Rivers originate on or near the site that could present backwater flooding concerns. The State of Wisconsin has established water-quality standards and numeric criteria and associated designated-use categories for all waters of the State, as previously described in Section 3.4.1, and in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 102 and NR 104). Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify "impaired" water for which effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water-quality standards in such waters. The segment of the Plover River including McDill Pond has a designated use for fish and aquatic life, has good water quality, and is listed as attaining designated uses (WDNR 2013a). Upstream of McDill Pond, the Plover River has experienced high fecal coliform bacteria levels that have resulted in the closure of the public beach at Iverson Park at some point during most swimming seasons. The contamination has been attributed to upstream livestock farms. The City of Stevens Point has focused on urban runoff as a water-quality concern for McDill Pond (City of Stevens Point 2006). In Portage County, surface water is extensively used for self-supplied industrial and commercial uses but with very minor use for irrigation and livestock watering. However, groundwater is the primary and almost exclusive source for the domestic and municipal water supply (Buchwald 2011; City of Stevens Point 2006). No industrial wastewater discharges have been identified in the site vicinity. Sanitary sewer service would be provided by the City of Stevens Point from nearby service areas (SHINE 2013a). The city's treatment plant has a capacity of 5.23 mgd (19,800 m3/d), with a recorded peak demand of 3.68 mgd (13,900 m3/d) (City of Stevens Point 2006). Groundwater Except for the northwest portion, the surficial aquifer system is extensive across Portage County and is the principal water-bearing unit (Olcott 1992; Portage County 2004). As noted in Section 5.2.3.3, the aquifer is locally composed of meltwater sand and gravel (glacial outwash) of the Horicon formation. Locally, wells completed in the sand and gravel aquifer of the sand plain province of the county, in which the proposed site is located, have a potential yield exceeding 1,000 gpm (3,780 Lpm) of water (Portage County 2004). Well completion information for the four monitoring wells installed on the site in December 2011 indicates water-table conditions at depths ranging from about 8- to 11-ft (2.4- to 3.4-m) bgs (GAI 2012b). Other wells drilled in the vicinity of the site reflect groundwater depths ranging from 7 to 20 ft (2.1 to 6.1 m) bgs (SHINE 2013a). Groundwater in the vicinity of the site is mapped as flowing to the southwest, which is consistent with the topographic gradient in the vicinity of the site (Portage County 2004). Alternatives 5-60 No groundwater quality data were obtained from the four monitoring wells installed on the site, and the wells were properly abandoned (closed) in March 2012 (GAI 2012b). However, the quality of groundwater across the county is reported as generally good, except for some natural occurrences of iron, manganese, radionuclides, and corrosive (i.e., soft-acidic) groundwater. Agricultural and petrochemical contamination of the local surficial (sand and gravel) aquifer is a concern, including nitrate and the pesticide atrazine (Portage County 2004). The State of Wisconsin regulates groundwater quality and administers groundwater protection programs in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 140). As referenced above, groundwater is the source of potable and municipal water in Portage County and Stevens Point. The City of Stevens Point Water Utility maintains seven large-capacity wells with a total reliable system supply capacity of 14.8 mgd (56,000 m3/d) (City of Stevens Point 2006, 2014). These wells are all completed in the local surficial (sand and gravel) aquifer at depths ranging from 53 to 90 ft (16 to 27 m) (WDNR 2013b). The Stevens Point water supply is protected both within and beyond the city limits by wellhead protection ordinances adopted by the various communities and by Portage County (City of Stevens Point 2006). Construction Facility construction activities at the Stevens Point site would not have any direct impact on surface-water resources, as no streams or other surface-water bodies originate within the boundaries of the site. The only major surface-water feature nearby is McDill Pond, an impoundment of the Plover River, located approximately 2.1 mi (3.4 km) west of the site. Because of the apparent shallow depth to the water table beneath the site, the need for groundwater dewatering would be likely during construction. Water removed from facility excavations would need to be discharged in accordance with appropriate State and local permits. The relatively shallow depth to groundwater would also likely require the installation of subdrain or permanent dewatering systems for the below-grade portions of the facility. As discussed above (Geologic Environment) and detailed in Section 4.4.1.1 for the Janesville site, ground-disturbing activities at the site would be subject to a Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This General Permit requires the development of appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures and spill prevention and waste management practices to minimize suspended sediment, the transport of other deleterious materials, and potential water-quality impacts. No surface water or onsite groundwater would be withdrawn to support construction at the site. The relatively small volume of water required to support construction activities (averaging about 0.012 mgd (45 m3/day)) would be supplied by the City of Stevens Point, which uses groundwater. Water could either be supplied by a temporary water tap or trucked to the point of use. Wastewater generation would be limited to sanitary waste from the construction workforce and would likely be accommodated through the use of portable restroom facilities. As no natural surface-water features occur on the site, SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility construction, there would be no onsite withdrawal of groundwater, and SHINE would be subject to the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), the NRC concludes that the impacts on surface and groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water use from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. Operations Normal facility operations would not have any direct impact on surface-water or groundwater hydrology or quality. Compliance with the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit Alternatives 5-61 No. WI-S067831-4), as described for construction, specifically requires the development of a stormwater management plan with appropriate BMPs to address runoff from buildings and other impervious surfaces. As detailed in Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.2.2 for the Janesville site, the design, construction, and operation of the proposed facility would include necessary structural controls, and operations would be subject to appropriate plans and procedures to prevent any spills or other releases from reaching soils or surfaces where they could be conveyed to surface waters or groundwater. Total water use is projected to be 6,073 gpd (22,990 Lpd), or 0.006 mgd (23 m3/day) and would be supplied by the City of Stevens Point by a service connection. Projected water use would be a small percentage of the City of Stevens Point's supply capacity. Operation of the proposed SHINE facility would entail no direct discharge of wastewater effluents to either surface water or groundwater. Wastewater generated by facility operations, composed primarily of sanitary waste, would be discharged to the City of Stevens Point WTP. Section 5.2.3.9 discusses the management of other waste forms. Given that no natural surface-water features occur on the site, SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility operation, and no direct discharge of wastewater effluents to surface or groundwater would occur, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface water and groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water use from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. Decommissioning Facility decontamination, demolition, and site restoration activities would be similar regardless of the site, with the potential magnitude of the impacts on surface water and groundwater similar to those discussed for construction. All decommissioning activities would be conducted in accordance with appropriate BMPs and would observe waste handling and pollution prevention practices and spill prevention and response procedures during decommissioning, so that no materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater, where they could contaminate water resources. Small quantities of water that may be required for dust control and soil compaction in association with site restoration activities would be supplied from municipal sources, as discussed for construction. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on water resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL. 5.2.3.5 Ecological Resources The Stevens Point site consists of 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) of agricultural land, 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) of deciduous forest, and 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest (Table 5-9). Plant species on the site vary depending on previous land uses (Table 5-10). For example, approximately two-thirds of the site is a second-growth deciduous and evergreen forest. Common tree types include oaks (Quercus spp.), maples (Acer spp.), and pines (Pinus spp.). Various flower plants and grasses such as goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and aster (Symphyotrichum spp.) occur along the edge of cultivated fields. Such species are representative of an early successional plant community, or type of species found in the few years after a large disturbance, such as plowing. Actively cultivated crops on the site primarily include corn (Zea mays) (SHINE 2013a). Alternatives 5-62 Table 5-10. Vegetation on the Stevens Point Site Scientific Name Common Name Forest Species Abies balsamea balsam fir Acer saccharum sugar maple Carex spp. sedge Ostrya virginiana hop hornbeam Pinus strobus white pine Pinus sylvestris scotch pine Prunus serotina black cherry Quercus alba white oak Quercus macrocarpa bur oak Quercus rubra red oak Quercus spp. oak species Ribes spp. gooseberry Rubus spp. blackberry Smilax spp. green briar Tilia americana American basswood Viburnum spp. virburnum species Vegetative Communities Along Field Edges Ambrosia artemisiifolia common ragweed Amorpha canescens lead plant Bromus inermis smooth brome Conyza canadensis horseweed Euthamia graminifolia flattop goldenrod Panicum spp. panic grass Potentilla quinquefolia creeping cinquefoil Rubus flagellarus dewberry Setaria glauca foxtail grass Solidago spp. goldenrod species Symphyotrichum spp. aster species Source: SHINE 2013a The Stevens Point site provides habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other wildlife tolerant of open fields, cultivated grasses, and frequent disturbances from human activity. During a reconnaissance survey, SHINE observed several birds at the Stevens Point site, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), and various sparrows (SHINE 2015a). Common mammals that inhabit the site likely include deer, raccoons, squirrels, and rabbits. Common reptiles and amphibians that inhabit the site likely include frogs, turtles, and snakes. No wetlands, water bodies, or other aquatic habitats exist within the boundaries of the Stevens Point site. The closest wetland is approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) north of the site boundary. In addition, the Plover River is approximately 2.0 mi (3.2 km) northwest of the site and the Wisconsin River is approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) southwest of the site. However, runoff is not expected to flow into these aquatic habitats because of drainage patterns, the distance from the site to the habitats, and the number of human-made features (such as roads, buildings, and Alternatives 5-63 railroads) separating the site from the aquatic habitats. Several ditches occur within the vicinity of the site, which provide minimal, low-quality aquatic habitats. In correspondence with the NRC, FWS (2013) stated that the Stevens Point site is within the high potential range for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), a Federally endangered species (FWS 2013). Habitat for the Karner blue butterfly includes dry sandy prairie, oak savanna, jack pine forests, and sandy open scrub-shrub areas (FWS 2013). In Wisconsin, Karner blue butterflies are found along utility and road right-of-ways, abandoned agricultural fields, forest openings, and managed forests (FWS 2013; WDNR 2014d). The only food plant for the Karner caterpillar is wild blue lupine (Lupinus perennis) and, therefore, occurrence of this species is greatly limited to areas with wild blue lupine (FWS 2008). Caterpillars generally hatch from eggs in April and then pupate and emerge from their cocoon-like chrysalis by the end of May or in early June. A second generation generally hatches from eggs in late June and pupates and emerges as adults in July (FWS 2008). Two species of special concern and two State-threatened species could occur within 6 mi (10 km) of the Stevens Point site (Table 5-11) (SHINE 2013a; WDNR 2014a). While these species may occur within the vicinity of the site, the Stevens Point site provides unsuitable habitat for any of the four State-protected species (SHINE 2015a; WDNR 2014a). SHINE did not observe any Federally or State-protected species on the Stevens Point site during reconnaissance surveys (SHINE 2015a). Table 5-11. Federally and State-Protected Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Stevens Point Site Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) State Rank(b) Insects Lycaeides melissa samuelis Karner blue butterfly E SSC S3 Microtus ochrogaster prairie vole SSC S2 Plants Asclepias lanuginose wooly milkweed T S1 Arabis missouriensis Missouri rockcress SSC S2 Reptiles Glyptemys insculpta wood turtle T S2 (a) E = endangered; SSC = Species of Special Concern; T= Threatened (b) S1 = Critically imperiled in Wisconsin because of extreme rarity; S2 = Imperiled in Wisconsin because of rarity; S3 = Rare or uncommon in Wisconsin Sources: FWS 2013; WDNR 2014b, 2014d The FWS also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which prohibits anyone from taking native migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The majority of the bird species that occur in Wisconsin, except for resident games birds and feral species, are protected under the Act (WDNR 2014c). In the vicinity of the site, migratory birds rely on riparian, forested, grassland, and wetland habitats as important areas for foraging, resting, avoiding predators, and, for some species, breeding. On the Stevens Point site, migratory birds could use trees for resting, breeding, nesting, and foraging. Alternatives 5-64 Construction Construction of the facility at the Stevens Point site would result in permanently converting 13.9 ac (5.6 ha) of deciduous forest and 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) of agricultural fields into an industrial facility or developed open space, such as parking lots. Furthermore, 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) of cropland would be temporarily disturbed during construction. Additional forested or agricultural land adjacent to the site would be disturbed to extend existing infrastructure to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. In addition to a loss of habitat from construction activities, noise from construction activities could disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such disturbances, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity. During construction, bird collisions with construction equipment and the new facility could result in mortality from the presence of tall structures and artificial night lighting during nighttime construction. The size of structures and the likelihood of mortality from bird collisions would be similar to that described in Section 4.5 for the proposed SHINE site in Janesville. In that analysis, the NRC staff determined that impacts from bird collisions would be negligible and unlikely to affect local or migratory populations, based on previous reviews of bird collisions at nuclear power plants that are similar or larger in height and size than the proposed SHINE facility. Construction at the Stevens Point site is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic resources, such as habitat loss, because no aquatic resources occur on the Stevens Point site. Runoff from the site could affect the offsite aquatic resources, such as drainage ditches, by increasing turbidity or introducing various chemicals or other pollutants. SHINE (2013a) stated, in its ER, that if the Stevens Point site is selected, SHINE would implement appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs to minimize the transport of suspended sediment and other pollutants. In addition, SHINE would be required, in its stormwater permit, to develop a site-specific plan to minimize pollution and runoff (Section 5.2.3.4). In response to the NRC staff's request for endangered and threatened species that could be affected by the proposed construction and operation, FWS (2013) stated that the Stevens Point site is within the high potential range for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Furthermore, if the Stevens Point is selected as the proposed site for construction, FWS (2013) recommended surveys for the presence of wild blue lupines, and if present, then additional surveys to determine the presence of Karner blue butterflies. Therefore, if the Stevens Point site is selected for construction, additional consultation with FWS would be required to determine the potential occurrence of the Karner blue butterfly at the Stevens Point site. FWS (2013) also stated that migratory birds could occur either on or within the vicinity of the site. If the Stevens Point site is selected, FWS (2013) recommended that any tree removal occur before May 1 or after August 30 to minimize impacts on breeding migratory birds that might use the trees for breeding, nesting, foraging, or resting. Given that construction would not permanently or temporarily affect any high-quality habitats such as grasslands, undisturbed forests, or wetlands; permanently and temporarily affected habitats are available within the region; mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible; and no aquatic resources occur on the Stevens Point site, impacts on ecological resources during construction would be SMALL. If the Stevens Point site is selected, additional consultation with FWS would be required, under the Endangered Species Act, to determine the potential presence of, and any effects on, the Karner blue butterfly. Alternatives 5-65 Operations During operations, impacts on ecological resources could result from bird collisions, herbicide applications for landscape maintenance activities, elevated noise levels, and increased turbidity or introduction of pollutants from runoff. As described in Section 4.5, mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, given that the tallest structure would be a stack at approximately 66 ft (20 m) tall. Disturbance from daily activities, herbicide applications, or elevated noise levels is likely to have minimal impacts on wildlife and plant species, given that the species identified at the Stevens Point site are generally tolerant of disturbance, because portions of the site have been actively farmed or modified for human use over the past several decades. In response to any disturbances during operation, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity. Operation of the facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic resources, because wastewater would be discharged to the City of Stevens Point sanitary sewer system after being treated (SHINE 2013a). Indirect impacts during operations could include runoff that may contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or herbicides. However, as described above, impacts on aquatic resources are expected to be minimal, because nearby aquatic resources are drainage ditches that provide low-quality habitat, and SHINE would be required, in its stormwater permit, to use appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs. Given that mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, habitat disturbances during operations would be minimal, any disturbed wildlife could find similar habitat in the vicinity, and BMPs would be required in the SHINE stormwater permit, impacts on ecological resources during operations would be SMALL. As described above, if the Stevens Point site is selected, additional consultation with FWS would be required, under the Endangered Species Act, to determine the potential presence of, and any effects on, the Karner blue butterfly. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would have similar impacts to those that occur during construction of the proposed facility. For example, SHINE would use construction equipment to dismantle large buildings, which could result in disturbances to wildlife and birds and potential runoff to nearby water bodies. In addition, some land on the site could be used as staging areas for the equipment and to conduct certain dismantling activities. As described above, if noise or other activities disturb birds or wildlife, similar habitat is available in nearby offsite areas. No surface water would be used during decommissioning, and SHINE would develop and implement spill prevention and response procedures as part of State permit requirements for ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, impacts during decommissioning are expected to be SMALL. As described above, if the Stevens Point site is selected, additional consultation with FWS would be required under the Endangered Species Act to determine the potential presence of, and any effects on, the Karner blue butterfly. 5.2.3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources A review of databases maintained by the National Park Service indicates that there are 18 properties listed in the NRHP within Portage County (NPS 2015b). These historic properties reflect the historic cultural contexts for the proposed Stevens Point site and include historic buildings, structures, and districts dating from the mid-19th to mid-20th centuries. However, no historic properties are located within the APE, the Stevens Point site, or its immediate vicinity. The closest NRHP-listed property is Nelson Hall, approximately 3.8 mi (6.1 km) northwest of the Stevens Point site, surrounded by commercial and residential land. Nelson Hall was the first dormitory established at the Stevens Point Normal School, the precursor to University of 2013b). No archeological survey was commissioned by Alternatives 5-66 SHINE for the Stevens Point site. The NRC staff queried the Archaeological Sites Inventory and Architectural History Inventory, Burial Sites Inventory, and the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the Wisconsin Historical Society. No known historic or cultural resources or historic properties were found at the Stevens Point site (NRC 2013). In July 2015, the NRC received a determination from the WHS that no historic properties would be affected (WHS 2015) (see Appendix D). As there are no known historic properties, under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), or historic and cultural resources located within the APE, impacts on these resources are not likely during the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. The facility would also incur little or no visual or aesthetic impact, as potential visual impacts during construction and decommissioning would be temporary. The proposed SHINE facility is a low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is approximately 3 mi (5 km) away and is surrounded by residential and commercial properties. However, previously unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-disturbing activities associated with construction, maintenance during operations, and decommissioning. It is expected that SHINE would employ a CRMP, similar to the one discussed in Section 4.6, to manage and protect as-yet-unidentified cultural resources. Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) CRMP procedures, and (3) cultural resource assessment and consultations, construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the possibility of the inadvertent discovery of unidentified cultural resources caused by land disturbance during construction, operations, and decommissioning, the overall impact would be SMALL. 5.2.3.7 Socioeconomics Affected Environment For the purposes of this analysis, the ROI is Portage County, Wisconsin, with special consideration being given to the site of the facility in Stevens Point. The City of Stevens Point is the county seat located in Portage County. According to the 2010 Census, the total population of Portage County was 70,019, while the City of Stevens Point had a population of 26,717 (USCB 2014e). Approximately one third of the population of Portage County resides in Stevens Point. The population in Portage County steadily increased from 1970 to 2010. According to the 2010 Census, there were 11,220 total housing units in the City of Stevens Point and 30,054 housing units in Portage County. The total number of vacant housing units in the City of Stevens Point was 622 (5.5 percent) and 2,240 (7.5 percent) in Portage County (USCB 2014f). Portage County had the highest employment by industry in trade, transportation, and utilities at 7,368 employed (27.11 percent of employment), followed by manufacturing, with 4,254 employed (15.65 percent), and financial activities, with 4,240 employed (15.60 percent) (BLS 2013). Several industries are represented in Stevens Point, which include insurance, education, medical, government, and manufacturing. The top three employers in Portage County are in Stevens Point: Sentry Insurance A Mutual Co., University of WisconsinStevens Point, and Stevens Point Public School (WDWD 2013). There was a slight decline in the labor force and employment totals between 2011 and 2012 in the City of Stevens Point. In 2011, the labor force total was 15,784, and it declined to 15,621 in 2012. The employed total was 14,536 in 2011, and it dropped to 14,357 in 2012. There were also small declines in the labor force and employment totals for Portage County. The State of Wisconsin had a slight decline in the labor force figure, but the employment figure rose slightly Alternatives 5-67 from 2011 to 2012. The unemployment rate in Stevens Point was 8.1 percent, which was 1.5 percent higher than the Portage County total of 6.6 percent and 1.2 percent higher than the 6.9 percent for the State of Wisconsin in 2012 (BLS 2013). According to the Migrant Population Report issued by the WDWD, 268 migrant workers were employed in Portage County in agricultural and food processing jobs in 2011 (WDWD 2014). According to 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the median family income for the City of Stevens Point was $56,992, while Portage County was $64,227. The per capita income for Stevens Point during the same time period was $21,893, while Portage County was slightly higher at $25,207. Tax rates vary by jurisdiction. Portage County has a 0.5 percent county tax rate. The City of Stevens Point's proposed government budget for 2014 is $2,894,227, and the general property taxes in 2012 were $2,213,414 (City of Stevens Point 2013a). The Stevens Point Area Public School District had a total of 7,402 students enrolled in pre-K to 12th grade in 2012-2013. Nine elementary schools, two junior high schools, one senior high school, two specialized schools, and a 4K (kindergarten for 4 year olds) program make up the school district (Stevens Point Area Public School District 2013). Mid-State Technical College and the University of WisconsinStevens Point are located in Stevens Point. The City of Stevens Point has a number of recreational facilities, including several trails for walking, biking, and cross-country skiing. In addition there are 43 campgrounds in Stevens Point, numerous local parks, and the Main Street Historic District (WDNR undated). Cultural institutions include a Central Wisconsin Children's Museum and a Museum of Natural History, Observatory, and Planetarium at the University of WisconsinStevens Point. Impact Analysis The estimated number of workers needed to construct, operate, and decommission the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be the same as the number of workers required for the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site. Construction The 451 workers needed to construct the proposed SHINE facility would represent 2 percent of the total population (26,717) of Stevens Point and less than 1 percent of the population of Portage County (70,019) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Most construction workers would likely reside within the ROI and would not permanently relocate because of the relatively short duration (18 months) of construction. In addition, the support infrastructure within the ROI would be able to accommodate a temporary increase in population. Since most of the 451 construction workers would likely already reside in the ROI, there would be no increase in demand for public services. Assuming that SHINE would enter into a TIF agreement with the City of Stevens Point, similar to the agreement in Janesville, in the first 10 years of the proposed project, the TIF agreement would allow SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes to the City of Stevens Point. Tax payments totaling $600,000 per year would be used to offset infrastructure expenses. SHINE would also pay property taxes estimated to be $35,000 per year, based on the assessed property before improvements during this 10-year period (SHINE 2015a). The Stevens Point Area Public School District would receive a portion of the property tax benefits, since the Stevens Point site is located in that district. Sales tax revenue would also increase if materials and services were purchased within the ROI during construction. However, the total amount of tax revenue generated within the ROI during construction would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Stevens Point and Portage County; Stevens Point's 2012 collected taxes were approximately $16.4 million, while Portage County collected Alternatives 5-68 $32.1 million in taxes in 2012 (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Operations The 150 operations workers would represent 1 percent of the total 2010 population of Stevens Point (26,717) and less than 1 percent of Portage County (70,019) (USCB 2014a). It is likely that some workers would relocate to the ROI. However, the total number of operations workers would not create a significant socioeconomic impact. There is sufficient housing available in the ROI to accommodate any increase in the population from the proposed SHINE facility. There is also sufficient capacity in the public schools to accommodate the small increase in the school-age population when the proposed SHINE facility operations workers and their families relocate to the ROI. Public services, including water utilities, would be able to support the increased needs of operations workers and their families. SHINE would continue to make payments in lieu of taxes (estimated $600,000) and property taxes (estimated $35,000) during facility operations. However, after expiration of the 10-year TIF agreement with the City of Stevens Point, SHINE would pay property taxes of approximately $660,000 per year (SHINE 2015a). The amount of property taxes could change, depending on the assessed value of the proposed SHINE facility. Stevens Point Area Public School District would also continue to receive property tax revenue from SHINE during facility operations. In addition, overall sales and property tax revenues would increase within the ROI, caused by the increase in the population from operations workers relocating to the ROI. However, the total amount of tax revenue generated during this period within the ROI would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Stevens Point and Portage County. In 2012, Stevens Point received approximately $16.4 million in tax revenue, while Portage County received approximately $32.1 million (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during SHINE facility operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning The 261 decommissioning SHINE workers would represent less than 1 percent of the total population of Stevens Point (26,717) and Portage County (70,019) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Because of the short duration of decommissioning (6 months), workers would not likely relocate permanently to Stevens Point, and some of the SHINE operations workers could transition to decommissioning. Since it is likely that most decommissioning workers would already reside in the ROI, there would be little or no increased demand for public services. In addition, support infrastructure within the ROI would be able to accommodate any temporary increase in population. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during the decommissioning of the SHINE facility would be SMALL. 5.2.3.8 Human Health Construction The construction of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that for the Janesville site. For example, there would be no significant physical differences in the design of the facility, workers would be exposed to similar construction hazards, and SHINE would implement similar construction methods and safety practices (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. In addition, existing infrastructure would need to be extended to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. Construction workers would encounter potential hazards typical of any industrial or road construction site. The NRC staff assumed that normal construction safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, such as safety training, safety equipment, and supervision Alternatives 5-69 of the work force, would promote worker safety and reduce the likelihood of worker injury during construction (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and injuries during the construction of related infrastructure would be minimized through normal construction safety practices, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Points Falls site would also be SMALL. Operations The radiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that for the Janesville site. Radiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the Stevens Points site, including radiation sources and radioactive effluents, as well as implementation of a radiation protection program to minimize and ensure compliance with worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, would be essentially the same as those for a SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). The nonradiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be similar to that for the Janesville site. Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive material, would be essentially the same as those for a SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from operation of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the radiological and nonradiological impacts on human health from operations at the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be SMALL. Decommissioning The decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the two sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2015a). After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. Facility workers would continue to receive radiation exposure during work activities relating to the cleanup, movement, storage, and disposal of radioactive material. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIS would be used during decommissioning to ensure that worker and public radiation doses and exposure to nonradioactive chemicals remain within NRC and State limits. In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there would be no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and operation, and radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to ensure hazards to workers and the public would be within NRC and State limits, the NRC staff concludes the impacts on human health from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be SMALL. Alternatives 5-70 5.2.3.9 Waste Management Construction The construction of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Points site would generate similar types and volume of waste to those for the Janesville site. For example, there are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from construction (SHINE 2015a). In addition, existing infrastructure would need to be extended to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. Nonradiological waste would be generated during the construction of such infrastructure. The NRC staff assumed waste would be minimized because waste management systems would be implemented in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and because waste generated during the construction of related infrastructure would be minimized in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be SMALL. Operations The radiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would generate similar types and volumes of radioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). In addition, the management of the radioactive waste would be similar, regardless of the location of the proposed facility. Implementation of a radiation protection program to minimize radiation exposure from the radioactive waste and ensure compliance with worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 would be essentially the same as those discussed in Section 4.8 of this EIS for a proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). The nonradiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would generate similar types and volumes of nonradioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive material, would be essentially the same as those discussed in Section 4.8 of this EIS for a proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from radiological and nonradiological waste generated during facility operations at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the radiological and nonradiological impacts on human health from waste generated from operating the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be SMALL. Decommissioning The decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the two sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2015a). Alternatives 5-71 After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. The types and amounts of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes generated during decommissioning would be similar to those generated at the Janesville site. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIS would be used during decommissioning to protect workers and the public from the waste (SHINE 2013a). In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there would be no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and operation, and radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to protect workers and the public from the waste, the NRC staff concludes the impacts on human health from waste during decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. 5.2.3.10 Transportation Major roads and transportation features in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site are shown in Figure 5-5. The site lies east of the town of Stevens Point, near Interstate 39, and there are currently no roads that access or border the undeveloped site. Existing local roads nearest to the Stevens Point site are County Highway R (Eisenhower Road), approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) to the west; County Highway HH (McDill Avenue), approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) to the south; and Burbank Road, approximately 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the east. County Highway R is an undivided four-lane road with a curbed shoulder, whereas County Highway HH and Burbank Road are two-lane roads with minimal paved shoulders. Interstate 39 would provide major highway access to the site using U.S. Highway 10 to the north or County Highway HH to the south (SHINE 2013a). Annual average daily traffic volumes for various roads and locations in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site are listed in Table 5-12. Morning, midday, and evening peak hourly traffic counts for associated locations are listed in Table 5-13. Available traffic data for road segments near the Stevens Point site suggests that peak volume along County Road R averages approximately 450 to 800 vehicles per hour, while peak volume along County Road HH averages approximately 300 to 500 vehicles per hour (WDOT 2011a). Table 5-12. Annual Average Daily Traffic CountsVicinity of Stevens Point Site Traffic Count Location Vehicles Per Day County Highway R (Eisenhower Road), north of Old Highway 18 Road 8,000 Interstate-39 between U.S. Highway 10 and County Highway HH (McDill Avenue) 22,100 County Highway HH (McDill Avenue), west of County Highway R (Eisenhower Road) 6,100 U.S. Highway 10 between Interstate 39 and County Highway R 28,000 Source: WDOT 2008b Alternatives 5-72 Table 5-13. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic CountsVicinity of the Stevens Point SiteNumber of Vehicles WDOT Count Site No. Location Year of Count A.M. Peak(a) Midday Peak(b) P.M. Peak(c) Daily Total 490964 County Highway R (Brilowski Road), south of U.S. Highway 10 2011 450 684 783 8,662 490218 U.S. Highway 10, between Interstate 39 and Maple Bluff Road 2011 1,731 2,491 2,505 30,958 491061 Off Ramp from Interstate 39 northbound to County Highway HH 2011 224 229 233 3,139 491062 Off Ramp from Interstate 39 southbound to County Highway HH 2011 282 340 466 4,757 490980 County Highway HH between Interstate 39 and County Highway R 2011 312 404 466 5,351 (a) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 00:00 and 09:59. (b) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 10:00 and 14:59. (c) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 15:00 and 23:59. Source: WDOT 2011b Construction Construction of the Stevens Point site would require new access roads to the site. As shown in Figure 5-2, the SHINE facility entrance road would connect with a new east-west street that would be constructed by the City of Stevens Point along the northern boundary of the site, between County Highway R to the west and Burbank Road to the east. A second street, running north-south along the western boundary of the site, would also be constructed to connect the new east-west street with County Highway HH to the south (SHINE2015a). Given that construction at the Stevens Point site would be very similar to that described for the proposed Janesville site, SHINE estimated that construction of the proposed facility at the Stevens Point site would require an average of 420 deliveries per month (14 deliveries per day) and 9 offsite waste shipments per month using heavy vehicles (dump trucks/delivery trucks) (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during construction would add an estimated 451 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff similarly assumed that, with a total of 465 vehicles per day, each having an arrival and departure trip, and some vehicles making return trips during the day (e.g., off site trips for lunch), vehicle counts immediately adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility may temporarily increase by approximately 1,000 trips per day. As with the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, no sources or routes for construction materials, including concrete, have been specified, and SHINE plans to ensure that delivery routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas associated with the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2013b). SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC's regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin's Administrative Code, Chapter 326, "Transportation"; and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). Table 5-12 indicates that County Highway R and County Highway HH experience approximately 8,000 and 6,100 vehicles per day, respectively, near the Stevens Point site. Accordingly, the addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips Alternatives 5-73 per day) from SHINE construction activities would result in increased traffic volumes on County Highway R and County Highway HH of approximately 13 and 16 percent, respectively. Additionally, the percentage of heavy trucks on this route would temporarily increase. However, available traffic counts do not distinguish between types of vehicles currently traveling this route, and the increase in traffic volume would be temporary and limited to the period of construction. SHINE's traffic analysis indicated that projected levels of peak construction-related traffic could noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, but these delays would not be sufficient to destabilize the transportation infrastructure (SHINE 2015a). SHINE plans to use a staggered construction work shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto County Highway R and County Highway HH and schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help mitigate the potential increases in traffic that could occur during peak periods (SHINE 2013b). Increased traffic volumes may also merit mitigation in the form of infrastructure upgrades, such as widening or adding turning lanes. Increased traffic volumes on other roads in the vicinity are expected to be less but could still be significant (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during construction would be MODERATE. Operations Given that operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be very similar to that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that a maximum of 150 worker vehicles distributed over three work shifts per day would access the site using the planned new access roads that would be constructed (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff estimated that each vehicle would require separate trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility, plus a number of trips to and from the proposed facility during the midshift, resulting in approximately 325 additional worker vehicle trips daily. The additional 325 vehicle trips associated with the Stevens Point site represents an increase of 5 percent or less to the average annual daily traffic on roads in the area. In addition to operations employees commuting to the proposed facility, SHINE estimates traffic to and from the facility would also include: an average of 36 truck deliveries per month to the proposed SHINE facility, which would include both radioactive and nonradioactive materials (SHINE 2015a, 2015b); an average of 39 outbound product shipments per month through the Stevens Point Municipal Airport (SHINE 2015b); an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year (SHINE 2015b); and an average of one shipment per month of nonradioactive domestic and industrial waste (SHINE 2015a, 2015b). SHINE's preferred method for shipping radioisotope products from the Stevens Point site would be to transport them by truck to Stevens Point Municipal Airport, approximately 4 miles (6 km) away, for subsequent air transport to customers. Other airports that would be suitable for shipping these products, including Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, Dane County Regional Airport, and O'Hare International Airport, would be more than 2 hours away by truck (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility to increase slightly above current levels during operation but not to an appreciable extent when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site, as presented in Tables 5-12 and 5-13. Similar to the activities that would occur at the Janesville site, SHINE would transport radioactive waste from the Stevens Point site to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal facility. Alternatives 5-74 A common-carrier truck would likely transport the waste. SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC's regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin's Administrative Code, Chapter 326, "Transportation"; and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure public health and safety on roadways. Based on the relatively small increase in traffic compared to the average daily and annual traffic flows near the Stevens Point site, and because SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and the State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material, the NRC staff concludes that the impact on transportation infrastructure during operations would be SMALL. Decommissioning Given that decommissioning the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be very similar to that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that an average of 72 truck deliveries and 191 offsite waste shipments per month, (a total of approximately nine heavy-vehicle shipments per day) would be required (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during decommissioning would add an estimated 261 vehicles per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff estimates that there could be an increase of approximately 580 trips a day on local roads during the decommissioning phase, increasing average daily traffic on roads in the immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site from what was being experienced during the operations phase. Peak decommissioning-related traffic could noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, but these delays would not be sufficient to destabilize the transportation infrastructure. SHINE could use a staggered work shift schedule, similar to that employed during construction, to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto new site access roads and schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013b). However, the change in average daily traffic flows in the immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site and an increase in commuter, truck delivery, and waste traffic directly related to decommissioning activities, could affect local commuting patterns. Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the decommissioning phase would be MODERATE. 5.2.3.11 Accidents SHINE stated, in its ER, that no conditions have been identified for the Stevens Point site that would significantly affect the radiological or nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents differently than at the proposed facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff considers this assumption reasonable, because the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be essentially the same as at the Janesville site since the design, construction, operations, and decommissioning are similar. In addition, the same radiological and nonradiological safety regulations applicable to the Janesville site would apply to the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.11 of this EIS, the NRC concluded that the impacts from radiological and nonradiological accidents at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Given that no significant differences exist between the two sites or their facility design and operations, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-75 5.2.3.12 Environmental Justice This section describes the potential human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site. The NRC staff addresses environmental justice issues and concerns by first identifying potentially affected minority and low-income populations, and then determining whether there would be any potential human health or environmental effects and whether these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority-population data were available for Census block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius around the Stevens Point site. Low-income population data were only available at the Census tract level because of the limited availability of poverty data at the block group level. To protect confidentiality, USCB does not publish information about small geographic areas if the population size is too small. Race and ethnicity and poverty Census data were used to identify the location of minority and low-income populations near the Stevens Point site. If the Census tract and block group boundaries crossed the 5-mi (8-km) radius boundary, the entire Census tract or Census block group data were used. Geographic information system software was used to create the maps. Minority Populations According to 2010 Census information, approximately 11 percent of the population in the City of Stevens Point identified themselves as a minority. The largest minority population was Asian, comprising approximately 5 percent of the total population, followed by Hispanic or Latino (of any race) comprising approximately 2 percent of the total population. In Portage County, 7.3 percent of the total population identified themselves as minority (USCB 2014e). Table 5-14 lists minority populations within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. Within this radius, 7.2 percent of the total population identified as a minority (UCSB 2014c). The largest minority group was Asian (3.3 percent), followed by Hispanic or Latino (of any race) (2.2 percent) (USCB 2014e). Figure 5-7 shows minority populations within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. Census block groups were considered minority population block groups if the percentage of the minority population within any block group exceeded 7.2 percent. Twelve of the 23 Census block groups were found to have meaningfully greater minority populations. The Stevens Point site is located in Census Tract 9607.02, Block Group 1, a minority population block group with a minority population of 8.3 percent. Alternatives 5-76 Table 5-14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site Census Tract Block Group Total Population Percent of Minority Total Minority Population Hispanic or Latino Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Two or More Races 9601 3 1,557 2.9 46 31 0 6 0 0 9 9604 2 828 9.0 75 33 6 0 31 0 5 9604 3 1,609 7.5 121 31 17 3 62 0 8 9604 4 1,264 6.0 77 20 0 9 38 0 10 9605 1 967 4.9 48 14 0 1 23 0 10 9605 2 1,597 3.0 49 12 5 4 21 0 7 9605 4 2,914 5.9 173 44 14 15 83 0 17 9606 1 1,647 2.7 45 21 2 4 11 0 7 9607.01 1 1,291 12.4 161 77 6 4 54 0 20 9607.01 2 2,629 5.4 144 38 7 6 73 0 20 9607.01 3 1,465 6.6 97 34 4 3 40 0 16 9607.02 1 2,261 8.3 189 41 18 5 100 1 24 9607.02 2 1,099 5.9 65 18 4 0 37 0 6 9608 1 2,217 6.2 139 44 13 0 63 0 19 9608 2 1,608 11.7 189 39 21 6 95 0 28 9608 3 629 8.7 55 6 9 2 30 0 8 9608 4 858 12.3 106 26 8 2 44 0 26 9609 1 823 9.1 75 24 11 4 28 0 8 9609 3 838 10.0 84 29 2 0 35 0 18 9609 4 911 11.4 104 38 13 5 30 0 18 9611 1 2,429 8.0 196 64 5 3 94 1 29 9611 3 2,211 10.5 233 55 10 10 140 1 17 9611 4 870 4.3 38 18 2 2 5 0 11 Source: USCB 2014e, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race. Alternatives 5-77 Figure 5-7. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site Source: USCB 2014e, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race Low-Income Population According to 2006-2010 American Community Survey estimates, 6 percent of families residing within Portage County were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold. Within the City of Stevens Point, 7.6 percent of families and 22.8 percent of all people were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold. The 2010 Federal poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four (USCB 2014f). Table 5-15 lists low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site; 10.9 percent of the total population within that radius was identified as living below the Federal poverty level (UCSB 2014f). Census tracts groups were considered low-income population tracts if the percentage of individuals living below the Federal poverty level exceeded 10.9 percent. Figure 5-8 shows low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. Three of the nine Census tracts were found to have meaningfully greater low-income populations. The Stevens Point site is located within Census Tract 9607.02, with 7 percent of people living below the Federal poverty level, which is not considered a low-income Census tract. Alternatives 5-78 Table 5-15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site Census Tract Percentage of Below Poverty Level for All People (Estimates) 9601 6.5 9604 36.1 9605 5.3 9606 6.6 9607.01 7.8 9607.02 7.0 9608 12.3 9609 12.8 9611 5.9 Source: USCB 2014f, 2006-2010, American FactFinder, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Figure 5-8. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site Source: USCB 2014f, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics Alternatives 5-79 Analysis of Impacts As previously discussed, the environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. Some of these potential effects have been described in the other resource areas discussed in this EIS. Chapter 5 presents the assessment of environmental and human health impacts for each environmental resource area. In the impact analysis, the NRC first identified all potential human health and environmental effects and then determined the significance of the impact and whether or not minority or low-income populations would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. The NRC then considered whether the radiological or other health effects were significant or above generally accepted norms, whether the risk or rate of the hazard was significant and appreciably in excess of that of the general population, and whether the radiological or other health effects would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards. The NRC determined whether the following human health and environmental effects have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility site: radiological and nonradiological human health impacts (Section 5.2.3.8), noise impacts (Section 5.2.3.2), and traffic impacts (Section 5.2.3.10). The NRC also considered whether there would be an impact on the natural or physical environment that would significantly and adversely affect a particular group, whether there would be any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or are likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population, and whether environmental effects would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from an environmental hazard. Construction Similar to constructing the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville location, potential impacts on minority and low-income populations residing near the Stevens Point site would mostly consist of environmental effects during construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority populations residing along site access roads, particularly in Census Tract 9607.02, Block Group 1, could be disproportionately affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust from construction. However, because of the temporary nature of construction, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations within the ROI (Portage County), who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of construction workers and the likelihood that most workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could commute to the construction site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing. Operations Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations during SHINE facility operations at the Stevens Point site would mostly consist of radiological and nonradiological human health and environmental (e.g., noise and traffic) effects. Everyone living near the Stevens Point site would Alternatives 5-80 be exposed to the same potential operational effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions. As discussed in the Human Health section of this EIS (Section 5.2.3.8), the level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and the State of Wisconsin's regulatory limits. As a result, minority or low-income populations, as well as the general population living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility site, would not be adversely affected by radiation exposure during facility operations. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. As discussed in the Noise section of this EIS (Section 5.2.3.2), noise emissions from commuter traffic during SHINE facility operations would increase. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE facility buildings at the site. However, additional noise emissions from worker vehicles would be minor (1 dBA), and noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels beyond current levels. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic during facility operations. However, as discussed in the Transportation section of this EIS (Section 5.2.3.10), the only appreciable impact would be a "slight degradation of service" (i.e., traffic delays) at intersections during the morning peak hour. The overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility would increase slightly during facility operations but would not be of an appreciable nature when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site. Therefore, offsite noise and traffic impacts caused by the proposed SHINE facility operations would be SMALL for both of these resource areas. Nevertheless, given the fact that the Stevens Point site is located in a designated minority block group, minority populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility during operations could be disproportionately affected. However, based on the analyses of impacts conducted for other resource areas discussed in this EIS, impacts on minority or low-income populations, as well as on the general population living in close proximity to the Stevens Point site, would not be considered high and adverse. Decommissioning Similar to construction impacts, potential impacts to minority and low-income populations residing near the Stevens Point site would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects during decommissioning (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during the decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads, particularly in Census Tract 9607.2, Block Group 1, could be disproportionately affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust during decommissioning. However, because of the temporary nature of decommissioning, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for rental housing during decommissioning could cause rental costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of decommissioning workers and the likelihood that most of the workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could commute to the Stevens Point site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing. Alternatives 5-81 In addition, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL for all resource areas. There is no evidence that impacts from decommissioning would be disproportionately high and adverse to minority or low-income populations. Subsistence and Special Conditions As discussed in Section 4.12, the special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the environmental justice analysis, because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area, such as migrant workers or Native Americans. Based on the air and water quality discussions and the discussion of human health effects in this EIS, it is unlikely that there would be any disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, or wildlife. The operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on these populations. Summary The Steven's Point site is located in a minority population block group. Similar to the Janesville site, any minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the site could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicular traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Stevens Point site would not adversely affect minority and low-income populations living near the existing industrial park. The level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and the State of Wisconsin's regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income populations residing near the Stevens Point site could experience short-term disproportionate, but not high and adverse, environmental effects during construction and decommissioning. In addition, based on the discussions of air and water quality and human health effects for this alternative, SHINE facility operations at the Stevens Point site would not likely cause high and adverse human health or environmental effects for minority and low-income populations. 5.2.3.13 Cumulative Impacts The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects and other actions that could result in cumulative impacts at the Stevens Point site were identified by reviewing published and unpublished data, including economic development plans, permit lists, news releases, and similar sources of information. An effort was made to identify all relevant activities conducted, regulated, or approved by a Federal agency or non-Federal entity within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point site. Available information about the projects and other activities identified is provided in Table 5-16. Alternatives 5-82 Table 5-16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Within a 5-mi (8-km) ROI of the Stevens Point Site Project/ Company Name Project Description Location Distance from Location Status Reference Central Wisconsin Alcohol, Inc. Ethanol plant based on whey fermentation Plover 1 mi (1.6 km) Operational WDNR 2015e NAPA Distribution Center Replacing current parking lot with a new lot with 105 stalls; also planning a 25,000-sq.-ft (2,300-sq.-m) addition to distribution center Stevens Point 1 mi (1.6 km) Plans approved in April 2012 City of Stevens Point 2012a Donaldson Company Inc. Filter manufacturing facility Stevens Point 1 mi (1.6 km) Operating air permit renewed July 2014 WDNR 2015f Municipal Transit Center Development of a 35,070-sq.-ft (3,260-sq.-m) vacant lot for a parking lot with 57 parking spaces Stevens Point 1 mi (1.6 km) Plans approved in January 2012 City of Stevens Point 2012b Focus on Energy Methane/ Natural-Gas-Fueled Electric Generator New generator to be installed at existing Wastewater Treatment Facility; will burn digester gas (methane) produced there Stevens Point 3 mi (4.8 km) Plans approved in April 2013 City of Stevens Point 2012c, 2013a Columbia Energy Center (455 MW baseload, coal fired) Operating power plant with potential air pollution control projects for compliance with future regulatory requirements Portage 3 mi (4.8 km) Operating; additional air pollution control equipment installed July 2014 and more planned by 2018 Jerde 2011, 2014 Copps Food Center Construction of a 70,000-sq.-ft (6,500-sq.-m) store with 385 stall parking lot Stevens Point 3 mi (4.8 km) Plans approved in December 2011; Operating City of Stevens Point 2011a, Copps 2014 Schmeeckle Trails Housing Development Existing residential development east of Stevens Point Stevens Point 3.5 mi (5.6 km) Features designs to reduce environmental impacts Revelations Architects/ Builders 2013; SPJ 2008 WIMME Sand & Gravel Sand and gravel plant Plover (Portage County) 5 mi (8.0 km) Operating WDNR 2015g Alternatives 5-83 Project/ Company Name Project Description Location Distance from Location Status Reference Marshfield/Rapids Connection Corridor 60-mi (97-km) corridor upgrade from Abbotsford to Stevens Point Stevens Point 5 mi (8.0 km) at nearest point Construction started in 2007; scheduled for completion in 2030 WDOT 2012 Water and Sewer Reconstruction Project Michigan Avenue and Fourth Avenue mains to be reconstructed Stevens Point 4 mi (6.4 km) 5 mi (8.0 km) Substantially completed in 2012 City of Stevens Point 2011b, 2012d, 2012e Lake Dredging (several locations) Several areas dredged and fill material hauled off site McDill Lake District (Portage County) 5 mi (8.0 km) Completed January 2013 City of Stevens Point 2011a, Olson 2013 Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital Hospital that performs radiological procedures Stevens Point 3.6 mi (5.7 km) Operating MSMH 2014 Portage County Business Park 420-ac (170-ha) mixed-use business park Stevens Point Adjacent to western border of SHINE Stevens Point site Partially Developed PCBC 2014 Land Use and Visual Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on land use and visual resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.1 serves as baseline conditions for the cumulative impact assessment of land use and visual resources. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.3.1. Land Use The projects and activities described in Table 5-16 would result in minimal changes to existing land uses, because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use. Future urbanization and global climate change could contribute to additional decreases in agricultural lands, forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Urbanization in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site would alter important attributes of land use. Urbanization would reduce natural vegetation and agricultural fields, resulting in an overall decline in the extent and connectivity of wetlands, forests, grasslands, and wildlife habitat. Global climate change could reduce crop yields and livestock productivity (USGCRP 2014), which might change portions of agricultural land uses. However, existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas. In addition, zoning laws and comprehensive land use plans would help ensure a proper balance of development (City of Stevens Point 2006). Alternatives 5-84 Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations, the presence of important farmland soils (7 CFR 657.5), including prime farmland, was included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Development projects listed in Table 5-16 would incrementally and cumulatively add to the loss of important farmland soils, including prime farmland soils, in the region surrounding the proposed site. Otherwise qualifying farm lands in or already committed to urban development; lands acquired for a project on or before August 4, 1984; and lands acquired or used by a Federal agency for national defense purposes are exempt from the Act's provisions (7 CFR 658.2 and 658.3). Because many of the proposed projects have been committed to development, those sites do not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Act. The conversion of otherwise qualifying soils by projects within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point site would have a relatively minor impact on the inventory of important farmland soils within Portage County, as much of the northern and eastern sections of the county have lands mapped as prime farmland and prime farmland, if drained, in addition to farmland of statewide importance (Portage County 2006). Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use, cumulative impacts on land use resources would be SMALL. Visual Resources The projects and activities described in Table 5-16 could result in changes to the existing viewshed, because the viewshed is varied and includes both aesthetically altered landscapes (agricultural fields, building, and warehouses) and natural wooded areas. New construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use and, therefore, would have minimal impacts on visual resources. However, some could occur within wooded areas. Construction and operation of facilities within these areas would alter onsite conditions, and the contrast between the surrounding landscape and the new facility would be greater. Currently existing trees and buildings could partially obstruct views of the modified landscape. Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities could occur within or adjacent to existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use and of low scenic quality, or could occur within naturally wooded areas where there would be a noticeable contrast between the new facility and the forested viewshed, the NRC staff determined that cumulative impacts on visual resources would be SMALL to MODERATE. Air Quality and Noise This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on air quality and noise, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The incremental impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.3.2. The incremental impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on noise would be SMALL to MODERATE, as described in Section 5.2.3.3. Air Quality The ROI considered for the air quality analysis for a facility located in Stevens Point is Portage County, since air quality designations for criteria air pollutants are generally made at the county level. Alternatives 5-85 As shown in Table 5-16, the ongoing and future projects located within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point site involve air permits. While these projects increase air-emission concentrations within the county, the activities would need to comply with the requirements stipulated in the permit. Therefore, these activities and projects are not expected to have significant impacts on air quality. Climate changes can affect air quality, as a result of changes in meteorological conditions. The combination of higher temperatures, stagnant air masses, sunlight, and emissions of precursors may make it difficult to meet NAAQS (USGCRP 2014). States, however, must continue to comply with the Clean Air Act and ensure air quality standards are met. The NRC staff determined that the potential cumulative air quality impact associated with SHINE operations, in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would be SMALL, primarily because projects that have overlapping impacts with the proposed SHINE facility would need to comply with requirements stipulated in air permits and would have relatively low emissions. Noise The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site. Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When distance is doubled from a point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (MPCA 2014). For example, at half-a-mile distance from construction equipment with noise levels in the range of 85-90 dBA, noise levels can drop to 51-61 dBA and at a 1-mi (1.6-km) distance, levels drop further to 45-55 dBA. Generally, a 3-dBA change over existing noise levels is considered to be a "just noticeable" difference, and a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (NWCC 2002). To account for noise near the site boundary during construction and decommissioning, the ROI considered is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the boundary of the proposed facility. Some of the projects in Table 5-16 could produce increases in ambient noise that might affect some of the same areas at the Stevens Point site, since they involve construction activities. However, most of these projects are located 1 to 5 mi (1.6 to 8 km) from the Stevens Points site and noise impacts are not expected to be significant. For those projects that are within the 1-mi (1.6-km) radius ROI, construction equipment can result in noise levels in the range of 85-90 dBA; however, noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance, such that at half-a-mile distance from construction equipment, noise levels can drop to 51-61 dBA (NRC 2002). Therefore, these projects would not be expected to have significant overlapping noise impacts if construction occurred at the Stevens Point site. Given the distance of the nearest resident to the Stevens Point site and noise levels from construction and decommissioning activities, the NRC staff concludes that cumulative impacts on noise levels would be SMALL to MODERATE. Geologic Environment This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on the geologic environment, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts on the geologic environment primarily relate to land disturbance and the potential for soil erosion and loss, as well as the projected consumption of geologic resources. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.3 serves as the baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of the geologic environment. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on soil resources includes the 5-mi (8-km) vicinity surrounding the proposed site. For geologic resources, the extent of the geologic area of analysis has been expanded to all of Portage County to encompass potential commercial sources of rock and mineral resources to support construction activities at the Alternatives 5-86 proposed site and vicinity. As the aspects of land disturbance and conversion are addressed separately in the Land Use section above, the cumulative impacts analysis here will focus on soil loss and consumption of geologic resources. The NRC staff concludes that the incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on the geologic environment, including geologic and soil resources, would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.3.3. New development and expansion projects listed in Table 5-16 would consume or extract geologic resources, including rock and mineral resources, or would require materials derived from such geologic resources (e.g., concrete). However, common construction materials such as sand and gravel and crushed stone are available and widely abundant in the county (Section 5.2.3.3) or are available regionally. Neither the geologic resource requirements to construct the proposed SHINE facility nor the resource requirements of any of the other identified facility expansion, development, or transportation projects are on a scale that would be likely to affect the regional sources and supplies of the identified resources. In conclusion, the NRC staff finds that cumulative impacts on geologic and soil resources would be SMALL. Water Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on water resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impacts on surface-water resources relate to issues concerning water use, water quality, and potential climate change. This further encompasses water withdrawal, effluent discharges, accidental spills and releases, and stormwater drainage and runoff. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.4 serves as a baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of water resources. For surface-water resources, the extent of the geolographic area of analysis has been expanded to include McDill Pond, an impoundment on the Plover River. For groundwater resources, the area considered encompasses the local groundwater basin in which groundwater is recharged and flows to discharge points and those aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn through wells. Specifically, the cumulative impacts analysis focuses on those projects and activities that, when combined with the proposed action, would: (1) withdraw water from or discharge wastewater to McDill Pond and the Plover River downstream of the proposed site or (2) would use groundwater or could otherwise affect the same aquifers that would supply water to the proposed site. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.4, impacts on water resources at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. In addition to the proposed SHINE facility, new development and expansion projects listed in Table 5-16 and disturbing greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha) of land would have to obtain and comply with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific construction site erosion control plan, including specific BMPs, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management). Permits issued to all new stormwater and industrial wastewater dischargers would include provisions as part of Wisconsin-issued NPDES permits to comply with applicable water-quality-based effluent limitations and wasteload allocations established for downstream receiving waters. The proposed SHINE facility would have no direct sanitary or other wastewater discharges to surface water or groundwater. The SHINE facility would be served by the City of Stevens Point WTP, which has excess treatment capacity (Section 5.2.3.4). The protection of groundwater quality in surficial aquifers and conservation of local groundwater supplies is a concern across Wisconsin. The City of Stevens Point's groundwater supply Alternatives 5-87 system is considered adequate to meet water supply needs over the short term. However, it has long-term plans to assure future supply while addressing issues with poor performing supply wells and wells with poor quality water (City of Stevens Point 2006). As a result of climate change, the Midwest may continue to experience an increase in annual precipitation, along with an increase in annual and seasonal temperatures. Increased precipitation, particularly during the spring and winter months, could increase groundwater recharge (USGCRP 2014). Regardless, the proposed SHINE facility would be served by the City of Stevens Point municipal water system (Section 5.2.3.4). Furthermore, neither the proposed SHINE facility nor each of the projects identified in Table 5-16 would be expected to require exorbitant volumes of groundwater or surface water that would affect water availability for other potential uses or users. Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts on water resources would be SMALL. Ecological Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on ecological resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.5 serves as a baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of ecological resources. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on ecological resources includes the area surrounding the Stevens Point site that is ecologically connected to the onsite ecological resources (e.g., the watershed surrounding the Stevens Point site). The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.3.5. Since European settlement, prairies, forests, and wetlands have been greatly reduced by at least 50 to 80 percent and converted into agricultural fields, industrial uses, and residential and commercial areas. Remaining tracts of grasslands, forests, and wetlands tend to be relatively small and isolated, which results in lower quality habitat than large tracts of habitat because of the different biological and physical characteristics along the edge of a habitat patch (WDNR 2013c). Current threats to terrestrial and aquatic habitats include increased soil, nutrients, and other pollutants washing into streams and lakes from urban and agricultural stormwater runoff; continued conversion and fragmentation of wildlife habitat from development (Table 5-16); introduction of invasive species; and climate change (WDNR 2013c; USGCRP 2014). These activities will likely decrease the overall availability and quality of forested, grassland, and wetland habitats. Species with threatened, endangered, or declining populations are likely to be more sensitive to declines in habitat availability and quality and the introduction of invasive species. As environmental stressors, such as future development and climate change, continue over the next few decades, certain attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (such as habitat quality) are likely to change noticeably. The NRC staff does not expect these impacts to destabilize any important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment, because such impacts will cause gradual change, which should allow most terrestrial and aquatic resources to adapt appropriately. The staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the SHINE facility, plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions, would result in MODERATE impacts to terrestrial and aquatic resources. Alternatives 5-88 Historic and Cultural Resources This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on historic and cultural resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area considered in this analysis is the APE associated with the proposed SHINE facility, the proposed SHINE site, and its immediate vicinity. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.6, the impacts on historic and cultural resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility would be SMALL. The archaeological record for the region indicates prehistoric and historic occupation. Historic land development and prolonged agricultural use of the APE resulted in impacts on, and the loss of, cultural resources in the APE and its immediate vicinity. As described in Section 5.2.3.6, no known historic or cultural resources or historic properties are present within the APE. However, there remains the possibility for inadvertent discovery of historic or cultural resources within the APE. Direct impacts would occur if historic and cultural resources in the APE were to be physically removed or disturbed. Indirect visual or noise impacts could occur from new construction or maintenance. The only foreseeable project within the APE is the SHINE facility and the potential discovery of cultural resources on the proposed site. Should they be discovered, any cultural resources would be managed using SHINE BMPs developed for the proposed Janesville site (e.g., cultural resource management procedures and training) (SHINE 2013b). Therefore, the cumulative impact on historic and cultural resources of the proposed SHINE facility, when combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities, would be SMALL. Socioeconomics This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on current socioeconomic conditions within the ROI from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.7 serves as a baseline for the cumulative socioeconomic impact assessment. The geographic area of analysis is the ROI, Portage County. Section 5.2.3.7 found that socioeconomic impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Table 5-16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Relevant "other actions" that are considered in this cumulative impacts analysis are future construction projects that would bring new business and people to the ROI. Depending on the number of workers needed to support the operation of the Central Wisconsin Alcohol Inc. and the Copps Food Center, there is the potential for increased population, employment, tax revenue, and demand for public services in the ROI. However, a majority of the workers would likely already reside within the ROI and are currently using public services. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.7, Portage County has adequate public services and water utilities capable of accommodating any population changes. Therefore, the contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, would be SMALL. Alternatives 5-89 Human Health This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects on human health of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site. The Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital, which conducts radiological procedures, is 3.5 mi (5.7 km) from the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2013a). The use of radioactive materials for medical diagnosis and treatment is regulated by the State of Wisconsin. The NRC and the Governor of Wisconsin signed an agreement transferring regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to the State of Wisconsin, which became the 33rd Agreement State, effective August 11, 2003. As an Agreement State, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services is responsible for licensing and inspecting the above-named materials, except at nuclear power plants and Federal facilities (WDHS 2014). No nuclear fuel cycle facilities occur within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site that would contribute to the cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative radiological impacts from the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site and the potential impacts from the use of radioactive materials at the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital. Both facilities are or would be licensed and regulated, SHINE by the NRC and the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital by the State, and both are or would be required to maintain radiation doses to their workers and members of the public within Federal and State dose limits. Also, given that SHINE would be 3.54 mi (5.69 km) from the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital, radioactive emissions that are within regulatory limits would be reduced through the processes of dispersion and dilution as they travel in the atmosphere. Based on the regulatory controls that are and would be in place to control radiation exposure, the distance between the facilities, and the dilution of the radioactive materials, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts to human health would be SMALL. Table 5-16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates the use of nonradioactive materials (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital and would regulate their use at the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS, the State of Wisconsin has regulations for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500 (SHINE 2015a). Both SHINE and the Ministry Saint Michaels's Hospital are or would be regulated by the State and are or would be required to maintain chemical exposure to their workers and members of the public within State limits. Also, based on the distance between each facility, nonradioactive emissions that are within regulatory limits are or would be reduced through the processes of dispersion and dilution as they travel in the atmosphere. Based on the regulatory controls that are or would be in place to control chemical exposure, the distance between the facilities listed in Table 5-16, and the dilution of the nonradioactive materials, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative nonradiological impacts to human health would be SMALL. Waste Management This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site from radioactive and nonradioactive wastes, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, Alternatives 5-90 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site. In Section 5.2.2.9, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from types and volumes of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. There are no nuclear fuel cycle facilities located within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site that would contribute to the cumulative impacts from radioactive wastes. Therefore, the NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative impacts from radioactive waste from the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site and the potential impacts from the disposal of radioactive waste at the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital. Radioactive waste at both facilities will be regulated, SHINE by the NRC and the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital by the State. The facilities will be required to store, process, and dispose of radioactive wastes in accordance with Federal and State requirements. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS, radioactive wastes generated by the proposed SHINE facility will be packaged and transported off site to a licensed low-level radioactive waste facility for disposal (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from radioactive wastes generated and disposed of from the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Radioactive waste generated at the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital would also be packaged and transported off site to a licensed low-level radioactive waste facility for disposal. Based on the regulatory controls on packaging and transporting radioactive wastes, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts from radioactive waste would be SMALL. Table 5-16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates the use and disposal of nonradioactive waste (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at the Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital and will regulate their use and disposal at the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS, the State of Wisconsin has regulations for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500 (SHINE 2015a). SHINE and the facilities listed in Table 5-16 will be regulated by the State and will be required to safely store, package, transport, and dispose of nonradioactive wastes in accordance with State requirements. Based on the State's regulatory controls that will be in place to control nonradioactive wastes, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts from nonradioactive wastes would be SMALL. Also, the projects and activities identified in Table 5-16 that are near the Stevens Point site generally are relatively small and would not be expected to have significant impacts from nonradioactive waste in the same areas affected by the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential cumulative impacts from radioactive and nonradioactive wastes from the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable future projects would be SMALL. Transportation This section addresses the direct and indirect effects on transportation from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on transportation includes the site Alternatives 5-91 boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site. However, the roads for routes that could be used for delivery of medical isotopes (if air transport is not possible) or disposal of wastes were also considered. Transportation infrastructure includes roadways, rail lines, airports, and traffic-control devices. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.10, transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Construction projects in Table 5-16 could produce an increase in vehicular traffic on roads within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. For example, construction of new or expanded businesses could add construction-related vehicles or employees commuting on roads near the Stevens Point site. Depending on the number of workers required and whether construction projects within the vicinity of the Stevens Point site were occurring at the same time as the SHINE facility's construction, operations, or decommissioning, traffic on access roads would increase. Most existing roads would be sufficient to handle the construction project transportation activities, and alternative routes could be used to minimize transportation impacts. In some cases, however, a noticeable increase in traffic could occur, especially if construction timeframes overlapped and construction workers and vehicles used the same roads. Therefore, depending on whether other construction projects overlapped with construction, operations, or decommissioning of the SHINE facility, or whether increased vehicular activity from workers or residents on roads near the Stevens Point site had a noticeable impact on traffic, the NRC staff concludes that cumulative transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Environmental Justice The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential contributory human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on minority and low-income populations, and whether these effects might be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing near the Stevens Point site, and everyone would be exposed to the same environmental effects generated by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.12, the Stevens Point site is located in a block group that exceeds the geographic area average for minority populations. The geographic area of analysis is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Stevens Point site would not have high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Table 5-16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic area of analysis that could contribute cumulative human health and environmental effects. Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental effects from construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, noise and dust impacts during construction and decommissioning would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction. However, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause Alternatives 5-92 rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the availability of workers and the likelihood of workers commuting to the construction site, the need for rental housing could be reduced. Operational emissions from manufacturing or industrial facilities within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility. However, everyone would be exposed to the same potential contributory effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions. Permitted air emissions from all manufacturing and industrial facilities, including the contributory effects from the proposed SHINE facility, would be expected to remain within regulatory standards. Based on this information and the analysis of human health and other environmental impacts presented in this section of the EIS, the contributory effects of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SHINE facility are not likely to create high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site. 5.3 Alternative Technologies 5.3.1 Identification of Reasonable Alternatives The purpose of the SHINE facility is to use low-enriched uranium fission technology to domestically produce three medical isotopes: molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133 (Section 2.0). Other alternative medical radioisotope production technologies exist that could be used to create these isotopes (e.g., Making Medical Isotopes: Report of the Task Force on Alternatives for Medical-Isotope Production (TRIUMF 2008) and Homogeneous Aqueous Solution Nuclear Reactors for the Production of Mo-99 [molybdenum-99] and other Short Lived Radioisotopes (IAEA 2008)). While various publications have described a broad range of other technologies, the NRC staff considered three technologies for the purposes of this alternatives analysis. These three alternative technologies are the following: (1) neutron capture technology, (2) aqueous homogenous reactor technology, and (3) linear-accelerator-based technology. These three technologies were chosen for the alternatives analysis, because they appear to be technologically reasonable. For example, the Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), through the Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation's Global Threat Reduction Initiative, awarded cooperative agreements to commercial entities proposing a new technology to accelerate the dual objectives of eliminating the use of proliferation-sensitive highly enriched uranium in the production of medical radioisotopes and establishing reliable domestic supplies of molybdenum-99 to meet U.S. medical needs. In awarding these cooperative agreements, NNSA based its decision, in part, on an evaluation of the technical feasibility. The NRC staff notes that this alternatives analysis is not an endorsement of any type of technology but rather is an analysis of three alternatives that appear to be technologically reasonable. Further, the NRC staff notes that several commercial entities have proposed other methods to produce molybdenum-99, such as heterogeneous reactors. For the purposes of this EIS, the NRC staff has limited the alternatives analysis to the three technologies that NNSA is supporting through its cooperative agreements (as of February 2015) because when there are Alternatives 5-93 potentially a large number of alternatives, NEPA only requires that an agency analyze a reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives, in the EIS (46 FR 18026). In this analysis of the alternative technologies, the NRC staff evaluated the potential environmental impacts if a commercial entity were to construct and operate a facility on the proposed SHINE site in Janesville, Wisconsin, using alternative technology. The NRC staff notes that no commercial entity (other than SHINE) has proposed building or operating a facility at the proposed SHINE site. For the purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff reviewed environmental documents and technological descriptions related to the three alternative technologies, as described in further detail below. 5.3.2 Neutron Capture Alternative For the neutron capture alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by neutron irradiation of raw molybdenum in a boiling water reactor (GE Hitachi 2011). However, the proposed Janesville site does not contain a boiling water reactor. The NRC staff does not consider construction of a new boiling water reactor to support the neutron capture technology to be considered reasonable, as the currently proposed site has insufficient space and other resources to support a power reactor. Alternatively, a research reactor could be used to produce molybdenum-99 using neutron capture technology. Sufficient space likely occurs on the proposed Janesville site to construct a new research reactor as part of the neutron capture alternative. No commercial entity, however, has submitted an application to construct or operate a reactor using neutron capture, as of February 2015. Given the conceptual stage of the neutron capture technology and the lack of environmental data regarding the potential impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning, the NRC staff determined that insufficient environmental information exists to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts of this technology in detail. For these reasons, the NRC staff does not consider the neutron capture technology a reasonable alternative and has excluded it from further consideration. 5.3.3 Aqueous Homogenous Reactor Alternative For the low-enriched uranium aqueous homogenous reactor alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced using an aqueous homogenous reactor fueled by a uranium salt solution, followed by a series of chemical processes to extract the molybdenum-99 (IAEA 2008; B&W 2012). The size of each reactor would be approximately 200 to 240 kilowatts, and it would be capable of producing about 1,100 6-day curies (Ci) on a weekly basis (IAEA 2008). The reactor fuel solution would contain low-enriched uranium salt dissolved in water and acid. This solution would also be the target material for molybdenum-99 production, as fissioning the uranium-235 would produce molybdenum-99 and other isotopes. The reactor would be operated until a sufficient amount of molybdenum-99 occurred in the fuel solution. The fuel solution would be removed and processed using chemical purification to extract the molybdenum-99 (IAEA 2013). Afterwards, the molybdenum-99 would be transported to an end-user medical facility. During operations, the aqueous homogenous reactors would produce radiolytic and other off-gases such as nitrogen oxides (IAEA 2008). The production process would also generate liquid waste from both the reactors and the processing of molybdenum-99 within the hot cells (IAEA 2008, 2013). Several technical documents have been published that describe conceptual aqueous homogenous reactors to produce molybdenum-99 (e.g., IAEA 2008, 2013; B&W 2012). No Alternatives 5-94 commercial entity, however, has submitted an application to construct or operate an aqueous homogenous reactor, as of February 2015. Given the conceptual stage of the aqueous homogenous reactor technology and the lack of environmental data regarding the potential impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning, the NRC staff determined that insufficient environmental information exists to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts of this technology in detail. For these reasons, the NRC staff does not consider the aqueous homogenous reactor technology a reasonable alternative and has excluded it from further consideration. 5.3.4 Linear-Accelerator-Based Alternative For the linear-accelerator-based alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by utilizing an accelerator to irradiate natural molybdenum that has been enriched in the radioisotope molybdenum-100. For the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff assumed the facility would be similar to the facility described in NNSA's Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99 (DOE 2012). The NRC acknowledges that other commercial entities have proposed methods of producing molybdenum-99 using linear-accelerator-based technology, such as Niowave, Inc. (Niowave 2015). However, for the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff used the environmental parameters included in NNSA's environmental assessment for the NorthStar Medical Radioisotope facility because this commercial entity was awarded a cooperative agreement by NNSA and because sufficient environmental data exist regarding this proposed technology. The facility for the linear-accelerator-based alternative would have the capacity to produce approximately 3,000 6-day Ci per week. To produce molybdenum-99, the operator would use a target made of molybdenum enriched in the radioisotope molybdenum-100 and would irradiate (or bombard) the targets using a pair of accelerators. Up to 16 accelerators would be constructed and used during operations (DOE 2012). After bombardment, the targets would be removed and chemically processed in hot cells to produce the molybdenum-99 radiochemical. The operator would then ship the molybdenum-99 radiochemical from the facility to an end-user medical facility. After further processing at the end-user medical facility, the spent or unusable portion of the radiochemical from the end-user facility would be returned. During operations, the facility would produce radiolytic and other off-gases such as nitrogen oxides (DOE 2012). The production process would also generate radioactive and nonradioactive liquid waste (DOE 2012). The NRC staff assumed that the operator would construct a containment building for the accelerators and radioactive waste facility (DOE 2012). In addition, a separate building or parts of the building would contain the processing facility (e.g., hot cells and chemical laboratories), areas for shipping and receiving, and a waste management center. Support facilities, such as administration buildings, parking lots, and holding tanks, would be similar to those for the SHINE facility. The sections below evaluate the environmental impacts of the linear-accelerator-based alternative. For the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff used the same environmental and engineering parameters described in NNSA's Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99 (DOE 2012). However, the NRC staff assumed the linear-accelerator-based facility would be constructed at the Janesville site. The NRC staff notes that, if a linear-accelerator-based facility were constructed at the Janesville site, similar to NorthStar's facility, the State of Wisconsin could maintain authority over byproduct material, as described in 10 CFR Part 30. Therefore, Alternatives 5-95 the facility operator would not need to apply to the NRC for a construction permit or operating license. The purpose of the assessment below is to evaluate the environmental consequences of an alternative technology to the proposed technology at the Janesville site. 5.3.4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources Impacts Constructing, operating, and decommissioning the linear-accelerator-based alternative at the Janesville site would disturb approximately 13 ac (5.3 ha) of agricultural land to build and operate areas for irradiation, processing facilities, waste management facilities, administration buildings, parking lots, and other support structures (DOE 2012). The highest structure would be the emissions stack for chemical processing, which would extend approximately 18 m (60 ft) in height, with a diameter of 0.6 m (2 ft) (DOE 2012). Therefore, the size, height, and footprint of the buildings for the accelerator-based alternative would be bounded by the parameters analyzed for the SHINE facility in Section 4.1. As described in Section 4.1, land use impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be SMALL, because the entire site is currently zoned for industrial use, and the permanently converted agricultural land would be a small portion of available agricultural land within the vicinity. As described in Section 4.1, aesthetic impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be SMALL at the Janesville site, given that a light industrial development landscape surrounds part of the site and the visual setting is generally flat and has a uniform landform with low vegetation diversity and a low visual-quality rating. Based on a similar or smaller footprint, building size, and building height for the linear-accelerator-based alternative, land use and visual impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.2 Air Quality and Noise Impacts Air quality and noise impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning of the linear-accelerator-based alternative at the Janesville site would be very similar to those described in Section 4.2, based on the similar period of construction (18 months), construction methods, and operational activities (DOE 2012). The primary impacts would be from dust, vehicular emissions, and noise. For example, construction activities would generate air pollutant emissions from site-disturbing activities, such as grading, filling, compacting, trenching, and operating construction equipment. However, the NRC staff assumed that the operator would meet State and local regulations and ordinances. Additionally, given that less land would be disturbed and the footprint of the facility would be less for the linear-accelerator-based alternative, air quality and noise impacts are bounded by what is described in Section 4.2. Given the similar construction duration (18 months), construction methods, and operational and decommissioning activities, the NRC staff concludes that air quality and noise impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.3 Geologic Environment Direct impacts on the geologic environment, including the consumption of geologic resources, from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the linear-accelerator-based alternative at the Janesville site would likely be similar to or less than those described in Section 4.3. This is because the area of disturbance would be the same or less than that described for the SHINE facility (DOE 2012). In particular, the potential for soil erosion and loss would likely be much less, as the area of land disturbance, associated earthwork, and overall need for geologic resources would be somewhat less, compared to the proposed action. During construction, grading activities would likely affect the upper 1.5 m (5 ft) of surface soil and would not result in net removal of soil or additions of fill material (DOE 2012). Excavation of the subgrade portions of buildings would remove up to approximately 21,000 m3 (28,000 cubic yards (yd3)) of soil and rock material (DOE 2012). Given that the area of disturbance and the potential for soil erosion and loss would be the same or less than those described for the SHINE Alternatives 5-96 facility, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on the geologic environment would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.4 Water Resources Construction, operations, and decommissioning of the linear-accelerator-based alternative at the Janesville site would not entail direct impacts on natural surface-water drainages or on groundwater hydrology. The impacts of construction would be similar to or somewhat less than those from the proposed action, as presented in Section 4.4, because of similar construction methods and the size of the facilities (DOE 2012). Facility construction would have to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific construction erosion control plan, including specific BMPs to minimize water-quality impacts, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management). Makeup water requirements for potable and process use to support facility operations would likely be the same or less than those for the proposed alternative, and water would be supplied from municipal sources (DOE 2012). Likewise, there would be no direct impact on water resources during operations and no direct discharge of liquid effluent (including sanitary or industrial wastewater) to surface water or groundwater. All wastewater would be conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP and would be subject to the city's influent acceptance requirements for industrial users and in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act. Given that there would be no direct impact on natural surface-water drainages or on groundwater hydrology and that water would be supplied from municipal sources, the NRC staff concludes that the impact on water resources would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.5 Ecological Resources As described in Section 5.3.4.1, the linear-accelerator-based alternative would disturb less land at the Janesville site than the proposed SHINE facility. Directly affected vegetation would be limited to cultivated crops and weedy species, both of which are abundant within the region and provide relatively low-quality habitat for birds and wildlife in comparison to forests, grasslands, and wetland habitats. In addition to a loss of habitat, noise from construction activities could disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such disturbances and loss of habitat, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat (agricultural fields) within the vicinity. All other impacts on ecological resources, such as bird collisions, disturbance during maintenance activities, and potential runoff to offsite aquatic resources, are expected to be similar to those described for the proposed SHINE facility in Section 4.5 because of similar construction methods, similar or smaller building size and footprint, and similar operating and decommissioning activities. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on ecological resources would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources As described in Section 4.6, no historic or cultural resources were identified within the proposed Janesville site, and therefore, historic and cultural resources would not be affected by the linear-accelerator-based technology. Additionally, as described in Section 5.3.4.1, the linear-accelerator-based alternative would disturb less land at the Janesville site than the proposed SHINE facility, which reduces the likelihood of disturbing undocumented remains. During construction, operations, and decommissioning, the operator would use the same cultural resource management plan to manage and protect unidentified cultural resources as discussed in Section 4.6, regardless of which technology was chosen. Therefore, impacts on Alternatives 5-97 historic and cultural resources would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.7 Socioeconomics Socioeconomic impacts from the linear-accelerator-based alternative would be similar to those described for the proposed SHINE facility in Section 4.7. For example, the linear accelerator workforce during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be similar to or less than the number of workers needed for the proposed SHINE facility discussed in Section 4.7 (DOE 2012). Some workers would need to relocate (temporarily or permanently) to the ROI. This would lead to an increase in tax revenue and an increased demand for temporary and permanent housing. As described in Section 4.7, the ROI has sufficient housing available to support any increase in population and has sufficient capacity to accommodate any increased demand for public services. Given the similar size of the estimated workforce for the proposed SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based alternative, socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.8 Human Health Impacts on human health from the linear-accelerator-based alternative are expected to be similar to those described in Section 4.8 for the proposed SHINE facility, based on the similar construction methods; radiological controls; and other policies, procedures, and regulations that protect public health and safety. For example, the NRC staff assumed that access controls during construction would allow only authorized personnel access to the site and prevent members of the public from coming on site. During construction, operations, and decommissioning, the NRC staff further assumed that the facility operator would implement normal safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations and that limits for toxic chemicals stored or used at the site would be below the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code (DOE 2012). Further, the design of the facility would likely incorporate measures to minimize radiation exposure to workers and members of the public (DOE 2012). Given the radiological controls and other policies, procedures, and regulations that the operator would follow to protect public health and safety, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on human health would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 5.3.4.9 Waste Management Construction activities would generate approximately 160 metric tons (175 tons) of solid waste in the form of wood, metal, concrete, or other miscellaneous construction debris (DOE 2012). This amount of waste would likely be similar to that produced for the SHINE facility, given the similar construction activities and size of buildings that would be constructed. Operation of the linear-accelerator-based alternative would generate about 10.4 m3 (14 yd3) of low-level radioactive waste, 2.4 m3 (3.1 yd3) of hazardous waste, and 45 m3 (59 yd3) of solid waste annually (DOE 2012). The NRC staff determined that existing commercial or municipal treatment and disposal facilities would be able to accommodate all projected quantities of waste generated by the linear-accelerator-based facility. During construction, operations, and decommissioning, the operator would likely implement waste management systems to protect the workers and the public from radiological exposures and processes to minimize chemical contamination. The operator would also be required to comply with NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin radiation protection requirements, as applicable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. Alternatives 5-98 5.3.4.10 Transportation Transportation impacts during construction and decommissioning would come, for example, from the removal of excavated materials, shipment of construction materials or dismantled buildings to or from the site, transport of worker personnel, and movement of heavy equipment for onsite construction or decommissioning activities. Transportation impacts would be similar to those described for the SHINE facility in Section 4.10, because construction and decommissioning activities would be very similar and operate over a similar time span at the same location. Therefore, the increased level of traffic during construction and decommissioning could have a noticeable impact on traffic. Transportation impacts during operation would come from shipments of hazardous and radioactive waste to treatment and disposal facilities; receipt of processing materials (e.g., acids and other chemicals); receipt of target materials; shipment of the molybdenum-99 and other medical radioisotopes; and, potentially, the return of technetium-99m generators. The operator of the facility and transportation vehicles would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material. Based on the similar transportation impacts that are expected for the SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to transportation would be MODERATE during construction and decommissioning and SMALL during operations. 5.3.4.11 Accidents DOE (2012) assessed a range of accidents involving radioactive molybdenum-99 or chemicals that would be used during the production process for a linear-accelerator-based facility. Accident scenarios included a severe accident from the release of the entire helium inventory from the accelerator cooling system, a severe accident to a member of the public from direct exposure to a freshly irradiated molybdenum target, and an accident resulting from an intentional destructive act involving the release of a significant portion of a freshly irradiated target (DOE 2012). Given the radiological controls and other policies, procedures, and Federal and State regulations that the operator would follow to protect public health and safety, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to a member of the public from a potential accident would be SMALL. 5.3.4.12 Environmental Justice The environmental justice impacts from a linear-accelerator-based alternative would be the same as those discussed for the SHINE facility in Section 4.12. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the site could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during the construction, operations, and decommissioning of either technology. However, during construction and decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Operation of either technology would not adversely affect minority and low-income populations living near the Janesville site. The level of potential radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and the State of Wisconsin's regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income populations residing near the existing industrial park and the proposed SHINE facility could experience short-term disproportionate, but not high and adverse, human health and environmental effects from the linear-accelerator-based alternative. Alternatives 5-99 5.3.4.13 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts for the linear-accelerator-based alternative would be similar to those described in Chapter 4 for the SHINE facility at the Janesville site, because the direct contributory effects from construction, operations, and decommissioning for the two technologies would be similar. 5.4 Cost-Benefit Comparison NEPA and CEQ require that all agencies of the Federal government prepare detailed environmental statements on proposed major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. One of NEPA's principal objectives is to require each Federal agency to consider, in its decisionmaking process, the environmental impacts of each proposed major action. In particular, as stated below, Section 102 of NEPA requires all Federal agencies to the fullest extent possible to: (B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality established by Title II of this Act, which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations. (42 U.S.C. 4321) However, neither NEPA nor CEQ requires the benefits and costs of a proposed action to be quantified in dollars or any other common metric. The intent of this section is not to identify and quantify all potential societal benefits of the proposed action and compare them to potential costs. Instead, it focuses only on those benefits and costs of such magnitude or importance that including them in this analysis can inform the decisionmaking process. This section compiles the expected impacts from operations of the proposed SHINE facility and aggregates them into two final categories: (1) the expected costs and (2) the expected benefits derived from approving the proposed action. Table 5-17 describes the following information on major environmental costs and benefits, including: average annual production of commercial products, expected increase in tax payments to State and local tax jurisdictions during construction and operations, other benefits, environmental degradation, which includes impacts on: land use and visual resources, air quality, geologic environment, water resources, ecological resources, historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, noise, traffic congestion, environmental justice, and increased demand for public services, effects on human health, and other costs, which include lost tax revenues, decreased recreational value, and transportation (as appropriate). Alternatives 5-100 Table 5-17. Costs and Benefits of Constructing, Operating, and Decommissioning the Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville, Wisconsin, Site Cost Benefit Category Description Impact Assessment Benefits Domestic Production of Molybdenum-99 SHINE would produce a domestic supply of molybdenum-99; no domestic producers of this widely used medical radioisotope currently exist in the U.S. and the U.S. currently imports all of its supply. _ Use of Low-enriched Uranium Target Solution SHINE would use low-enriched uranium target solution for production of medical radioisotopes, contributing to the Federal nonproliferation objective to phase out U.S. exports of highly enriched uranium, as identified in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. _ Tax Revenues The estimated total construction dollars spent in the local community associated with the SHINE facility are expected to be approximately $20 to $30 million for labor, electrical equipment, cabling, and concrete, spread over the construction period. SHINE intends to enter into a TIF agreement during the first 10 years of the proposed project, covering the entirety of the construction period, allowing them to make payments in lieu of taxes at an estimated payments total of $600,000 per year. SHINE would pay property taxes estimated to be $35,000 per year based on the assessed property before improvements during this 10-year period. _ Local Economy Increased jobs would benefit the area economically and increase the economic diversity of the region. (Section 4.7) _ Costs Land Use The site would include 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas, which is a small portion of the agricultural land within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the site (Section 4.1.1). The location of the proposed facility is within an area zoned for light industrial use. No additional land would be disturbed during operations or decommissioning. SMALL Visual Resources The proposed SHINE facility would not noticeably alter visual resources, based on the low scenic quality, low scenic value, and light industrial viewshed within the vicinity of the proposed site. (Section 4.1.2) SMALL Air Quality Air quality impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning, would be negligible, given the relatively low emissions and the pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from WDNR. (Section 4.2) SMALL Alternatives 5-101 Cost Benefit Category Description Impact Assessment Noise During construction, operations, and decommissioning, noise would be minimal, given the minor (1 to 2 dBA) expected increases in noise levels. (Section 4.2) SMALL Geologic Environment Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would consume geologic resources and have the potential to increase soil erosion, but the overall impact would be minor, given that the geologic resources are widely available within the region and erosion would be managed with the implementation of BMPs. (Section 4.3) SMALL Water Resources Water-resource impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be negligible, because of the lack of surface-water features on site and the use of municipal water. (Section 4.4) SMALL Ecological Resources Terrestrial and aquatic ecology impacts are expected to be SMALL, based on the limited amount of land that would be disturbed and because the entire site includes previously disturbed habitat. (Section 4.5) SMALL Historic and Cultural Resources SHINE could inadvertently discover previously unidentified cultural resources caused by land disturbance during construction, operations, or decommissioning. However, impacts would be SMALL based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE's CRMP procedures, and (4) cultural resource assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff. (Section 4.6) SMALL Socioeconomic Socioeconomic impacts are expected to be SMALL, based on the size of the workforce required to construct, operate and decommission the SHINE facility. (Section 4.7) SMALL Human Health Human health impacts would be minimized because access to the site would be restricted, SHINE would implement normal safety practices contained in OSHA regulations, and SHINE would operate the proposed SHINE facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. (Section 4.8) SMALL Alternatives 5-102 Cost Benefit Category Description Impact Assessment Waste Management Based on the availability of waste disposal pathways for radiological and nonradiological waste; SHINE's proposed waste management systems; engineered design features to minimize radioactive and nonradioactive contamination; and NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin radiation protection requirements, the NRC staff concludes that radioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. (Section 4.9) SMALL Transportation Traffic would noticeably increase on local roads during construction and decommissioning because of the overall increase in average daily traffic flow and because of construction- and decommissioning-related truck traffic. (Section 4.10) During operations, the increase in traffic would be minor because of the lower number of employees commuting to and from the site. SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material. However, because the additional traffic attributable to SHINE worker vehicles would result in morning peak-hour traffic delays sufficient to reduce the existing level of service (traffic flow) at a key intersection near the SHINE facility, impacts could temporarily be MODERATE. (Section 4.10) SMALL to MODERATE Accidents The NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from chemical and radiological accidents in the NRC staff's safety evaluation report (SER). Assuming that the NRC staff determines in its SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 70.61 and 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential chemical and radiological accidents would be SMALL. SMALL Alternatives 5-103 Cost Benefit Category Description Impact Assessment Environmental Justice Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the proposed site could be affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction and decommissioning. However, these would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Operation of the proposed SHINE facility is not expected to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations, as everyone living near the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park would be exposed to the same potential effects from operations, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in ambient conditions. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. (Section 4.12) Minority and low-income populations would not be expected to experience any high and adverse effects The financial costs related to the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility are described below. Regulations at 10 CFR 50.33(f)(1) state that an applicant for a construction permit shall demonstrate that it possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the necessary funding needed to cover estimated construction and related fuel cycle costs. Further, the applicant shall indicate the source(s) of funds to cover these costs. In Chapter 15 of the PSAR, SHINE stated that it has obtained financing for its development and construction project using various sources of financing, including equity, debt, and government grants. SHINE listed the following financial commitments: cost sharing agreement with the DOE/NNSA: $25 million, equity financing raised to-date: $11.4 million, Alliant Energy shared savings program loan: $4.8 million, State of Wisconsin Enterprise Zone Tax Credits: $11.2 million, City of Janesville loan packages/guarantees: $4.6 million, 90 ac (36 ha) of land for the building site provided by the City of Janesville: $1.0 million, an additional equity capital investment from outside investor: to be determined, and other financing sources (SHINE 2015a). SHINE's operational cost estimates provided in Chapter 15 of the PSAR include the total annual operating costs for the first 5 years (SHINE 2015a). SHINE expects that revenue from the sale of molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) and other radioisotopes will exceed operating costs. For decommissioning the facility, SHINE provided a preliminary cost estimate of $60 million (SHINE 2015a). 5.4.1 Benefit and Costs of Alternatives This section compares the environmental impacts for the alternative sites and alternative technology with the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville. Table 5-18 provides a tabular Alternatives 5-104 comparison of the potential environmental impacts of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, Wisconsin, with each of the alternative sites (Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point) and the no-action alternative. Both Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point alternative sites would have some resource areas with MODERATE impacts. For example, these alternative sites would have MODERATE noise and transportation impacts during construction and decommissioning. In addition, the Stevens Point alternative site would have a MODERATE visual impact during construction. The financial costs of construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the alternative sites would likely be similar to the financial costs at the proposed SHINE site due to the facility's design and operational plan. The no-action alternative would have SMALL impacts for every resource area, because there would be no change in current environmental conditions at the proposed site. Table 5-19 provides a tabular comparison of the potential environmental impacts of constructing, operating, and decommissioning a linear-accelerator-based alternative with the proposed SHINE facility, both in Janesville, Wisconsin. Both the proposed SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based alternative would have SMALL to MODERATE transportation impacts as a result of traffic. The impacts would be SMALL for all other resource areas. Construction and operation of the proposed facility at an alternative site or using an alternative technology would not reduce or avoid adverse effects, compared with constructing and operating the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, Wisconsin. The adverse environmental impacts from the no-action alternative would be SMALL. However, the no-action alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed action. Table 5-18. Comparison of Impacts for the Proposed SHINE Facility, Proposed Alternative Sites, and No-Action Impacts on Resource or Other Area Evaluation Janesville Chippewa Falls Stevens Point No-Action Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Visual Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Noise SMALL SMALL to SMALL to SMALL MODERATE MODERATE Geology SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Water Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Ecological Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Historical and Cultural Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Socioeconomic SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Waste Management SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Transportation SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Environmental Justice No high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations Alternatives 5-105 Table 5-19. Comparison of Technologies at the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville Impacts on Resource or Other Area Evaluation SHINE Technology Linear-Accelerator-based Technology Land Use SMALL SMALL Visual Resources SMALL SMALL Air Quality SMALL SMALL Noise SMALL SMALL Geology SMALL SMALL Water Resources SMALL SMALL Ecological Resources SMALL SMALL Historical and Cultural Resources SMALL SMALL Socioeconomic SMALL SMALL Human Health SMALL SMALL Waste Management SMALL SMALL Transportation SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Environmental Justice No high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations 5.4.2 Cost Benefit Conclusions In Chapter 4 and the preceding sections of Chapter 5, the NRC staff described the costs and benefits of the proposed action as well as alternatives to the proposed action. In weighing the costs and benefits, the NRC staff concludes that the overall benefits of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site outweigh the disadvantages and costs based upon the following considerations: U.S. policy is to ensure a reliable supply of medical radioisotopes while minimizing the use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes (NNSA 2011; White House 2012), the small environmental impact, including radiological impacts and risk to human health, which would be caused by constructing, operating, and decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site, the economic benefit of constructing and operating the proposed SHINE facility to communities located near the Janesville site, and the increased availability of medical isotopes for U.S. public health needs. Constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SHINE facility at the Janesville site would have slightly less environmental costs than at either alternative site because impacts from noise would be SMALL to MODERATE at both the Chippewa Falls and the Stevens Point sites, in part because the nearest resident would be closer, and the noise more audible to the closest resident, than at the Janesville site. In addition, the impacts to visual resources would also be greater at the Stevens Point site (SMALL to MODERATE), if SHINE clears the majority of the onsite wooded areas, which would increase the visibility of the new facility. However, the overall benefits of constructing and operating the proposed SHINE facility at any of the sites would outweigh the environmental disadvantages and costs for the reasons outlined above. Installation of an alternative technology (e.g., linear-accelerator-based) would not result in any greater economic advantages or disadvantages over the proposed SHINE technology and the environmental costs and benefits would be similar to those described for the proposed SHINE Alternatives 5-106 facility at the Janesville site. Therefore, the overall benefits and costs of utilizing an alternative technology at the Janesville site would be the same and would outweigh the environmental disadvantages and costs for the reasons outlined above. 5.5 Alternatives Summary In this chapter, the NRC staff considered the following alternatives to construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin: the no-action alternative; construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site (Alternative Site No. 1); construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site (Alternative Site No. 2); and construction, operations, and decommissioning of a linear-accelerator-based facility at the SHINE site (alternative technology). The impacts for the proposed action, the no-action alternative, the two alternative sites, and the alternative technology are summarized in Tables 5-18 and 5-19. In conclusion, the NRC staff notes that the no-action alternative would result in SMALL impacts to all resource areas. The no-action alternative, however, does not fulfill the purpose and need of the project. The environmentally preferred alternatives are the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility at the Janesville, Wisconsin, site. The impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternative technology would be SMALL for all resource areas, except for traffic, which would incur MODERATE impacts during construction and decommissioning. The other alternatives capable of meeting the purpose and need of the project would entail potentially greater impacts than the proposed action of constructing the SHINE facility. For example, the impacts at both alternative sites would be SMALL for most resource areas; however, the NRC staff determined that impacts from noise would be SMALL to MODERATE at both the Chippewa Falls and the Stevens Point sites and the impacts to visual resources would be SMALL to MODERATE at the Stevens Point site. Similar to the proposed Janesville site, the impacts at both the Chippewa Falls and the Stevens Points site would be SMALL to MODERATE for traffic. 5.6 References 7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, "Important farmlands inventory." 7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, "Farmland and protection policy act." 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions." Alternatives 5-107 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1508, "Terminology and index." 46 FR 18026. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning the CEQ's [Council on Environmental Quality's] National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. Federal Register 46(55):18026-18028. March 23, 1981. [AET] American Engineering Testing, Inc. 2011. Report of Subsurface Exploration. AET Job No: 31-00144. January 21, 2011. ADAMS No. ML13309B619. [B&W]. Babcock and Wilcox Technical Services Group. 2012. "B&W Medical Isotope Production System (MIPS)." May 11, 2012. Available at <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/slides/2012/20120511/spickard-20120511.pdf> (accessed 29 October 2014). [BLS] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Preliminary data for 2012. "Location Quotient Calculator, Preliminary Data for 2012." Available at <http://data.bls.gov/location_quotient/ControllerServlet>. Buchwald, C.A. 2011. Water Use in Wisconsin, 2005. Open-File Report 2009-1076. Version 1.1. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. November 2011. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1076/pdf/ofr20091076.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014). Chippewa Area Unified School District. 2013. "Chippewa Area Unified School District Home Page." Available at <http://cfsd.chipfalls.k12.wi.us>. Chippewa County. 2010. "Chippewa County, Wisconsin, Comprehensive Plan." July 20, 2010. Available at <http://www.co.chippewa.wi.us/government/planning-zoning/comprehensive-planning> (accessed 3 January 2014). Chippewa Herald. 2012. "EOG Sand Operation Underway." January 8, 2012. Available at <http://chippewa.com/news/local/eog-sand-operation-underway/article_8f360c64-398f-11e1-91cf-001871e3ce6c.html> (accessed 25 September 2013). Chippewa Herald. 2013. "Developer Will Revisit Wissota Shores Plan after Plan Commission Defeat." March 13, 2013. Available at <http://chippewa.com/news/local/developers-will-revisit-wissota-shores-plan-after-plan-commission-defeat/article_6e30c360-8c04-11e2-a917-0019bb2963f4.html> (accessed 25 March 2013). City of Chippewa Falls. 1999. "Comprehensive Land Use Plan." Available at <http://www.chippewafalls-wi.gov/your-government/planning-economic-development/planning/comprehensive-land-use-plan> (accessed 9 October 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2006. City of Stevens Point Comprehensive Plan. Adopted January 16, 2006, amended June 19, 2006. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/index.aspx?NID=602> (accessed 3 January 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2011a. Report of City Plan Commission: Request from McDill Lake District. December 5, 2011. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/732> (accessed 29 August 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2011b. Board of Water and Sewage Commissioners Meeting Minutes. December 12, 2011. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/736> (accessed 26 September 2013). City of Stevens Point. 2012a. Report of City Plan Commission. April 2, 2012. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/Archive/ViewFile/Item/877> (accessed 17 October 2014). Alternatives 5-108 City of Stevens Point. 2012b. Regular Council Meeting. January 16, 2012. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/792> (accessed 17 October 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2012c. "Stevens Point receives $225,640 from Focus on Energy." Available at <http://www.ci.stevens-point.wi.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=799&ARC=1671> (accessed 26 September 2012). City of Stevens Point. 2012d. "More of Michigan Avenue to Close." July 18, 2012. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=829&ARC=1683> (accessed 21 August 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2012e. Board of Public Works Meeting Agenda. October 8, 2012. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1065> (accessed 17 October 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2013a. Special Joint Common Council/Water and Sewerage Commissioners Meeting. April 29, 2013. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1307> (accessed 17 October 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2013b. "Waste Water History." Available at <http://www.stevenspoint.com/index.aspx?nid=520> (accessed 6 November 2014). City of Stevens Point. 2014. "Facilities and Wells." Available at <http://wi-stevenspoint.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=275> (accessed 3 January 2014). Clayton, L. 1986. Pleistocene Geology of Portage County, Wisconsin. Information Circular 56. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015). Copps. 2014. "Store Locator." Available at <http://www.copps.com/#!/storelocator> (accessed 8 December 2014). [CN]. 2014. "CN's newest intermodal terminal opens in Chippewa Falls, Wis." February 3, 2012. Available at <http://www.cn.ca/en/news/2012/02/media_news_chippewa_falls_open_20120203> (accessed 26 March 2014). [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2012. Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99 (DOE/EA-1929). July 2012. Available at <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/EA-1929-DEA-2012.pdf> (accessed 30 September 2014). [EOG Resources]. 2012. "EOG Resources Reports First Quarter 2012 Results and Raises 2012 Liquids Production Growth Target." May 8, 2012. Available at <http://investor.shareholder.com/eogresources/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=671644> (accessed 25 September 2013). [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Protective Noise Levels: Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document. Available at <http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20012HG5.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1976+Thru+1980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C76thru80%5CTxt%5C00000008%5C20012HG5.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL> (accessed 19 March 2014). Alternatives 5-109 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. "List of 156 Mandatory Class I Federal Areas." Available at <http://www.epa.gov/visibility/class1.html> (accessed 19 March 2014). Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq. [FWS] Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. "Fact Sheet: Karner Blue Butterfly." Available at <http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/kbb/pdf/kbbFactSheet.pdf> (accessed 10 February 2014). [FWS] Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Letter from Fasbender PJ, FWS Field Supervisor to Wong M, NRC, Branch Chief.

Subject:

SHINE Medical Inc. (SHINE) Radioisotope Production Facility Portage, Chippewa, and Rock Counties Wisconsin. August 15, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13234A020. [GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. SHINE Medical, Stevens Point, WI. Duluth, MN: Golder Associates Inc., submitted to SHINE Medical Technologies. Project No. 113-81093, Rev. 1. May 11, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012b. Well Installation, Stevens Point, Wisconsin. Duluth, MN: Golder Associates Inc., submitted to SHINE Medical Technologies. Project No. 113-81093, Rev. 2. September 26, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [GE Hitachi]. 2011. GE Hitachi Production of Molybdenum-99 Using Neutron Capture. NNSA Mo-99 Topical Meeting Presentation. Presented by John Berger. December 6, 2011. Available at <http://mo99.ne.anl.gov/2011/pdfs/Mo99%202011%20Web%20Presentations/S7-P2_Berger.pdf> (accessed 30 September 2014). Greenberg, JK, Brown, BA. 1986. Bedrock Geology of Portage County, Wisconsin. Information Circular 53. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015). [IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 2008. Homogeneous Aqueous Solution Nuclear Reactors for the Production of Mo-99 and other Short Lived Radioisotopes. TECDOC-1061. September 2008. Available at <http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1601_web.pdf> (accessed 30 September 2014). [IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 2013. Non-HEU Production Technologies for Molybdenum-99 and Technetium-99m. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-5.4. February 2013. Available at <http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/10386/Non-HEU-Production-Technologies-for-Molybdenum-99-and-Technetium-99m> (accessed 8 January 2015). Jerde, L. 2011. "Columbia Energy Center state's No. 1 mercury emitter." Portage Daily Register. November 17, 2011. Available at <http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/article_bdcdca56-11a5-11e1-886d-001cc4c03286.html> (accessed 26 September 2013). Jerde, L. 2014. "Columbia Energy Center launches $600M air-quality system." Portage Daily Register. Available at <http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/local/article_e02caab7-3824-5815-838d-1c626e3c7273.html> (accessed 1 September 2014). Lippelt, ID. 1988. Potential Yields of Wells in the Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer of Chippewa County, Wisconsin. Miscellaneous Map Series. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015). Alternatives 5-110 Melillo JM, Richmond TC, and Yohe GW, editors. 2014. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 841 p. Available at <http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/system/files_force/downloads/high/NCA3_Climate_Change_Impacts_in_the_United%20States_HighRes.pdf?download=1> (accessed 25 November 2014). [MSMH] Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital. 2014. "Ministry Saint Michael's Hospital Home Page." Available at <http://ministryhealth.org/SMH/home.nws> (accessed 5 December 2014). [MPCA] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2014. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota. Available at <http://www.nonoise.org/library/sndbasic/sndbasic.htm> (accessed 24 February 2014). Mudrey, MG Jr., Brown, BA, and Greenberg, JK. 1982. Bedrock Geologic Map of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University Of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at <http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/geologic.htm> (accessed 3 January 2014). [Niowave] Niowave, Inc. 2015. Letter from Grimm TL, Niowave, President and Senior Scientist to Region III, NRC.

Subject:

Combined Application for a License to Produce and Possess Accelerator Produced Radionuclides for Research and Development (NRC Control No. 584728). February 11, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A755. [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2010a. "1981-2010 Normals Data Access, Annual/Seasonal Normals, Chippewa Falls, WI US." Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data> (accessed 6 February 2014). [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2010b. "1981-2010 Normals Data Access, Annual/Seasonal Normals, Stevens Point, WI US." Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data> (accessed 6 February 2014). [NCDC] National Climate Data Center. 2014a. "NCDC Storm Events Database: Chippewa County." Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/> (accessed 24 March 2014). [NCDC] National Climate Data Center. 2014b. "NCDC Storm Events Database: Portage County." Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/> (accessed 24 March 2014). [NWCC] National Wind Coordinating Committee. 2002. Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: A Handbook. Washington, DC: NWCC Siting Subcommittee. August 2002. Available at <https://nationalwind.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/publications/permitting2002.pdf>. Olcott, PG. 1992. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin. HA-730-J. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Ground Water. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_j/index.html> (accessed 20 December 2013). Olson, K. 2013. "(Not) The Same Old McDill-Improvements for Our Lakes and Rivers." Stevens Point City-Times. March 15, 2013. Available at <http://spcitytimes.com/?p=5509> (accessed 8 December 2014). Petersen, MD, Frankel, AD, Harmsen, SC, Mueller, CS, Haller, KM, Wheeler, RL, Wesson, RL, Zeng, Yuehua, Boyd, OS, Perkins, DM, Luco, Nicolas, Field, EH, Wills, CJ, and Rukstales, KS. 2011. Seismic-Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States, 2008: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3195, 6 sheets. Denver, CO: USGS. Page update January 9, 2013. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3195/> (accessed 20 December 2013). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. Alternatives 5-111 [NNSA] National Nuclear Security Administration. 2011. NNSA Works to Minimize the Use of HEU in Medical Isotope Production. NNSA Fact Sheet 20100125. November 1, 2011. Available at <http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/factsheets/factsheet20100125> (accessed 14 June 2013). [NPS] National Park Service. 2015a. "National Register of Historic Places Program: Research- Chippewa County, Wisconsin." Available at <http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/> (accessed 21 January 2015). [NPS] National Park Service. 2015b. "National Register of Historic Places Program: Research- Portage County, Wisconsin." Available at <http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/> (accessed 21 January 2015). [NRHP]. National Register of Historic Places. 2013a. "Notre Dame Church and Goldsmith Memorial Chapel," Chippewa Falls, Chippewa County, Wisconsin. Reference No. 83003369. [NRHP]. National Register of Historic Places. 2013b. "Nelson Hall," Stevens Point, Portage County, Wisconsin. Reference No. 05000643. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013a. "Web Soil Survey, Soil Map-Chippewa County, Wisconsin." (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit description; suitabilities and limitations for use, building site development). Updated December 6, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. Available at <http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm> (accessed 20 December 2013). [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013b. "Web Soil Survey, Soil Map-Portage County, Wisconsin." (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit description; suitabilities and limitations for use, building site development). Updated December 6, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. Available at <http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm> (accessed 20 December 2013). [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, DC: NRC. November 30, 2002. 516 p. ADAMS Nos. ML023470327, ML023500228, and ML023500295. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. October 17, 2012. ADAMS Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013. Meeting Summary: NRC visit to Wisconsin Historical Society. July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13226A537. Portage County. 2004. Groundwater Management Plan. Adopted March 16, 2004. Available at <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/groundwater/index.htm> (accessed 3 January 2014). Portage County. 2006. Map 5.1 Highly Productive Agricultural Soils. Portage County Planning and Zoning. Available at <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/Comprehensive%20Plan/Rural%20Planning%20Committee/Map51_041.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014). Alternatives 5-112 Portage County. 2012. "Town of Hull Zoning Map." Portage County. Map Updated November 2, 2012. Available at <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/planningzoning/ZoningMaps/hull.pdf> (accessed 9 October 2014). [PCBC] Portage County Business Council. 2013. "Portage County Business Council Home Page." Available at <www.portagecountybiz.com> (accessed 8 January 2015). [PCBC] Portage County Business Council. 2014. "Portage County Business Park." Available at <http://portagecountybiz.com/economic-development/business-parks/> (accessed 5 December 2014). [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 13, "Accident Analysis," Chapter 15, "Financial Qualifications," and Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404. [SPJ] Stevens Point Journal. 2008. "Area Home Designer Touts New Efficient Home." August 7, 2008. Available at <http://archive.stevenspointjournal.com/article/99999999/SPJ0101/808020654/Area-home-designer-touts-new-efficient-home> (accessed on 16 January 2015). Stevens Point Area Public School District. 2013. "2012-13 Budget Report." Available at <http://www.wisp.k12.wi.us/education/components/docmgr/default.php?sectiondetailid=27052&fileitem=24771&catfilter=ALL> (accessed 8 January 2015). Syverson, KM. 2007. Pleistocene Geology of Chippewa County, Wisconsin. Bulletin 103. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015). TRIUMF. 2008. Making Medical Isotopes: Report of the Task Force on Alternatives for Medical-Isotope Production. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Available at <http://www.triumf.ca/report-medical-isotope-production> (accessed 18 December 2014). University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. 2005. McDill Pond Final Results, Portage County Lake Study. April 5, 2005. Available at <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/planningzoning/PCL/McDill_Pond/mcdill_pond_main.htm> (accessed 3 January 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. "American Fact Finder: 2007-2011 American Community Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Chippewa County, City of Chippewa Falls, Portage County, and City of Stevens Point, Wisconsin Selected Economic Characteristics." Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed February 2014). Alternatives 5-113 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. "American FactFinder: 2010 American Community Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Portage County, City of Stevens Point, Chippewa County, and Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin Housing Characteristics." Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed February 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014c. "American FactFinder: 2010 American Community Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Chippewa County, City of Chippewa Falls, and Block Groups within Chippewa County, Wisconsin." Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014d. "American FactFinder: 2006-2010 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey Data Profile and Highlights, Information on Chippewa County, City of Chippewa Falls, and Census Tracts within Chippewa County, Wisconsin." Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014e. "American FactFinder: 2010 American Community Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Portage County, City of Stevens Point, and Block Groups within Portage County, Wisconsin." Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014f. "American FactFinder: 2006-2010 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey Data Profile and Highlights, Information on Portage County, City of Stevens Point, and Census Tracts within Portage County, Wisconsin." Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. "Physiographic Regions of the Lower 48 United States." Updated April 17, 2003. Available at <http://tapestry.usgs.gov/physiogr/physio.html> (accessed 27 August 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. "National Land Cover Database." Available at <http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer> (accessed 4 October 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012a. Water-Data Report 2012, 05365500 Chippewa River at Chippewa Falls, WI, Chippewa Basin, Lower Chippewa Subbasin. Available at <http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/05365500.2012.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012b. Water-Data Report 2012, 05400513 Plover River at Hwy 66 Stevens Point, WI, Wisconsin Basin, Castle Rock Subbasin. Available at <http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/05400513.2012.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013a. 2009 Mineral Yearbook, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: USGS. April 2013. Available at <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2009/myb2-2009-wi.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013b. "Earthquakes in the Stable Continental Region." Earthquake Hazards Program. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/product/tectonic-summary/usc000te4p/us/1420825648040/tectonic-summary.inc.html> (accessed 16 January 2015). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013c. "Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive Search and URL Builder, Search Results." (Radius search parameters: center latitude 44.9616N, center longitude -91.36498 W, outside radius 322 km). Page updated November 7, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/> (accessed 20 December 2013). Alternatives 5-114 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013d. "Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive Search and URL Builder, Search Results." (Radius search parameters: center latitude 44.50703 N, center longitude -89.49590W, outside radius 322 km). Page updated November 7, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/> (accessed 20 December 2013). Vetter, C. 2013. "Irvine Park Zoo plans $2.3M exhibit building." Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. October 7, 2013. Available at <http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/front_page/article_28e0c8ca-2fd1-11e3-b3d2-001a4bcf887a.html> (accessed 8 January 2015). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation, Chapter NR 102, "Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters." Revised February 2004. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/102> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 104. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation, Chapter NR 104, "Uses and Designated Standards." Revised February 2004. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/104> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 140. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation, Chapter NR 140, "Groundwater Quality." Revised January 2012. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/140> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 460. Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories-General Provisions. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/ admin_code/nr/400/460/Title> (accessed 17 January 2014). [WDHS] Wisconsin Department of Health Services. "Radiation Protection." 2014. Available at <http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/radiation> (accessed 12 August 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015a. "Air Management Program, Facility Information for Indianhead Plating, Inc." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3001907> (accessed 20 January 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015b. "Air Management Program, Facility Information for Spectrum Industries." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=10641> (accessed 20 January 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015c. "Air Management Program, Facility Information Great Northern Corporation." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=19054951> (accessed 20 January 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015d. "Air Management Program, Facility Information for Dairyland Power Cooperative-Seven Mile Creek Landfill Gas to Renewable Energy Station." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=17105222> (accessed 20 January 2015). Alternatives 5-115 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015e. "Air Management Program, Facility Information for Central Wisconsin Alcohol, Inc." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3002320> (accessed 20 January 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012f. "Air Management Program Facility Information for Donaldson Company." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3002330> (accessed 20 January 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015g. "Air Management Program, Facility Information for WIMME Sand and Gravel Plants 1 & 2." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=4003218> and <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=13797133> (accessed 20 January 2015). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. "Upper Rock River Basin." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/uprock/> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013b. "DNR Drinking Water System: High Capacity Wells." Page updated January 6, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Groundwater/data.html> and <http://prodoasext.dnr.wi.gov/inter1/hicap$.startup> (accessed 20 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013c. "Southeast Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape." Revised January 23, 2012. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=9> (accessed 23 December 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. "Wisconsin Natural Heritage Working List." Revised January 9, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/nhi/wlist.html> (accessed 23 January 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014b. "Wisconsin's Natural Communities." Revised October 7, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Communities.asp> (accessed 7 November 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014c. "Wisconsin's endangered and threatened species laws." Revised January 9, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/laws.html> (accessed 28 January 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014d. "Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis)." Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Animals.asp?mode=detail&SpecCode=IILEPG5021> (accessed 10 February 2014). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Undated. "Find Campgrounds-ReserveAmerica." Available at <http://wisconsinstateparks.reserveamerica.com/campground SearchResult.do?startIdx=0> (accessed 26 February 2014). [WDOR] Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2014. "County and Municipal Revenues and Expenditures 2012, Bulletin No. 112." January 2014. Available at <http://www.revenue.wi.gov/slf/cotvc/cmreb12.pdf> (accessed 27 February 2014). Alternatives 5-116 [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2008a. "Average Annual Daily Traffic for City of Chippewa Falls, Chippewa County." Available at <http://www.dot.state.wi.us/travel/counts/docs/chippewa/chippewafalls2008.pdf> (accessed 9 October 2014). [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2008b. "Average Annual Daily Traffic for City of Stevens Point, Portage County." Available at <http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/portage.htm> (accessed 9 October 2014). [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2011a. "Hourly Traffic Volume Reports-Chippewa County, 2011." The WisTransPortal System, Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Available at <http://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourly-traffic-data/bysiteid/chippewa.html> (accessed 9 October 2014). [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2011b. "Hourly Traffic Volume Reports - Portage County, 2011." The WisTransPortal System, Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Available at <http://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourly-traffic-data/bysiteid/portage.html> (accessed 9 October 2014). [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2012. "Connections 2030: Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Data, Marshfield/Rapids Connection Corridor-Abbotsford to Stevens Point." Updated November 27, 2012. Available at <http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/connections2030.htm> (accessed 1 September 2014). [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2013. "Labor market Information for 2011, 2012, and first quarter in January 2013." Available at <http://www.dwd.wisconsin.gov> (accessed 25 July 2013). [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2014. "Bureau of Migrant Labor Services 2011 Migrant Population Report." Available at <http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/migrants/pdf/migrantpoprep2011.pdf> (accessed 20 February 2014). [WEDC] Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. 2014a. "Lake Wissota Business Park." Available at <http://inwisconsin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ChipFalls.pdf> (accessed 9 October 2014). [WEDC] Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. 2014b. "Lake Wissota Business Park." Available at <http://eagl-i.com/chippewa/config/chippewa/LWBP.pdf> (accessed 5 December 2014). [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2005. Bedrock Geology of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and Natural History Survey. April 1981 (Revised 2005). Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/ES051/> (accessed 16 January 2015). [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2011. Glaciation of Wisconsin. Educational Series 36. Fourth edition. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/es0362011/> (accessed 16 January 2015). [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2014. Frac Sand in Wisconsin. Factsheet 05. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/fs05/> (accessed 16 January 2015). Alternatives 5-117 White House. 2012. Fact Sheet: Encouraging Reliable Supplies of Molybdenum-99 Produced without Highly Enriched Uranium. Office of the Press Secretary. June 7, 2012. Available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/07/fact-sheet-encouraging-reliable-supplies-molybdenum-99-produced-without-> (accessed 14 June 2013). [WHS] Wisconsin Historical Society. 2015. Letter from Eisenberg L, Compliance Archeologist, to Bladey C, Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Subject:

Draft EIS for the Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Janesville, Wisconsin. June 26, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15191A323.

6-1

6.0 CONCLUSION

S This environmental impact statement (EIS) contains the environmental review of the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), application for a construction permit under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) in Janesville, Wisconsin. This EIS follows the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51, which are the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This chapter presents conclusions and recommendations from the environmental review of the SHINE facility. Section 6.1 summarizes the environmental impacts of construction, operations, and decommissioning. Section 6.2 compares the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the construction of the SHINE facility at two alternative sites, and the construction of an alternative technology at the proposed site at Janesville, Wisconsin. Section 6.3 discusses unavoidable impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action and identifies resource commitments. Section 6.4 presents conclusions and staff recommendations. Finally, Section 6.5 provides a list of references. 6.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff concludes that issuing a construction permit for the SHINE facility would have SMALL impacts for all resource areas with the exception of transportation. The impacts to transportation would be SMALL to MODERATE because of the noticeable increase in average daily traffic flow. The addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips per day) from construction activities and 261 vehicles per day (or approximately 580 trips a day) from decommissioning activities at the proposed SHINE facility would result in an increased traffic volume on U.S. Highway 51. This increase in traffic would not likely destabilize traffic conditions near the SHINE site because traffic analyses indicate that the level of construction- and decommissioning-related traffic would not affect the level of service anywhere in the transportation infrastructure; therefore, the transportation infrastructure would not require any modifications (SHINE 2015a). During operations, a "slight degradation of service" (i.e., traffic delays) would occur at the intersection of westbound State Trunk Highway 11 onto southbound U.S. Highway 51 during the morning during peak hours of commuting. The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility to increase slightly during the operation phase, but it would not be appreciable when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility. Table 6-1 summarizes the potential impacts. The staff also considered cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes them. In Section 4.13, the staff concluded that the cumulative impacts would be SMALL for all areas with the exception of ecological resources and transportation. For ecological resources, the NRC staff concluded that the cumulative impacts would be MODERATE. For transportation, the NRC staff concluded that the cumulative impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Conclusions 6-2 Table 6-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from Construction, Operations, and Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville Site Resource Area Summary of Impact Impact Level Land Use The site would include 91.1 acres (ac) (36.9 hectares (ha)) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas, which is a small portion of the agricultural land within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the site (Section 4.1.1). The location of the proposed facility is within an area zoned for light industrial use. No additional land would be disturbed during operations or decommissioning. SMALL Visual Resources The proposed SHINE facility would not noticeably alter visual resources, based on the low scenic quality, low scenic value, and light industrial viewshed within the vicinity of the proposed site. (Section 4.1.2) SMALL Air Quality Construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would result in additional air emissions. Given the relatively low emissions and the pollution control measures that air permits from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources would require (Section 4.2), the proposed SHINE facility would not noticeably alter air quality in Rock County. SMALL Noise During construction, operations, and decommissioning, noise would be minimal given the minor (1 to 3 dBA) expected increases in noise levels. (Section 4.2) SMALL Geologic Environment Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would consume geologic resources and have the potential to increase soil erosion, but the overall impact would be minor, given that the geologic resources are widely available within the region and erosion would be managed with the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). (Section 4.3) SMALL Water Resources Water-resource impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be negligible, because of the lack of surface-water features on site and the use of municipal water. (Section 4.4) SMALL Ecological Resources Terrestrial and aquatic ecology impacts are expected to be SMALL, based on the limited amount of land that would be disturbed and because the entire site includes previously disturbed habitat. (Section 4.5) SMALL Historic and Cultural Resources SHINE could inadvertently discover previously unidentified cultural resources caused by land disturbance during construction, operations, or decommissioning. However, impacts would be SMALL based on (1) no known historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE's cultural resource management plan procedures, and (4) cultural resource assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff. (Section 4.6) SMALL Socioeconomic Socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL based on the size of the workforce required to construct, operate, and decommission the SHINE facility. (Section 4.7) SMALL Conclusions 6-3 Resource Area Summary of Impact Impact Level Human Health Human health impacts would be minimized because access to the site would be restricted, SHINE would implement normal safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, and SHINE would operate the proposed SHINE facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. (Section 4.8) SMALL Waste Management Based on the availability of waste disposal pathways for radiological and nonradiological waste; SHINE's proposed waste management systems; engineered design features to minimize radioactive and nonradioactive contamination; and NRC, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and State of Wisconsin radiation protection requirements, the NRC staff concludes that radioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. (Section 4.9) SMALL Transportation Traffic would noticeably increase on local roads during construction and decommissioning from commuting workers; the use of construction vehicles; and transportation of construction materials, goods, and other materials to and from the proposed sites (Section 4.10). During operations, the increase in traffic would be minor because of the lower number of employees commuting to and from the site. SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material. (Section 4.10) SMALL to MODERATE Accidents The NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from chemical and radiological accidents in its safety evaluation report (SER). Assuming that the NRC staff determines in its SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 70.61 and 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential chemical and radiological accidents would be SMALL. (Section 4.11) SMALL Conclusions 6-4 Resource Area Summary of Impact Impact Level Environmental Justice Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the proposed site could be affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction and decommissioning. However, these would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Operation of the proposed SHINE facility is not expected to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations, as everyone living near the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park would be exposed to the same potential human health and environmental effects from operations, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in ambient conditions. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are expected to remain within regulatory standards. (Section 4.12) Minority and low-income populations would not be expected to experience any high and adverse human health and environmental effects. 6.2 Comparison of Alternatives In Chapter 5, the NRC staff considered the following alternatives to construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin: the no-action alternative; construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site (Alternative Site No. 1); construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site (Alternative Site No. 2); and construction, operations, and decommissioning of a linear-accelerator-based facility at the SHINE site (alternative technology). Tables 5-18 and 5-19 summarize the impacts for the proposed action, the no-action alternative, the two alternative sites, and the alternative technology. In conclusion, the NRC staff notes that the no-action alternative would result in SMALL impacts to all resource areas. However, the no-action alternative does not fulfill the purpose and need of the project. The environmentally preferred alternatives are the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility at the Janesville site. The impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternative technology would be SMALL for all resource areas with the exception of traffic, which would incur SMALL to MODERATE impacts. The other alternatives capable of meeting the purpose and need of the project would entail potentially greater impacts than the proposed action of constructing the SHINE facility. For example, the impacts at both alternative sites would be SMALL for most resource areas; however, the NRC staff determined that impacts from noise would be MODERATE at both the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point sites and that the impacts to visual resources would be SMALL to MODERATE at the Stevens Point site. Similar to those at the proposed Janesville site, the impacts at both the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point sites would be SMALL to MODERATE for traffic. Conclusions 6-5 6.3 Resource Commitments 6.3.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Section 102(2)(C)(ii) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that an EIS include information on any adverse environmental effect that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. Unavoidable adverse impacts are predicted adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided and that have no practical means of further mitigation. Table 6-2 presents the unavoidable adverse impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility and presents mitigations and controls intended to lessen the adverse impact. Unless noted otherwise, mitigation measures were from SHINE's Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a) or from responses to requests for additional information (SHINE 2013, 2014, 2015b). As described above, impacts to all resource areas would be SMALL with the exception of transportation. For those resource areas that would have SMALL impacts, the environmental effects would not be detectable or would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For transportation, the NRC staff determined that the proposed action could noticeably alter traffic conditions on U.S. Highway 51 as described above in Section 6.1. To mitigate the increase in traffic and to help reduce traffic congestion, SHINE plans to use a staggered construction work-shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck deliveries early in the day. In addition, SHINE would ensure that delivery routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas. Table 6-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Resource Area Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impact Land Use and Visual Resources The facility would be built and operated in compliance with all local zoning requirements. Once SHINE completes construction activities, it may vegetate open areas with crops, native prairie grasses, or cool-season grasses to offset loss of agricultural lands. Vegetated areas could also mitigate impacts to visual resources given that the majority of the surrounding viewshed is cultivated fields or grasses. SHINE would also mitigate impacts by landscaping or planting shrubs along U.S. Highway 51 and bordering access roads. Up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of agricultural land could be converted to industrial land use. Partial obstruction of views of the existing landscape as a result of the new facility and the steam plume during operations. Conclusions 6-6 Resource Area Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impact Air Quality Air quality permits from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources would set emission limits and would establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements with which SHINE would be required to comply. SHINE would control emissions of nitrogen oxide from the natural-gas-fired boiler using low nitrogen oxide burners and emissions from gas-fired heaters using combustion controls and properly designed and tuned burners. SHINE would use BMPs and dust control plans for controlling fugitive dust and other emissions. SHINE would develop a comprehensive program to avoid and control GHG emissions associated with the facility that may include developing a GHG emission inventory and investigating and implementing methods for avoiding or controlling the GHG emissions identified in the inventory; implementing energy efficiency and conservation programs at the SHINE facility, such as installing solar panels and/or purchasing electricity generated from renewable energy sources; and encouraging carpooling or other measures to minimize GHG and other emissions due to vehicle traffic during construction and operation of the SHINE facility. Short-term, localized increases in fugitive dust and air emissions would primarily occur at and near the proposed SHINE facility. Increases in GHG emissions from construction equipment, worker vehicle commuting, and facility operations. Noise The facility design (e.g., wall thickness and other physical barriers) and distance to the sensitive receptors would limit offsite noise levels. In addition, during construction, noise from traffic would be mitigated through posted speed limits, traffic control, and administrative measures (e.g., staggered work-shift hours). Additional, short-term, localized noise. Offsite noise levels are not expected to exceed existing ambient noise levels. Conclusions 6-7 Resource Area Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impact Geologic Resources SHINE would adhere to standard industry BMPs to minimize soil erosion and sediment control. SHINE must conduct construction activities in accordance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff, which would require measures to minimize soil compaction and to preserve topsoil; a site-specific construction site erosion control plan, including specific BMPs or pollution control measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff; and a stormwater management plan (e.g., vegetated drainage swales to control runoff). Temporarily disturbed areas during construction activities may be revegetated with crops, cool-season grasses, or native prairie grasses. Construction would consume geologic resources and have the potential to increase soil erosion. Water Resources See the information above for mitigation measures associated with the Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff and the stormwater management plan. The permit also would require the development of spill prevention and response procedures, such as measures to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of fuels and other materials from construction equipment and activities. Wastewater must meet the acceptance requirements of the Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant before it leaves the SHINE facility. Stormwater runoff could potentially affect offsite surface-water quality. No onsite groundwater would be used. Ecological Resources Once SHINE completes construction activities, it may vegetate open areas with crops, native prairie grasses, or cool-season grasses. BMPs, such as shielding or appropriate directional lighting, or both, would be used to mitigate the hazard to birds from artificial nighttime illumination. SHINE would apply herbicides according to an integrated pest management plan, which would include applicable BMPs or related permit requirements. See mitigation measures described above to minimize impacts to aquatic habitats. Loss of low-quality habitat (agricultural fields), the potential for wildlife avoidance displacement caused by noise and other activities, and increased risk of bird collisions with building facilities could occur. Conclusions 6-8 Resource Area Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impact Historic and Cultural Resources SHINE has developed a sitewide cultural resource management plan to manage and protect as-yet unidentified cultural resources. No known historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or historic and cultural resources are on the proposed site. Previously unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-moving activities associated with construction. Socioeconomics The availability of construction workers and housing within the region of influence and the short duration of construction (18 months) would minimize any socioeconomic impacts within the region of influence. New operations jobs would help maintain employment levels and would generate a small amount of additional property and sales tax revenue. The increase in the local population resulting from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility would cause an associated increase in demand for public services and housing. Human Health Radiological: SHINE would construct and operate the proposed facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. SHINE must limit radiological doses to the public and workers within the occupational dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20. SHINE designed buildings containing radioactive material to include shielding that will minimize direct radiation outside the facility and to ensure that radiation will be within 10 CFR Part 20 dose limits at the site boundary. Radiation exposure to workers within the proposed facility will be minimized using shielding, shielded hot cells, shielded transport containers, access control to radiation areas, ventilation, filters, training, protective clothing, and administrative controls. Nonradiological: SHINE would implement normal construction and operational safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. In addition, SHINE would limit toxic chemicals stored or used at the construction site to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code. SHINE would have a Chemical Hygiene Plan to minimize chemical exposure to the workforce and a Chemical Hygiene Officer to administer the plan. Radiological: Workers and members of the public could be exposed to radiation, such as gaseous radioactive effluents that contain krypton, xenon, iodine, and tritium. Nonradiological: Air pollution impacts from fossil-fueled vehicles and equipment, worker hazards typical of any industrial facility, and potential chemical exposures to workers. Conclusions 6-9 Resource Area Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impact Waste Management SHINE would operate the proposed facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. For example, public and worker exposure, radioactive material within the facility, and radioactive effluents released into the environment must meet the radiation protection dose-based limits in 10 CFR Part 20. Wastes generated during plant operations would be collected, stored, and shipped for suitable treatment, recycling, or disposal in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations. In addition, SHINE would implement waste management systems to minimize waste and pollution. Engineered design features would also minimize contamination and exposures. The generation of radiological and nonradiological waste material, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste, also would be unavoidable. Transportation SHINE would stagger construction work-shift schedules to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion. Optimizing the signal timing for vehicles turning from westbound State Highway 11 to southbound U.S. Highway 51 would mitigate traffic delays. SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326, "Transportation"; and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173). In addition, SHINE would follow delivery routes that avoid residential and sensitive areas. During construction and decommissioning, traffic approaching the site access point on U.S. Highway 51, especially during shift changes, would noticeably increase. No noticeable increases in traffic are expected during operations. Accidents The radiological hypothetical accident dose must be within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301. The chemical hypothetical accident dose must be within the dose limits in 10 CFR 70.61, and SHINE must meet the performance requirements in 10 CFR 70.61. SHINE incorporated engineering and administrative controls into the facility design to ensure that exposure from accidents would be within regulatory limits. Very minimal environmental impacts are anticipated. Conclusions 6-10 Resource Area Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impact Environmental Justice See the discussions above on mitigation measures for human health and environmental effects, such as noise, traffic, and air quality. Construction and decommissioning impacts are expected to be short term, would be primarily limited to onsite activities that are temporary in nature, and human health and environmental effects would not be high or adverse. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted comments on the draft EIS in which EPA recommended that SHINE incorporate several potential mitigation measures (EPA 2015). These recommended mitigation measures have been provided to SHINE for their consideration and are summarized below. Green Infrastructure Any locations on the site that are not planned for operations should be considered for conversion to native habitats, increasing the area that can be beneficially used for wildlife, infiltration or stormwater retention, and aesthetics, among other functions. Any roads, parking lots, sidewalks, or other surfaces slated for driving or walking should be constructed using permeable pavement to reduce runoff. Construction schedules of the new facilities should be staggered so that no additional undisturbed land is permanently disturbed; this could mean having one temporary laydown area (that is ultimately slated for a permanent use) serving the construction of new permanent facilities. Construction of all buildings should meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases Clean energy options, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, should be considered in the purchase of maintenance equipment, new equipment, and vehicles. Implementation of any measures that may reduce the facility's carbon dioxide (CO2) footprint, particularly from fuel combustion during the life of operations. Consider the need to develop adaptation measures to address impacts from climate change on the facility, such as increased intensity and frequency of storm and flood events. EPA notes that the diesel emissions reduction measures, as recommended in its August 14, 2013, scoping letter, were included in the draft EIS. EPA commends the NRC for including this language and continues to encourage the applicant to incorporate these measures into its construction planning. Conclusions 6-11 Transportation SHINE and the Janesville Transit System should determine whether a stop at the facility would benefit employees of the facility and help to alleviate potential degradation to traffic patterns along U.S. Highway 51. Continue ongoing coordination with local traffic authorities to ensure levels of service remain appropriate and that users of the road are kept updated on closures and delays. The NRC staff did not consider these mitigation measures when determining the potential impacts from the proposed action because SHINE has not committed to incorporating the suggested mitigation measures. SHINE is not required to implement the suggested mitigation measures because they are recommendations, and not requirements, from EPA . 6.3.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity The construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility and alternatives to the proposed action would result in short-term uses of the environment, as described in Chapters 4 and 5. "Short-term" is the period of time during which construction, operations, and decommissioning activities would take place. The construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility would require short-term use of the environment and commitment of resources and would commit certain resources (e.g., land and energy), indefinitely or permanently. Short-term resource commitments would be similar at the two alternative sites and for the alternative technology if it were to be developed at the proposed Janesville site. These alternatives and the proposed action would result in similar relationships between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. However, the no-action alternative would not result in resource commitments because no new facilities would be constructed or operated. Construction, operations, and decommissioning would require up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas that would be committed to industrial land use during the short term. In addition, the facility would partially obstruct the current viewshed. Construction, operations, and decommissioning could also displace wildlife through destruction of habitat or noise. However, after decommissioning the SHINE facility and restoring the area, the land could be available for other future productive uses, and the onsite viewshed could be restored to the current condition. In addition, wildlife may return to the site once construction or decommissioning is completed if it is restored to suitable habitat. Air emissions from construction, operations, and decommissioning would introduce small amounts of radiological and nonradiological constituents at the facility site. Over time, these emissions would result in increased concentrations and exposure; however, such emissions are not expected to affect air quality or radiation exposure to the extent that they would impair public health and long-term productivity of the environment. Noise emitted by construction, operations, and decommissioning activities would increase the ambient noise levels on site and in adjacent offsite areas. However, once decommissioning activities were completed, noise would return to ambient levels, and no effects would have an impact on the long-term productivity of the proposed SHINE facility. Construction, operations, and decommissioning activities could affect up to 91 ac (37 ha) of onsite soils that are considered prime farmland (when they are not committed to developed Conclusions 6-12 uses) or farmland of statewide importance at the proposed SHINE facility. The majority of the soils on site, however, would not likely be affected from construction, operations, and decommissioning. Affected soils could affect the long-term productivity of the site if construction, operations, or decommissioning activities damage such soils in a manner that would degrade the soil properties associated with prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance designation. Increased employment, expenditures, and tax revenues generated during construction, operations, and decommissioning activities directly benefit local, regional, and State economies over the short term. Local governments investing project-generated tax revenues into infrastructure and other required services could enhance economic productivity over the long term. The management and disposal of low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste requires an increase in energy and consumes space at treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. Regardless of the location, the use of land to meet waste disposal needs would reduce the long-term productivity of the land. Worker vehicles and the delivery and shipment of materials would increase the volume of traffic on local roads. Worker and delivery vehicles would cease once decommissioning is completed and, therefore, would not affect long-term productivity. Installation of water and sewer lines during construction of the proposed SHINE facility would connect the facility to the City of Janesville water supply system. This additional infrastructure would be available and beneficial for any future use of the proposed SHINE facility after its decommissioning. 6.3.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources This section describes the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that have been noted in this EIS. Resources are irreversible when primary or secondary impacts limit future options for a resource. An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or consumption of resources that are neither renewable nor recoverable for future use. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources for construction, operations, and decommissioning of a medical isotope facility include the commitment of water, energy, raw materials, and other natural and man-made resources. In general, the commitment of capital, energy, labor, and material resources are also irreversible. The implementation of the alternative sites or the alternative technology considered in this EIS would entail the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy, water, chemicals, fossil fuels, and other natural and man-made resources. These resources would be unrecoverable. For example, SHINE would consume materials during the construction, as described in Chapter 2. These materials would be irretrievable unless SHINE recycles them during decommissioning (e.g., finds another facility to use such materials). During operations, uranium used as the source for the molybdenum isotope would be the main resource that would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed. Up to 91 ac (37 ha) of soils that are considered prime farmland (when they are not committed to developed uses) or farmland of statewide importance on the proposed SHINE facility could be irreversibly damaged such that the soil properties associated with the prime farmland designation would be irreversibly damaged. Mineral and other geologic resources, such as concrete, granular road base, pavement aggregate, and asphalt necessary for construction of the facility, would be irreversibly committed for construction of the SHINE facility. In addition, a Conclusions 6-13 small amount of soils and sediments would be lost to wind and water erosion during construction, operations, and decommissioning. A negligible increase in the mortality of birds could occur because of their collisions with facility structures. The loss of these birds would be irreversible and irretrievable. Nonradiological irreversible commitments to occupational human health resources may occur. Such impacts would be similar to potential hazards that occur at any industrial construction site. Energy expended would be in the form of fuel for equipment, vehicles, and facility operations and electricity for equipment and facility operations. Electricity and fuel would be acquired from offsite commercial sources. Water would be obtained from existing water supply systems. These resources are readily available, and the amounts required are not expected to deplete available supplies or exceed available system capacities. 6.4 Recommendation After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, the NRC staff recommends, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the issuance of the construction permit to SHINE. The NRC staff based its recommendation on the following factors: SHINE's Environmental Report; the NRC staff's consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; the NRC staff's independent environmental review; and the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received. 6.5 References 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." 10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, "Domestic licensing of special nuclear material." 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and transportation of radioactive material." 49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, "Hazardous materials table, special provisions, hazardous materials communications, emergency response information, training requirements, and security plans." 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, "Shippers-general requirements for shipments and packaging." [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Letter from Westlake K, EPA, to Moser M, NRC.

Subject:

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Janesville, Wisconsin - NUREG-2183 -CEQ #20150133. July 2, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15201A575. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. Conclusions 6-14 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc., Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), Chapter 13, "Accident Analysis," and Chapter 19, "Environmental Report." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404. [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326. Motor Carrier Safety Requirements for Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/326> (accessed 17 November 2014). 7-1 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) prepared this environmental impact statement with support from other NRC organizations, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Los Alamos Technical Associates (LATA), and Idoneous Consulting. Idoneous Consulting provided support for technical editing reviews. Table 7-1 identifies each contributor's name, affiliation, and function or expertise. Table 7-1. List of Preparers (in alphabetical order) Name Affiliation Function or Expertise Alexander Adams, Jr. NRR Branch Chief Kevin Folk NRR Water Resources; Geologic Environment Robert Hoffman NRR Historic and Cultural Resources; Transportation; Cumulative Impacts Stephen Klementowicz NRR Human Health; Waste Management; Transportation; Accidents Emily Larson NRR Historic and Cultural Resources; Transportation; Cumulative Impacts; Socioeconomic Impacts; Environmental Justice Steven Lynch NRR Project Manager Nancy Martinez NRR Air Quality and Noise; Water Resources Michelle Moser NRR Project Manager; Ecological Resources; Land Use and Visual Resources; Alternatives Jeffrey Rikhoff NRR Environmental Justice; Socioeconomic Impacts; Cost-Benefit Analysis Allison Travers NRR Alternatives Michael Wentzel NRR Land Use and Visual Resources David Wrona NRR Branch Chief Joanie Dix NNSA Project Manager Rilla Hamilton NNSA Project Manager Randy Howell NNSA Project Manager Robert Hull LATA Project Manager; Alternatives Vicki Kraus LATA Socioeconomic Impacts; Environmental Justice Joe Molter LATA Transportation George Pratt LATA Cumulative Mike Stafford LATA Air Quality and Noise Mitch Strain LATA Land Use and Visual Resources

8-1 8.0 INDEX accidents, 4-37, 4-40, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-52, 5-31, 5-74, 5-98, 5-102, 6-3, 6-9, A-3, A-4, A-9, A-42, A-43, A-44 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), xxi, 1-7, 4-28, 4-83, 9-3, B-4, C-2, C-4, D-3, D-4, D-5 agricultural land, 2-18, 3-1, 3-6, 3-30, 3-32, 3-39, 3-40, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-25, 4-29, 4-31, 4-63, 4-70, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-13, 5-19, 5-39, 5-43, 5-50, 5-51, 5-52, 5-53, 5-55, 5-61, 5-64, 5-83, 5-95, 5-100, 6-2, 6-5, 6-11, A-11 alternatives, iii, xix, xx, 1-4, 2-18, 5-1, 5-6, 5-92, 5-105, 5-106, 6-1, 6-4, 6-11, 6-13, A-1, A-8, A-11, A-24, A-28, A-37, A-40, B-2, D-2 American Medical Isotopes Production Act, 1-3, 1-5, 1-8, 2-16, 2-19, 4-42, 4-74, A-17, A-49 best management practices (BMPs), 4-8, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-66, 4-68, 4-71, 4-78, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-42, 5-44, 5-58, 5-61, 5-64, 5-65, 5-86, 5-88, 5-96, 5-101, 6-2, 6-6, 6-7, A-13 bird, 3-30, 3-33, 3-37, 4-26, 4-27, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-96, 6-7 chemical, 2-15, 3-3, 3-26, 3-28, 3-52, 4-37, 4-38, 4-41, 4-43, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-52, 4-64, 5-9, 5-26, 5-27, 5-45, 5-69, 5-70, 5-89, 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-97, 5-102, 6-3, 6-8, 6-9, A-4, A-13, A-19, A-20, A-42, B-5 Clean Air Act (CAA), xxi, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 3-57, 3-58, 4-9, 4-64, 4-81, 5-40, 5-85, A-29, B-3, B-10, B-14 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), xxi, 1-4, 4-1, 4-52, 4-53, 4-80, 5-1, 5-99, 5-107, 6-13, A-21, A-40, A-49 critical habitat, 3-35, 4-27, B-4, D-1, D-2 demographic, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-65, 4-54 discharges, 2-16, 3-25, 3-26, 3-29, 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, 4-40, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 5-17, 5-42, 5-59, 5-86, A-13, A-15 dose, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-52, 4-59, 4-60, 4-73, 5-26, 5-27, 5-36, 5-38, 5-45, 5-69, 5-70, 5-80, 5-81, 5-89, 5-98, 5-102, 6-3, 6-8, 6-9, A-4, A-10, A-16, A-22, A-23, A-27, A-29, A-30, A-42, A-43, B-2, B-3 education, 2-17, 3-43, 3-45, 3-46, 3-67, 4-31, 4-33, 4-35, 4-36, 5-23, 5-24, 5-66, 5-112, A-24 emissions, 3-12, 3-13, 3-15, 3-51, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-36, 4-39, 4-40, 4-59, 4-60, 4-64, 4-65, 4-70, 4-72, 4-76, 4-77, 5-12, 5-13, 5-36, 5-38, 5-40, 5-45, 5-47, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-80, 5-81, 5-85, 5-89, 5-92, 5-95, 5-98, 5-100, 5-103, 6-2, 6-4, 6-6, 6-10, 6-11, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-9, A-10, A-20, A-21, A-22, A-23, A-35, A-47, B-3, B-10 employment, 3-42, 3-43, 4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-59, 4-60, 4-72, 4-76, 5-23, 5-36, 5-37, 5-44, 5-47, 5-66, 5-79, 5-80, 5-88, 5-91, 6-8, 6-12 endangered species, 1-6, 3-36, 5-5, 5-63, B-1 Endangered Species Act (ESA), xxii, 1-6, 1-8, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-56, 3-57, 4-27, 5-64, 5-65, A-8, B-4, B-14, C-1, D-1, D-2, D-6 Environmental Report (ER), iii, xvii, xx, xxii, 1-4, 1-5, 1-9, 2-8, 2-11, 2-15, 2-18, 2-20, 3-1, 3-35, 3-51, 3-62, 4-44, 4-46, 4-49, 4-61, 4-73, 4-84, 5-2, 5-21, 5-31, 5-64, 5-74, 5-112, 6-5, 6-13, 6-14, A-4, A-5, A-8, A-18, A-22, A-23, A-25, A-27, A-28, A-29, A-34, A-38, A-39, A-42 erosion, 3-3, 3-19, 3-21, 4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 4-26, 4-66, 4-68, 5-9, 5-16, 5-18, 5-21, 5-22, 5-41, 5-42, 5-58, 5-60, 5-64, 5-65, 5-85, 5-86, 5-95, 5-96, 5-101, 6-2, 6-7, 6-13, A-14, B-7, B-12 Essential fish habitat (EFH), 3-38, 4-28 Index 8-2 farmland of statewide importance, 3-3, 3-6, 3-22, 4-3, 5-9, 5-52, 5-57, 5-84, 6-12 fission, xviii, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 4-47, 4-48, 5-92, A-8, A-31, A-32 fugitive dust, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-15, 4-16, 5-12, 5-13, 5-54, 5-55, 6-6 greenhouse gas, xxii, 3-12, 3-14, 3-56, 4-8, A-22, A-45, A-46 habitat, 3-26, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-60, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-63, 4-70, 4-77, 5-5, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-39, 5-43, 5-62, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-83, 5-87, 5-96, 5-101, 6-2, 6-7, 6-11, A-8, B-4, D-1, D-2, D-3 hazardous waste, 2-16, 4-43, 5-45, 5-46, 5-89, 5-90, 5-97, 6-9, 6-12, A-14, A-15, A-36, A-38, B-5, B-7, B-11 hot cell, 2-10, 2-15, 2-16, 4-38, 4-41, 4-42, 4-74, 5-93, 5-94, 6-8, A-29, A-32 iodine-131, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-14, 3-51, 5-92, A-31, A-33 irradiation, 1-2, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-13, 2-16, 4-42, 4-47, 4-48, 4-74, 5-93, 5-95, A-17, A-19, A-39, A-46 Janesville, Wisconsin, iii, xiii, xv, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-3, 1-5, 2-1, 2-6, 3-1, 3-10, 3-38, 3-57, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-63, 4-72, 4-73, 4-80, 4-83, 4-86, 5-2, 5-6, 5-93, 5-100, 5-104, 5-106, 5-117, 6-1, 6-4, 6-13, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, A-1, A-11, A-15, A-17, A-26, A-34, B-8 jobs, 3-43, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 5-67, 5-100, 6-8, A-10 Karner blue butterfly, 5-5, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65 low-enriched uranium, 1-3, 1-4, 5-92, 5-93, 5-100 low-level radioactive waste, 2-15, 3-51, 3-52, 5-46, 5-90, 5-97, 6-9, 6-12, A-16 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 4-28, B-4, D-3, D-6 mineral resources, 4-2, 4-66, 4-77, 5-8, 5-10, 5-41, 5-50, 5-52, 5-85, 5-86 mitigation, 4-23, 4-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-29, 5-69, 5-70, 5-73, 6-5, 6-7, 6-10, 6-11, A-6, A-22, A-23, A-36, A-39, A-46 mixed waste, A-38, B-11 molybdenum-99, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-9, 2-1, 2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-14, 2-20, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-92, 5-93, 5-94, 5-98, 5-100, 5-103, 5-117, A-7, A-24, A-33 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), xvii, xviii, xxiv, 1-1, 1-3, 1-5, 1-8, 2-19, 3-66, 4-2, 4-29, 4-52, 4-53, 4-80, 4-82, 5-1, 5-10, 5-52, 5-93, 5-99, 5-107, 5-110, 6-1, 6-5, 6-13, 9-4, A-8, A-22, A-24, A-25, A-27, A-40, A-49, A-50, B-2, B-4, B-15, D-1, D-3, D-6 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 3-34, 3-35, 3-38, 3-60, 4-27, 4-28, B-4, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-6 National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), xviii, xxiv, 1-3, 1-5, 1-8, 2-1, 2-18, 4-81, 5-92, 5-94, 5-103, 5-105, 5-109, 5-111, 7-1, 9-3, A-8 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), xxiv, 4-18, 4-21, 4-68, 5-42, 5-86, A-39, B-1, B-5, B-14 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), xxiv, 3-40, 3-60, 4-28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-79, 5-6, 5-22, 5-23, 5-65, 5-66, 5-101, 5-111, 6-2, 6-8, B-4, D-3 no-action alternative, iii, xix, 5-1, 5-2, 5-104, 5-106, 6-4, 6-11 nonattainment, 3-12, 3-13 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), xxiv, 3-17, 3-50, 3-61, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 5-68, 5-97, 5-101, 6-3, 6-8, A-11, B-4 personal protective equipment, 2-16, 4-41 population, 3-2, 3-38, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-60, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-49, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-70, 4-72, 4-76, 4-78, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-31, 5-32, 5-34, 5-35, 5-36, 5-37, 5-44, 5-66, 5-67, 5-68, 5-75, 5-77, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-88, 5-97, 6-8, A-11, B-3 population centers, 3-2 prime farmland, 3-3, 3-6, 3-21, 4-2, 4-3, 4-63, 4-66, 5-8, 5-10, 5-15, 5-16, 5-39, 5-41, 5-50, 5-52, 5-57, 5-84, 6-11, 6-12, B-4, B-6 Index 8-3 production facility, iii, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-4, 2-1, 2-8, 3-50, 3-60, 4-1, 4-10, 4-31, 4-41, 4-47, 4-48, 4-72, 4-81, 5-1, 5-2, 6-1, A-1, A-8, A-19, A-27, A-44, A-49, B-2, D-1 public health, 2-13, 2-14, 3-12, 3-50, 4-44, 4-45, 5-30, 5-74, 5-97, 5-98, 5-105, 6-11, A-29, B-1, B-3, B-8 public services, 4-72, 4-78, 5-24, 5-25, 5-44, 5-67, 5-68, 5-88, 5-97, 5-99, 6-8 radioactive waste, 2-6, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-18, 2-19, 3-51, 3-52, 4-36, 4-37, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-44, 4-45, 4-47, 4-74, 4-75, 5-27, 5-30, 5-46, 5-70, 5-73, 5-90, 5-94, 5-97, 5-98, 5-102, 6-3, 6-9, 6-12, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-29, A-31, A-37, A-38 radioisotope, iii, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 3-50, 3-60, 4-1, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-24, 4-31, 4-36, 4-39, 4-41, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-61, 4-75, 4-81, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-12, 5-26, 5-27, 5-54, 5-69, 5-71, 5-73, 5-92, 5-94, 5-100, 6-1, A-1, A-8, A-16, A-19, A-24, A-37, A-49, B-2, D-1 Rock River, xiii, 3-3, 3-19, 3-20, 3-23, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-48, 3-59, 3-62, 3-63, 3-65, 3-66, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-84, 4-85, 5-115, A-14, A-38, D-3 runoff, 2-5, 3-23, 3-25, 3-26, 3-29, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-24, 4-26, 4-27, 4-67, 4-70, 4-77, 5-18, 5-21, 5-22, 5-42, 5-43, 5-59, 5-61, 5-62, 5-64, 5-65, 5-86, 5-87, 5-96, 6-7, 6-10, A-13, A-14, A-39, A-45, B-5, B-7, B-10 safety evaluation report (SER), xxv, 4-38, 4-46, 4-49, 4-52, 5-102, 6-3, A-4, A-10, A-22, A-23, A-27, A-28, A-37, A-42, A-43, A-44 schools, 3-47, 4-32, 4-34, 5-4, 5-24, 5-25, 5-67, 5-68 scoping, xvii, 1-4, 1-5, 1-8, 3-1, 4-29, 4-61, 4-81, 6-10, A-1, A-2, A-22, A-49, D-4, D-5 shielding, 2-7, 2-15, 4-26, 4-38, 4-41, 4-42, 4-47, 4-48, 6-7, 6-8 SHINE, iii, ix, xi, xiii, xiv, xv, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxv, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-8, 3-9, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-40, 3-42, 3-47, 3-48, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-55, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-81, 4-83, 4-84, 4-86, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-35, 5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-49, 5-50, 5-51, 5-52, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-61, 5-62, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-66, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 5-74, 5-75, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-83, 5-84, 5-85, 5-86, 5-87, 5-88, 5-89, 5-90, 5-91, 5-92, 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-99, 5-100, 5-101, 5-102, 5-103, 5-104, 5-105, 5-106, 5-109, 5-112, 5-117, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, 6-13, 6-14, 9-1, A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-20, A-21, A-22, A-23, A-24, A-25, A-26, A-27, A-28, A-29, A-30, A-31, A-32, A-33, A-34, A-35, A-36, A-37, A-38, A-39, A-40, A-41, A-42, A-43, A-44, A-46, A-47, A-48, A-49, A-50, B-1, B-8, B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, B-15, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-6, D-1, D-2, D-3 soil, 3-3, 3-6, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-25, 3-29, 3-50, 3-61, 4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 4-25, 4-26, 4-66, 4-68, 4-70, 4-74, 4-83, 5-9, 5-15, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-40, 5-41, Index 8-4 5-43, 5-57, 5-58, 5-60, 5-61, 5-64, 5-65, 5-85, 5-86, 5-87, 5-95, 5-101, 5-111, 6-2, 6-7, 6-12, A-28 solid waste, 2-16, 2-17, 4-40, 4-43, 5-45, 5-46, 5-89, 5-90, 5-97, A-36, B-1 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), xxv, 1-7, 4-28, 9-1, A-26, D-5 stormwater, 2-1, 2-5, 4-1, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-67, 4-68, 4-70, 5-18, 5-19, 5-22, 5-42, 5-43, 5-61, 5-64, 5-65, 5-86, 5-87, 5-96, 6-7, 6-10, A-13, A-14, A-39, A-45, B-5, B-7, B-10 tax, 3-46, 3-47, 4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-72, 5-24, 5-25, 5-44, 5-67, 5-68, 5-88, 5-97, 5-99, 6-8, 6-12, A-11 technetium-99m, 1-1, 5-98 traffic, xx, xxv, 3-14, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-67, 4-6, 4-7, 4-9, 4-10, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-65, 4-75, 4-76, 4-78, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-36, 5-37, 5-46, 5-47, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 5-74, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-91, 5-98, 5-99, 5-102, 5-103, 5-104, 5-106, 5-116, 6-1, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, A-11, A-12, A-22, A-35, A-36, A-41, A-47 tritium, 2-7, 2-10, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 3-51, 4-38, 4-42, 6-8, A-31 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), iii, xviii, xxii, 1-3, 1-5, 1-8, 2-1, 2-16, 2-18, 2-19, 4-42, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-65, 4-72, 4-74, 4-80, 4-81, 5-92, 5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-103, 5-108, 7-1, 9-3, A-8, A-17, A-37, A-45, A-46, A-49, C-4 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), xxii, 2-11, 2-13, 2-15, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-75, 4-82, 5-29, 5-30, 5-72, 5-74, 5-97, 5-98, 5-102, 6-3, 6-9, A-41, B-6, B-7, B-10, B-11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), xxii, 1-8, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 4-8, 4-11, 4-12, 4-16, 4-18, 4-43, 4-49, 4-50, 4-64, 4-68, 4-74, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 5-12, 5-13, 5-54, 5-55, 5-108, 5-109, 6-10, 6-11, 6-13, 9-2, 9-4, 9-5, A-2, A-5, A-17, A-18, A-20, A-22, A-26, A-27, A-29, A-30, A-35, A-36, A-37, A-38, A-40, A-43, A-45, A-48, A-49, B-1, B-3, B-5, B-10, B-14, C-3, C-6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), xxii, 1-7, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-56, 3-58, 4-27, 5-5, 5-6, 5-20, 5-21, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-109, 9-2, 9-3, B-4, C-1, C-4, C-6, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-6 U.S. Highway 51, 2-1, 2-2, 2-12, 3-1, 3-2, 3-7, 3-8, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-23, 3-26, 3-52, 3-54, 3-55, 4-4, 4-5, 4-9, 4-10, 4-13, 4-17, 4-20, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-59, 4-65, 6-1, 6-5, 6-9, 6-11, A-12, A-35 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), iii, v, xiii, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxiv, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 2-1, 2-5, 2-6, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-18, 2-20, 3-1, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-21, 3-23, 3-26, 3-27, 3-29, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-58, 3-60, 3-61, 3-66, 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-78, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-86, 5-1, 5-2, 5-6, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-35, 5-36, 5-38, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-52, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-58, 5-60, 5-61, 5-63, 5-64, 5-66, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 5-74, 5-75, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-84, 5-85, 5-86, 5-87, 5-89, 5-90, 5-91, 5-92, 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-101, 5-102, 5-105, 5-106, 5-109, 5-110, 5-111, 5-117, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-13, 7-1, 9-4, A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-19, A-20, A-21, A-22, A-23, A-24, A-25, A-26, A-27, A-28, A-29, A-30, A-31, A-32, A-33, A-34, A-35, A-36, A-37, A-38, A-39, A-40, A-41, A-42, A-43, A-44, A-45, A-46, A-47, A-48, A-49, A-50, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-9, B-14, Index 8-5 C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5 uranium, xviii, xxii, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-8, 2-10, 2-14, 2-16, 3-50, 4-39, 4-42, 4-74, 5-26, 5-27, 5-69, 5-71, 5-92, 5-93, 5-100, 5-105, 6-12, A-3, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12, A-14, A-17, A-29, A-37, A-42, A-43 utilization facility, 2-18, A-15, A-44 viewshed, 3-8, 4-4, 4-6, 4-61, 4-63, 4-71, 5-10, 5-11, 5-40, 5-52, 5-53, 5-84, 5-100, 6-2, 6-5, 6-11 wastewater, 2-12, 2-16, 3-49, 3-50, 3-66, 4-20, 4-21, 4-27, 4-39, 4-67, 4-68, 4-74, 4-77, 5-17, 5-19, 5-22, 5-42, 5-59, 5-61, 5-65, 5-86, 5-96, A-28, A-29, B-12 wildlife, 3-26, 3-30, 3-31, 3-33, 3-48, 3-56, 4-26, 4-27, 4-60, 4-63, 4-67, 4-70, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-37, 5-39, 5-43, 5-62, 5-64, 5-65, 5-81, 5-83, 5-87, 5-96, 6-7, 6-10, 6-11, A-24, A-45, B-4, B-5, B-6 Wisconsin Administrative Code (WAC), xxv, 2-16, 3-12, 3-15, 3-17, 3-26, 3-28, 3-34, 3-64, 3-65, 4-9, 4-18, 4-36, 4-37, 4-41, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-84, 4-85, 5-17, 5-45, 5-46, 5-59, 5-60, 5-89, 5-90, 5-97, 5-114, 6-8, 6-9, 6-14, A-4, A-11, A-13, A-38, A-39, A-50, B-6, B-7, B-10, B-11 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), xxv, 1-7, 2-16, 3-3, 3-14, 3-25, 3-26, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-48, 3-49, 3-62, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 4-9, 4-12, 4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 4-61, 4-62, 4-65, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-74, 4-85, 5-5, 5-6, 5-12, 5-13, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-20, 5-21, 5-24, 5-38, 5-39, 5-43, 5-54, 5-55, 5-59, 5-60, 5-63, 5-67, 5-82, 5-87, 5-100, 5-114, 5-115, 6-2, 6-6, A-2, A-4, A-8, A-13, A-14, A-18, A-23, A-24, A-36, A-39, A-50, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-10, B-11, C-1, C-4, C-6 workers, 2-4, 2-6, 2-14, 2-18, 3-17, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-46, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 4-6, 4-9, 4-10, 4-14, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-46, 4-47, 4-59, 4-60, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-76, 4-78, 5-12, 5-13, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-36, 5-37, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-54, 5-55, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-88, 5-89, 5-91, 5-92, 5-97, 6-3, 6-8, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-10, A-11, A-30, A-34, A-35, A-42, A-43, B-1, B-2 xenon-133, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-14, 3-51, 5-92, A-31, A-33

9-1 9.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ARE SENT Table 9-1. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of This Environmental Impact Statement Are Sent Name and Title Affiliation and Address Andrew Anselmi Riverfront, Inc. 1107 Barberry Drive Janesville, WI 53545 John Barrett, Chairman Citizen Potawatomi Nation 1601 South Gordon Cooper Drive Shawnee, OK 74801 Stuart Bearheart, Chairman St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin St. Croix Tribal Center 24663 Angeline Avenue Webster, WI 54893 John Blackhawk, Chairman Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 100 Bluff Street P.O. Box 687 Winnebago, NE 68071 Gary Besaw, Chairman Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin P.O. Box 910 Keshena, WI 54135 Mr. Ellsworth Brown, Society Director State Historic Preservation Office Division of Historic Preservation and Public History Wisconsin Historical Society 816 State Street, Room 305 Madison, WI 53706 Laura Bub, Environmental Analysis and Review Specialist State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 3911 Fish Hatchery Road Fitchburg, WI 53711 Gerald and Muriel Bumgarner None given Richard Vann Bynum, Ph.D., Chief Operating Officer SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2555 Industrial Drive Monona, WI 53713 Duane Cherek, Manager of Planning Services Community Development Department 18 North Jackson Street P.O. Box 5005 Janesville, WI 53547-5005 Melissa Cook, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Forest County Potawatomi Community 8130 Mish Ko Swen Drive P.O. Box 340 Crandon, WI 54520 Jim Costedio, Licensing Manager SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2555 Industrial Drive Monona, WI 53713 Dan Cunningham Forward Janesville 14 South Jackson Street, Suite 200 Janesville, WI 53548 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 9-2 Name and Title Affiliation and Address Kristen Cutler, Ph.D., National Security and International Affairs Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office Building 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20503 Dave Dobson Friends of Welty Environmental Center P.O. Box 131 Beloit, WI 53512 Teri Engelhart, REP Section Supervisor Wisconsin Emergency Management 2400 Wright Street Madison, WI 53704 Environmental Impact Statement Filing Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Jim Farrell 18 North Jackson Street Janesville, WI 53545 Peter J. Fasbender, Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2661 Scott Tower Drive New Franken, WI 54229 Sharon Fitzpatrick Riverfront, Inc. 1107 Barberry Drive Janesville, WI 53545 Harold Frank, Chairman Forest County Potawatomi Community 5416 Everybody's Road Crandon, WI 54520 Mark Freitag, Janesville City Manager City Manager Janesville City Hall P.O. Box 5005 Janesville, WI 53547-5005 John P. Froman, Chief Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 118 South Eight Tribes Trail P.O. Box 1527 Miami, OK 74355 Andrew Fox None given Jim Jensen, Chief Janesville Fire Department 303 Milton Avenue Janesville, WI 53545-3151 Kevin Jensvold, Chairman Upper Sioux Community P.O. Box 147 5722 Travelers Lane Granite Falls, MN 56241 Ronald Johnson, President Prairie Island Indian Community 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN 55089 Niel Johnson Janesville Gazette 1 South Parker Drive P.O. Box 5001 Janesville, WI 53547 Grace Goldtooth-Campos, Tribal Historic Preservation Office Lower Sioux Indian Community 39527 Reservation Highway 1 P.O. Box 308 Morton, MN 56270 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 9-3 Name and Title Affiliation and Address Jon Greendeer, President Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin P.O. Box 667 W9814 Airport Road Black River Falls, WI 54615 David Grignon, Tribal Historic Preservation Office Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin P.O. Box 910 Keshena, WI 54135 Richard Gruber Mercy Health System P.O. Box 5003 Janesville, WI 53547-5003 Richard T. Henning None given Rilla Hamilton National Nuclear Security Administration, NA-212 U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Randy Howell National Nuclear Security Administration, NA-212 U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Joe Kopacz, Student Iowa State University 4721 Greenbrier Drive Davenport, IA 52807 Alfred Lembrich None given Douglas Marklein, Janesville City Council City Council City Hall P.O. Box 5005 Janesville, WI 53547-5005 Bill McCoy None given Wanda McFaggen, Tribal Historic Preservation Office St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin St. Croix Tribal Center 24663 Angeline Avenue Webster, WI 54893 Tom Melius, Midwest Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service American Boulevard West, Suite 990 Bloomington, MN 55437-1458 Kenneth Meshigaud, Chairperson Hannahville Indian Community N14911 Hannahville B-1 Road Wilson, MI 49896 Richard Miller None given Joan Neeno St. Mary's Janesville Hospital 3400 East Racine Street Janesville, WI 53546 Reid Nelson, Director Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Office of Federal Agency Programs 401 F Street NW, Suite 308 Washington, DC 20001 Raymond New None given Liana Onnen, Chairperson Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation 16281 Q Road Mayetta, KS 66509 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 9-4 Name and Title Affiliation and Address Myra Pearson, Tribal Chairperson Spirit Lake Tribe P.O. Box 359 Fort Totten, ND 58335 Cindy Pederson, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 2443 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532 Janet Piraino District Director at U.S. Representative Mark Pocan Madison District Office 10 East Doty Street Suite 405 Madison, WI 53703 Elizabeth Poole, Environmental Scientist NEPA Implementation Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Boulevard, E-19J Chicago, IL 60604 Gary Pratt, Chairman Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 335588 East 750 Road Perkins, OK 74059 Denny Prescott, President Lower Sioux Indian Community 39527 Reservation Highway 1 P.O. Box 308 Morton, MN 56270 Gale S. Price, Manager of Building and Development Services Economic Development Department 18 North Jackson Street P.O. Box 5005 Janesville, WI 53547-5005 Anthony Reider, President Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota P.O. Box 238 Flandreau, SD 57208 Bill Quackenbush, Tribal Historic Preservation Office Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin P.O. Box 667 W9814 Airport Road Black River Falls, WI 54615 Bruce Renville, Tribal Chairman Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation P.O. Box 509 Agency Village, SD 57262 Paul Schmidt, Manager Radiation Protection Section Wisconsin Department of Health Services P.O. Box 2659 Madison, WI 53701-2659 Joshua Smith, Administrator Rock County, Wisconsin Rock County Courthouse 51 South Main Street Janesville, WI 53545 Robert D. Spoden, Sheriff Rock County, Wisconsin 200 E US Highway 14 Janesville, WI 53545 George Thurman, Principal Chief Sac and Fox Nation Administration Building 920883 South Highway 99, Building A Stroud, OK 74079 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 9-5 Name and Title Affiliation and Address The National Organization of Test, Research, and Training Reactors (TRTR) Newsletter TRTR Newsletter University of Florida Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611 Roger Trudell, Tribal Chairman Santee Sioux Nation 425 Frazier Avenue North, Suite 2 Niobrara, NE 68760 Judy Roberts Vaugh None given Tim Weber Webco, Inc., General Contractors and Forward Janesville 14 South Jackson Street, Suite 200 Janesville, WI 53548 Kenneth Westlake U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Boulevard, E-19J Chicago, IL 60604 Mike Wiggins, Jr., Chairman Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians P.O. Box 39 Odanah, WI 54861 Bob Winding Mortenson Construction 10 East Doty Street Madison, WI 53703 Michael Wolff Paxton and Vierling Steel 501 Avenue H Carter Lake, IA 51510 Jeff Zuelke None given

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SHINE MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

A-1 A. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SHINE MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A.1 Comments Received During the Scoping Period The scoping process for the environmental review of the construction permit application for the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) began on July 1, 2013, with the publication of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Notice of Intent to conduct scoping in the Federal Register (78 FR 39343). The scoping process included two public meetings held in Janesville, Wisconsin, on July 17, 2013. Approximately 60 people attended the meetings. After the NRC presented its prepared statements on the construction permit review process, the meetings were open for public comments. Attendees provided oral statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. A summary and transcripts of the scoping meetings are available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The scoping meetings summary can be found under ADAMS No. ML13260A294. Transcripts for the afternoon and evening meetings can be found under ADAMS Nos. ML13260A280 and ML13260A281, respectively. In addition to comments that the NRC received during the public meetings, the agency also received comments electronically and through the mail. Each commenter was given a unique identifier to allow every comment to be traced back to its author. Table A-1. identifies the individuals who provided comments and an ADAMS No. to identify the source document of the comments. Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues raised by commenters. Comments have been grouped into the following general categories: Specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of the NRC environmental regulations related to a construction permit. These comments address issues related to the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility. The comments also address alternatives to proposed action and related Federal actions. General comments in support of, or opposed to, the SHINE facility or comments regarding the construction permit process, the NRC's regulations, and the regulatory process. Comments that address issues that do not fall within, or are specifically excluded from, the purview of NRC environmental regulations related to the construction permit process. These comments may address issues, such as emergency preparedness, security, and safety. Appendix A A-2 Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Scoping Comment Period Each commenter is identified, along with an affiliation, if any, and the source of the comment. Commenter Affiliation (if stated) ID Comment Source ADAMS No. Dave Dobson None given 01 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280 Melissa Cook Forest County Potawatomi Community 02 Letter ML13224A164 Eric Heggelund Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 03 Letter ML14045A298 Richard Henning None given 04 Letter ML13233A023 Al Lembrich None given 05 Letter ML13233A022 Douglas Marklein Janesville City Council 06 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280 Bill McCoy None given 07 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280 Richard Miller None given 08 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280 Janet Piraino Congressman Mark Pocan 09 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280 Jamie Stout None given 10 Letter ML13263A012 Kenneth Westlake U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 11 Letter ML13238A121 Comments that are general or outside the scope of the SHINE facility environmental review are not included here but appear in the Scoping Summary Report (ADAMS No. ML15062A111). To maintain consistency with the Scoping Summary Report, Appendix A retains the unique identifiers used in that report for each comment. The Scoping Summary Report provides the comments addressed in this Appendix A in their original form at the end of the report. The NRC staff placed comments received during the scoping comment period applicable to this environmental review into categories based on topics in the environmental impact statement. These categories are listed in Table A-2. . Table A-2. Issue Categories Technical Issues Accidents Air Quality Alternatives Ecological Resources Geologic Environment Historic and Cultural Resources Human Health Land Use Transportation Water Resources Waste Management The following pages contain the comments, identified by the commenter's identification and comment number, and the NRC staff's response. Comments are presented in the same order as listed in Table A-2. Appendix A A-3 A.1.1 Accidents Comments: 01-2: My only other concern would have to do with the issue of aircraft landing because the site is very close to the airport, planes coming in to land at Rock County airport. It is important to make sure that the facility is built in such a way that nothing serious would happen in terms of any kind of radioactive release if the largest airplane that's going to land at the airport were to crash right into the building. So that is one of the important considerations there. 05-3: There is a matter that the FFA [FAA] may have concerns with the proximity, size, type & use of this proposed Shine building, considering the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and its runways being right across the street. Even though its runways may not be directly in line with the proposed building, many airport crashes occur where the airplanes veer off the runway to either left or right of the runway. Additional concerns would be the height of the proposed building possibly impeding line of sight for pilots. Would the proposed building withstand a large cargo or other large plane that could crash into it due to some malfunction, and cause release of contaminated material and cause environmental dangers? 05-13: The local citizens have concerns and possibly the FFA [FAA] with the Shine building location, height and its uranium content being right across the street from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and its runways. There are possibilities of an airplane crash and potential uranium exposure or contamination from a demolished building and its contents. Could there be an impediment to pilot's line of sight in evaluating their approach to land? Is the height of Shine's building too high and raise the risk of a plane strike when something goes wrong with the resulting environmental concerns? 05-15: The large Seneca Foods canning company and its processing of vegetables is located just to the North/East, down-wind of the Shine site. There are hundreds of acres of farm crops that they harvest from this entire nearby area for their plant. Any accident, leakages, or contaminations to air, water, land could be very harmful to the editable crops, the entire food chain and to this business. The present environment could be greatly threatened. 07-1: Number one, the airport issue that was just brought up is how the building is going to be done, what protection are we going to have. What if we have some idiot wants to fly into it like we've had in other places, you know. I mean I've done helicopters when I was in Vietnam. Anything could happen. Anything. So even a plane motor can fall off and land into it and bust it all to pieces. What protection are we going to have from a leakage with that uranium because we've also got the farms out there. We also got Seneca right down the road here, which is less than a mile and a half from where we are sitting right now. They have fields across the highway. They've got fields out towards the Blackhawk Tech and all this over here that if the fumes that would go over that would destroy those crops from being put in that particular time of need. So we've got to think about it. Seneca also wants the addition over here. Right, City Council members? So we're going to have to worry about that because that is one thing that we are very concerned about. 11-7: The Draft EIS should discuss facility and system features to ensure safety and minimize off-site releases in the event of an accident or other unanticipated event. Response: These comments express concerns regarding potential accidents from aircraft or other radiological exposures caused by accidents or leaks. One comment also expressed concern on the potential impact from the facility on pilots and aircraft coming to and from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. Appendix A A-4 Section 4.11 of the environmental impact statement (EIS) discusses the environmental impacts associated with potential radiological and hazardous chemical accidents that might occur at the proposed SHINE facility. The term "accident," as used in this EIS, refers to any off-normal event that releases radioactive or hazardous chemicals into the environment that may affect facility workers and members of the public. Potential initiating events and credible operational accidents for the proposed SHINE facility constitute the design-basis accidents. In its Environmental Report (ER), SHINE considered the impacts of an aircraft collision as a design-basis accident. In Section 4.11, however, the NRC staff considers the potential impacts from the maximum hypothetical accident as the basis for the analysis of environmental impact from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility. The maximum hypothetical accident considers a potential accident that would result in the same or higher radiological exposures as a credible design-basis accident, such as an aircraft collision with the SHINE facility or another accident that could result in radioactive releases. Therefore, the analysis in this EIS considers the potential exposures from accidents that would result in the same or higher exposures as that from an aircraft collision. SHINE determined that the calculated doses for the maximum hypothetical accident at the proposed SHINE facility would be within the annual dose limits of 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 20.1301 to a member of the public. Section 4.11 describes various ways in which SHINE would minimize radioactive releases in case of an accident. As described in Section 4.11, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from the maximum hypothetical accident. The NRC staff's safety evaluation report (SER) will document this independent evaluation. Assuming that the NRC staff determines in its SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential radiological accidents, including aircraft collisions, would be SMALL. In addition, see A.1.7, Human Health, for a discussion of potential radiological exposures to the public during normal operations. As described in Appendix B of the EIS, SHINE must meet the requirements of several other Federal agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The NRC staff notes that the FAA's review of the SHINE project is outside the scope of the NRC's environmental review. However, for the purpose of responding to this comment, the NRC staff provides the following information. As described in the Environmental Report, SHINE submitted structure evaluation requests to the FAA on October 26, 2011. The purpose of this request was to ensure that the building heights and other facility components met FAA's regulations and requirements, given the proximity of the proposed SHINE site to the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. The FAA issued "Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation to SHINE" on November 9 and 15, 2011. A.1.2 Air Quality Comment: 03-3: A review regarding an air permit should be thoroughly examined by the project proponents. The project involves the addition of at least one stationary source (the stand-by emergency diesel generator). SHINE is evaluating the eligibility of this stationary source for a Type A Registration Permit. At this time, further review regarding the air permit applicability is required, per s. NR 405, 406, and 407 Wisconsin Administrative Code. Response: This comment describes the types of air permits that SHINE could require from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). As described in Section 4.2, SHINE would be Appendix A A-5 required to comply with any Federal and State air quality requirements and operate within the limitations stipulated within any Federal or State permits. Comment: 11-1: EPA notes that both diesel and natural gas are identified as fuel sources in the ER. The draft EIS should include why two sources are necessary. Further, we recommend SHINE consider the use of renewable energy sources either in lieu of or to supplement the proposed diesel and natural gas sources. If SHINE or NRC dismisses the use of alternative energy sources, the draft EIS should state why. Response: The comment suggests that the draft EIS should discuss why diesel and natural gas sources are necessary and for SHINE to consider the use of renewable energy sources. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIS, during construction and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility, diesel equipment is needed for construction and decommissioning; furthermore, natural-gas-fired heaters and one boiler would be needed to meet heating and hot water requirements for the proposed SHINE facility. The NRC staff notes that it is beyond the agency's regulatory authority to require SHINE to utilize alternative energy sources. Nonetheless, as discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIS and the Environmental Report, SHINE plans to implement programs, where practical, to promote energy efficiency and conservation at the SHINE facility, install solar panels and/or purchase electricity generated from renewable energy sources (SHINE 2013a), and implement diesel emissions reduction techniques. Comment: 11-5: The draft EIS should describe how diesel emissions will be minimized throughout construction and decommissioning of the facility. EPA suggests the following diesel emission reduction techniques be employed to further minimize impacts: Using low-sulfur diesel fuel (15 parts per million sulfur maximum) in construction vehicles and equipment. Retrofitting engines with an exhaust filtration device to capture diesel particulate matter before it enters the construction site. Positioning the exhaust pipe so that diesel fumes are directed away from the operator and nearby workers, thereby reducing the fume concentration to which personnel are exposed. Using catalytic converters to reduce carbon monoxide, aldehydes, and hydrocarbons in diesel fumes. These devices must be used with low sulfur fuels. Ventilating wherever diesel equipment operates indoors at the Meredosia and injection well sites. Roof vents, open doors and windows, roof fans, or other mechanical systems help move fresh air through work areas. As buildings under construction are gradually enclosed, remember that fumes from diesel equipment operating indoors can build up to dangerous levels without adequate ventilation. Appendix A A-6 Attaching a hose to the tailpipe of diesel vehicles running indoors and exhaust the fumes outside, where they cannot re-enter the workplace. Inspect hoses regularly for defects and damage. Using enclosed, climate-controlled cabs pressurized and equipped with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters to reduce the operators' exposure to diesel fumes. Pressurization ensures that air moves from inside to outside. HEPA filters ensure that any incoming air is filtered first. Regularly maintaining diesel engines, which is essential to keep exhaust emissions low. Follow the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule and procedures. Smoke color can signal the need for maintenance. For example, blue/black smoke indicates that an engine requires servicing or tuning. Reducing exposure through work practices and training, such as turning off engines when vehicles are stopped for more than a few minutes, training diesel equipment operators to perform routine inspection, and maintaining filtration devices. Purchasing new vehicles that are equipped with the most advanced emission control systems available. Using electric starting aids, such as block heaters, with older vehicles to warm the engine reduces diesel emissions. Using respirators, which are only an interim measure to control exposure to diesel emissions. In most cases, an N95 respirator is adequate. Workers must be trained and fit-tested before they wear respirators. Depending on work being conducted, and if oil is present, concentrations of particulates present will determine the efficiency and type of mask and respirator. Personnel familiar with the selection, care, and use of respirators must perform the fit testing. Respirators must bear a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approval number. Never use paper masks or surgical masks without NIOSH approval numbers. Response: The comment suggests that the draft EIS should describe how diesel emissions would be minimized throughout construction and decommissioning of the facility and provides suggestions on how SHINE could minimize diesel emissions. The NRC staff notes that it is beyond the agency's regulatory authority to require or implement mitigation measures to minimize diesel emissions. Nonetheless, as described in Section 4.2 of the EIS and in SHINE's request for additional information response (SHINE 2013b), SHINE plans to implement the following diesel emissions reduction techniques, where practical: (1) Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 parts per million sulfur maximum) will be used in the diesel equipment. (2) Exhaust filtration devices (diesel oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate matter filters, and/or catalytic converters) will be used. (3) Diesel fumes from exhaust pipes will be directed away from workers and operators of equipment. Appendix A A-7 (4) New diesel equipment that is purchased will have the required emission control systems. (5) Engine idling time will be minimized. (6) Diesel equipment inspection and necessary maintenance will be performed to ensure proper condition of the exhaust filtration devices. (7) Contractor(s) will be responsible for implementing diesel equipment recommended maintenance, procedures, and periodic checks to ensure that emissions are kept low. (8) Diesel equipment that operates indoors will be vented to the outside using fitted hoses or portable ductwork. A.1.3 Alternatives Comments: 05-9: In British Columbia, engineers and other experts have successfully developed medical isotopes using a cyclotron. These isotopes for scans can be created by in hospital run cyclotrons, eliminating transportation dangers and the rush to hospital due to short use life. Would not that be safer and healthier from production, to transportation, and to actual use on a patient and even for disposal? Why would not the NRC curtail the unnecessary use of uranium for a better, cleaner, and healthier environment? Why would you even grant any medical isotope licenses to any who would use uranium processed isotopes without fail safe methods and procedures all through the process? The North Star isotope facility in Beloit, Wi., 12 miles from Janesville, will be producing medical isotopes with a different process within a year of two, from what I read. Would it not make more sense to regionalize as to site locations of the four companies planning to produce isotopes in the U.S.? To not bunch them up? Transportation and timing would be much more efficient. So why would the NRC approve an already outdated process that Shine proposes? The North Star site is ahead of Shine. In my opinion, Shine took the wrong course in going the current uranium route. The Arizona proven process and North Star took the better route. Don't feel sorry for Shine Medical Technologies, some technologies succeed, some do not. 05-19: Why have two medical isotope places (North star & Shine) within 12 miles of each other? With the processed products short life and needed short transportation times, would it not make more sense to allow four regional sites, spaced across the country, because I understand there are four isotope companies planning sites and operations now? Other sites that Shine had looked at would be much better & safer in my opinion. 07-7: They've got other sites they have looked at. Now why didn't they take one of those other sites? 08-1: Actually, I was coming across a comment on-I saw an article in Popular Science. They were talking about using, in Canada, where they use these isotopes and make it [in] a hospital. And I thought is this going to be effective somewhere down the line, but when Mr. Mackey actually explained to us, well, it's completely different, but it's just a point that is this facility, five years down the road, going to go bust. In other words, technologies change. Response: These comments suggest alternative technologies or alternative sites to produce molybdenum-99. Appendix A A-8 Chapter 5 of the EIS describes alternatives to granting a construction permit for the proposed SHINE facility, including alternative sites (Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point) and an alternative technology (linear-accelerator-based), and the environmental impacts of those alternatives. The need to compare the proposed action with alternatives arises from the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the NRC regulations implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 50); and the final interim staff guidance in NUREG-1537 (NRC 2012), which states that the EIS will include an analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. The decision to produce radioisotopes is at the discretion of applicants (NRC 2012), such as SHINE. Similarly, the NRC does not have a role in the planning decisions as to whether a particular medical radioisotope production facility should be constructed and operated. Therefore, it is beyond the NRC's regulatory authority to require an applicant to construct a facility at a specific location or to use a specified technology. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a cooperating agency on the EIS (NRC 2015). If the NRC issues the required permits and licenses, the proposed Federal action for the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration is to decide whether to provide additional cost-sharing financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate the commercial production of medical radioisotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium. The funding would help accelerate activities such as construction, purchase of equipment, and initial operation using a subcritical fission process. A.1.4 Ecological Resources Comment: 03-1: SHINE submitted an Endangered Resources Review (ER Log #12-020) request on January 19, 2012, to the WDNR Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation (formerly known as the Bureau of Endangered Resources) for their proposed facility location in Janesville. The purpose of the review is to obtain information on rare plants and animals, including state and federally listed species, high quality natural communities, and other endangered resources that may be impacted by the project. The review also includes recommendations to help projects comply with Wisconsin's Endangered Species Law (Wis. Stats. 29.604), the Federal Endangered Species Act, and other laws and regulations protecting endangered resources. The review concluded that no action would be needed to avoid impacts to rare or sensitive species or communities. The current condition of the property as an active agricultural field far from any wetlands, water, or buffer areas makes it unsuitable habitat for any listed species or natural communities located in the area. Response: This comment describes the rare plants and animals, including State and Federally listed species, high-quality natural communities, and other endangered resources, that could occur on the proposed SHINE site. As described in the comment and in Section 4.5 of the EIS, the proposed SHINE site is an active agricultural field and provides unsuitable habitat for any State or Federally listed animals. Appendix A A-9 A.1.5 Geologic Environment Comment: 05-7: How deep will the building excavation be? How much of the building be below ground level? Response: This comment is asking how deep SHINE would excavate and what portion of the building would occur below ground. As described in Section 4.3.1 and based on the preliminary design, construction of the Production Facility Building would require excavation to a depth of 39 feet (12 meters). Utility routings and other foundation slabs and footings would require excavation to a depth of about 5 feet (1.5 meters). A portion of the Production Facility Building would be located below ground. A.1.6 Historic and Cultural Resources Comment: 02-1: As this project occurs within Potawatomi ancestral and previously occupied lands, we would like to express our concerns with any impacts to historic and cultural properties located within the project area of potential effect for the project mentioned above. We appreciate receiving results of an archival review, cultural resource investigation studies, and archaeological reports. Should there be an impact or effect to cultural or historic properties as a result of this project, we will request consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Response: This comment expresses concerns regarding impacts to historic and cultural properties located within the project area. The comment also asks to be kept informed of any related reports or studies. As described in Section 4.6 of the EIS, there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and cultural resources located within the area of potential effect on the proposed SHINE site. The NRC staff has attempted to contact representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi to discuss the undertaking. The last attempt to contact the Forest County Potawatomi was in March 2015. A.1.7 Human Health Comments: 05-2: This proposed site is less than ,06 [.06] of a mile South of a Trailer Court. Potential Environmental risks causes those residents concern about any planned or unplanned release of any dangerous or contaminated airborne emissions from the site, and being carried by normal Southerly or S/W winds directly over the nearby trailer court. There is also the potential risk of fire or explosion or other accidents that could pose a danger to the nearby residents at the Trailer Court. This location appears contrary to NRC desires that uranium facilities of all kinds be located outside of cities and in more remote areas to reduce dangers, hazardous exposures, and protect the public from such exposures and more easily protect the environment and humans. Appendix A A-10 05-4: There are a number of other environmental concerns. One involves nearby high quality agriculture land and its following food chain. There is the large Macfarlane Pheasant farm and meat processing facility approximately less than a mile to the North. Any releases of hazardous materials, particles, or radiation emissions could cause great harm to his business and to those who may eat contaminated products before receiving knowledge of it. There is also much high quality farm land to the East of the proposed Shine site, where hundreds of acres of corn and other crops are raised and harvested for & by the canning company Senica Foods. They have a large nearby processing plant in town, just to the North/East, down wind of the proposed site. Any leak of hazardous material or waste like uranium contaminated material or air particles could be a disaster to important food production, for who knows how long. There could also be ground and ground water contamination from hidden or undiscovered leakage of hazardous materials, like radiation or uranium products or waste. 05-12: The occupied Trailer Court, is less than .06 of a mile down-wind from the Shine site. If there should be any fire, explosion, leaks or accident's with dangerous or contaminated airborne emission releases or other waste from the site, that could pose potential dangers and risks to those residing downwind in this nearby Trailer Court. That's a potential environmental risk. 05-14: Other environmental concerns involve risks to the food chain. There is a large pheasant farm and it's meat processing plant less than a mile to the North and downwind of the Shine site. Release of hazardous materials, airborne harmful particles or radiation emissions could cause great harm to feed, pheasants, their business and loss of jobs, and potential contamination of the food supply for human consumption. 07-4: That's another thing we've got to worry about folks, our food chain. We also got the pheasant farm right across the road from there. That stuff gets on feathers. You think that man is going to be able to sell his pheasants? I don't think so. How do we know how much contamination? What does this give us, 72 hours? Well, how do we know it's not already in their system? Now, I did have a hard thing up in Madison at the VA. I don't know what it was, but I know I was allergic to it. It caused me problems. But I didn't ask what it was. They told me it's similar to what this was and I said that's close to what this is and he says well, it's similar. I said well, you know something, if I'm allergic, how many more of these other people might be allergic to it accidentally? Response: These comments express concerns regarding radiological and nonradiological exposures to workers and the public as a result of operations of the SHINE facility. Section 4.8 of the EIS provides the NRC's assessment of the potential radiological and nonradiological effects from the proposed SHINE facility. As described in Section 4.8 of the EIS, radiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility would include offsite doses to members of the public and onsite doses to facility workers. SHINE determined that the maximum dose to a member of the public would be within the annual dose limits of 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) in 10 CFR 20.1301. Further, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from operations of the SHINE facility. The NRC staff's SER will document this independent evaluation. Assuming that the NRC staff determines in its SER that the maximum dose to workers and the public is within the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential radiological exposures would be SMALL. In addition, the design of the facility incorporates measures to minimize radiation exposure to workers and members of the public by limiting the release of radioactive gaseous effluents; SHINE would operate the proposed facility in Appendix A A-11 accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements; and the NRC has the authority to issue, inspect, and enforce radiation protection standards. Nonradiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility to workers and members of the public would be regulated by the State of Wisconsin in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code. In addition, SHINE would manage and minimize nonradiological exposures by complying with Occupational Safety and Health Administration and State of Wisconsin regulations and by using multiple planned features (e.g., facility design, Chemical Hygiene Plan, supervision, training, and protective equipment). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes, in Section 4.8 of this EIS, that nonradiological impacts to workers and members of the public during routine facility operations would be SMALL. In addition, see Section A.1.1, Accidents, for a discussion of potential impacts to the public during a maximum hypothetical accident and Section A.1.8, Land Use, for a discussion of potential impacts to land use, such as agricultural lands. A.1.8 Land Use Comments: 05-1: First, in your material on this, the NRC presented incorrect important information, on page 4, by stating the proposed Shine facility would be located approximately four miles south of Janesville, Wisconsin. This site is within the Janesville city limits, on land purchased by the city and connected to other city tax incremental financing district land. 05-11: The NRC information mailed out was incorrect by stating the proposed Shine site would be located approximately 4 miles South of Janesville, WI. The fact is, it will be within the city limits of Janesville. I understood the NRC preferred sites that were away from population, animal, crops and food chain sources and operations, was I wrong? 07-8: How close is it? Now there's a pamphlet that we received from the NRC which I've already discussed with an individual here, that was this thing that said this thing was four miles outside of the City of Janesville. Well, it's not. It might be from the center of town four miles. Response: The comments express concern regarding the correct distance between the proposed SHINE site and the City of Janesville. As described in the EIS, the proposed SHINE site is approximately 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) from the center of the City of Janesville. In addition, see A.1.7, Human Health, and Section 4.8 of the EIS, for a discussion of potential radiological exposures to the public and regulatory protections that limit radiological exposures to the public. Also, see Section A.1.3, Alternatives, and Chapter 5 of this EIS for a discussion of alternatives considered. A.1.9 Transportation Comment: 11-6: The Draft EIS should identify any traffic management or infrastructure improvements to US Highway 51 that will be required to handle increased capacity of truck and employee traffic. Any improvements and resultant impacts should be considered connected actions. The Draft EIS should indicate whether SHINE intends to use the adjacent Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport as a means of shipping and receiving materials. If yes, any improvements to the airport should be disclosed and considered connected actions. Appendix A A-12 Response: The comments express concern regarding potential environmental impacts from traffic management or infrastructure improvements on U.S. Highway 51 and at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. As described in Section 4.10 of the EIS, SHINE plans to use staggered work shift schedules to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion. Although traffic signal timing could be optimized to further enhance traffic flow, no modifications to the transportation infrastructure would be required. Section 4.10 of the EIS also describes SHINE's estimate to transport up to 39 monthly medical isotope shipments. Most of these shipments would be by air through the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. A.1.10 Water Resources Comments: 05-5: Water use concerns: Senica [Seneca] Foods is in the process of enlarging and already using a very large unknown amount of water in million of gallons and will be using much more after enlarging their processing of vegetables production. Now Shine alone, indicates it will use about 6600 gallons per day or 2,409,000 gallons per year. Both of these businesses may threaten our well water & pumping resources in the summer. We have at least two city wells that have high levels of nitrates that can't be used for drinking alone and in recent news Rock County has just experienced a huge increase of nitrate in wells throughout the County. Where will we get good drinking water? Last year many area wells went dry according to news reports. We must preserve our water and other natural resources and address environmental concerns. 05-16: There are water use concerns. Shines indicates it would use approximately 6,600 gallons of water per day, that amounts to 2,409,000 gallons per year. The nearby Seneca Foods uses even much higher amounts of water as well, and will be expanding and using more water yet. The large water use may threaten our water resources and even pumping capacities during the hot summer. We need to preserve our drinking water resources. 07-2: Now our water. All the wells that we have here in this community are drinking water in this community. This is something that's also in here with Al's. We've got a well right across the little bit of a pond right here. We've got another one across the road. We've got another one right over here on the corner. And we've already had some problems with some nitrogen problems and everything with some of our water wells around here. Well, you know, we don't want no uranium problems because you don't know how far that thing is going to seep down in our ground. The gentleman said where he was at said that 21 something that's supposed to have a water well up there. Well, wait a minute. Last we was told, there is no water well is now to be drilled up there. That would contaminate our water. Enough is enough is said about that. You want to contaminate our water? Response: These comments express concern regarding groundwater use, drinking water availability, and groundwater quality. One comment also expresses concern regarding SHINE's drilling of onsite wells. Section 4.4 of the EIS describes the potential impacts to water use and quality and Section 4.13.4 of the EIS describes the potential cumulative impacts from other water users on water use and quality. In Section 4.4.2, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater Appendix A A-13 hydrology, quality, and use from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. SHINE would not use onsite groundwater during construction, operations, and decommissioning. Instead, SHINE would obtain water from the City of Janesville Water Utility water treatment plant. Total water use during operations is projected to be 6,073 gallons per day (22,990 liters per day), or 0.006 million gallons per day (23 cubic meters per day). The water treatment plant has a treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd (72,290 m3/day) with an average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd (54,900 m3/day). Thus, the incremental contribution of influent from the proposed SHINE facility is a very small percentage (i.e., 0.13 percent) of the available treatment capacity and would not affect the water treatment plant's ability to provide for the treatment of other current or reasonably foreseeable residential, commercial, and industrial dischargers to the water treatment plant. As also described in Section 4.4.2, the NRC staff expects that construction, operations, and decommissioning would not have any impact on local groundwater quality because of the depth of groundwater and provisions for proper design and construction of the facility site's stormwater management and drainage system. SHINE has stated that all equipment and material storage areas would comply with appropriate regulations requiring secondary containment of stored liquids and materials to prevent their release where such materials could contaminate site soils or stormwater runoff, or infiltrate to contaminate groundwater. There would be no discharge of effluents to the subsurface at the site. SHINE installed onsite groundwater monitoring wells to determine the depth to groundwater, and onsite groundwater wells would not be used to withdraw groundwater. Comments: 03-2: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Construction Site and Industrial Storm Water Discharge Permitting, NR 216, Wisconsin Administrative Code: As described in Subchapter III of NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code, landowners of construction projects where one or more acres of land will be disturbed must obtain a WPDES [Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] Construction Site Storm Water Discharge Permit. A Water Resources Application for Project Permits (WRAPP) (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/construction/forms.html) and applicable fee must be submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at least 14 working days before construction will begin. Permittees must develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Storm Water Management Plan describing the best management practices that will be implemented on-site. Weekly on-site inspections throughout the duration of the project and after storm water events are also required. Additionally, industrial facilities that must obtain industrial storm water discharge permit coverage are listed in NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code, Subchapter II. The determination of whether an industrial facility must obtain storm water discharge permit coverage is based both on the facility's Standards Industrial Classification (SIC) code and whether or not the facility has the potential to contaminate storm water. Permitted facilities must develop a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The goal of this plan is to encourage source-area control through identification of a storm water pollution prevention individual, site-specific best management practices, and implementation schedules to help decrease the amount of contaminated storm water runoff from a facility. Some industrial facilities may also be required to conduct annual chemical monitoring for pollutants in runoff from their sites. Facilities with discharges composed entirely of storm water and at which there is no exposure of industrial materials and activities to storm water, may qualify for a Conditional No Exposure Exclusion, as detailed in s. NR 216.21(3). Industrial Notice of Intent and No Exposure Certification forms can be found online at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/ industrial/forms.html and shall be Appendix A A-14 submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at the same time as the construction site WRAPP (at least 14 working days prior to expected start of construction). 07-6: Our water, our environmental. They say that they're not going to have to use our stormwater sewage. Well, where is that stuff going to go to if it's on their property, it's going to have to run somewhere? It's sure not going to run and stay on their land. You're going to have roads there. It's going to be running down the roads right down through everything, right? How do we know they ain't going to leak? Response: The first comment describes the types of construction and industrial stormwater discharge permits that SHINE must obtain. The second comment expresses concern regarding the potential environmental impacts from stormwater sewage and other runoff. As described in Section 4.4 of the EIS, SHINE would be required to perform all activities in accordance with the Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013). SHINE would be required to prepare a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention measures. In accordance with this permit, these measures would be required to include proper management of all construction materials and chemicals to prevent them from being exposed to, and conveyed by, stormwater to waters of the State. The permit would explicitly require the development of spill prevention and response procedures, such as measures to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of fuels and other materials from construction equipment and activities. Wastewater from the SHINE facility would be conveyed to the City of Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant through a sanitary sewer line. A.1.11 Waste Management Comments: 05-6: Now the second part, where will Shine's hazardous waste and all those 2,409,000 gallons of salt brine/uranium waste water go, much of it contaminated water? What kind of monitoring systems will be required for leaks and waste filtering and radon levels in all areas, including all waste products, as well as incoming uranium sources? How can they filter out all the salt brine and the trace uranium from the waste water? We can't drain all this inferior water into the Rock River and contaminate our sewage disposal system and underground water supplies. Has a study been down on the depth and capacities of our underground water supply and aquifer levels? How far down beneath the building site does one reach the first water table? How far down to the second water table? Who is responsible for site clean up, should an accident take place and contaminate the entire site? What if Shine would just pick up and leave? Can the site be cleaned up say after ten years use, so that the site can safely be used for any other purpose? How much contaminated waste water or material can be accepted and stored on site and for how long? Shine has said it will be using a salt brine in their accelerators in conjunction with uranium. There is great concern that this will quickly cause great dangerous erosion/corrosion to all elements and cause further damage disposing waste salt water with uranium contaminated water. These two products together presents and accelerates all the dangers resulting from corrosion caused by salt brine. 05-17: Shine's use of salt brine within the accelerators with uranium appears very risky, with the increased corrosion dangers of salt brine and expected leaks. Shine says they clean them every 5 1/2 days. How do they clean them and what products can they use to clean them? Where does all the waste water and salt brine water go? How is that water safely cleaned or filtered? Appendix A A-15 07-3: What are we going to do with the water which is the-this stuff is put into the accelerators which is done by a salt brine. They're going to have tanks there to haul this stuff away. It's my understanding they had some tanks similar to that up in Pennsylvania or Connecticut or somewhere just recently that NRC had to go and check on something about them leaking. Well, these things will have to be hauled out of here. They've got to be hauled down to Arizona and Texas. Wait a minute here, folks. We got not only changes to worry about, we've got this stuff being hauled all over across the country and where did it come from? Janesville, Wisconsin. Response: These comments express concern regarding the disposal of nonradiological and radiological waste that would be generated at the SHINE facility and potential exposure from the generation of nonradiological and radiological waste. Section 4.9 of the EIS describes the waste management programs for radiological waste. In this section, the NRC staff concludes that nonradiological and radioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulatory requirements based on SHINE's proposed waste management systems; engineered designs features to minimize radioactive contamination; and the NRC's, the Department of Transportation's, and State of Wisconsin's radiation protection requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts from radiological waste would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning. As described in Section 2.7 of the EIS, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, a licensed production or utilization facility that permanently ceases operations shall submit a decommissioning report. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.33(k) requires that a report indicate how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the facility. In addition, see A.1.7, Human Health, and Section 4.8 of the EIS for a discussion of potential radiological exposures to the public during construction, operations, and decommissioning. In addition, see Section 4.8 of the EIS for a discussion of water use and discharges during construction, operations, and decommissioning. Comment: 03-4: SHINE has indicated that they will submit a notification of exemption from State regulations regarding treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste under Wis. Stats. 291, Wis. Admin. NR 660 and Wis. Admin. NR 662 for waste generated and managed under an NRC license. Response: The comment suggests that SHINE will submit a notification of exemption from the State regarding the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. In Section 2.7.2 of the EIS, the NRC staff states that SHINE does not intend to treat or permanently store hazardous wastes on site. SHINE would dispose of hazardous wastes generated at the facility at a licensed hazardous waste disposal site. Because SHINE will not store or treat hazardous wastes on site, it will not require a hazardous waste treatment or storage permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). Comment: 11-2: The Draft EIS should describe how the facility will comply with Underground Storage Tanks (UST) regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for underground storage of fuel. Appendix A A-16 Response: This comment questions how SHINE will comply with underground storage tank regulations under RCRA for underground storage of fuel. As described in Sections 2.7 and 4.9.2 of the EIS, SHINE would implement management systems to control, handle, process, store, and transport nonradioactive materials and waste generated during construction, operations, and decommissioning. The NRC staff expects that these management systems would ensure that the nonradioactive materials and wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance with all Federal and State regulatory requirements, including those under RCRA. Comments: 11-4: The Draft EIS should describe the disposal facility options available in the event that an anticipated disposal or storage facility is no longer available. Waste stream and disposal facility availability should be reviewed on an annual basis to confirm knowledge of the waste streams relative to the disposal options available and to avoid a situation of accumulating waste without a disposal path. The availability of options for each solid and liquid waste stream should also be discussed. Section 19.2.5.3.1 (Solid Radioactive Waste Handling System) discusses the generation and management of a used resin classified as Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste that would be shipped to Waste Control Specialists (WCS) of Texas for long-term storage. The Draft EIS should acknowledge that currently there is not a permanent disposal option available for commercially-generated GTCC waste, hence the need for long-term storage at WCS. The Draft EIS should evaluate whether it is possible to modify the system so that the used resin is generated as either Class A, B, or C low-level radioactive waste, which currently have available disposal options. The Draft EIS should provide information on the radionuclide inventory anticipated at the site during typical operations, with information on what would be considered process material, waste material temporarily stored on site for eventual off-site transport and disposal, or other site-specific material/product/waste designations. Radionuclide inventory limits under the NRC license should also be described. Response: These comments express concerns regarding the accumulation of waste and radionuclides on site, as well as disposal facility options. Section 2.7 of the EIS describes the storage, treatment, and transportation of radioactive and nonradioactive waste. Section 2.7 states that construction, operations, and decommissioning would result in the accumulation of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes. SHINE does not anticipate any long-term storage of radioactive or nonradioactive materials, such as medical radioisotope products, target solution, reagents, or resulting wastes. SHINE would treat and temporarily store the solid radioactive and nonradioactive waste generated as part of the radioisotope production process within the facility until it could ship the waste off site for disposal. While temporarily stored on site, NRC regulations require that radioactive material within the facility and radioactive effluents released into the environment meet the radiation protection dose-based limits in 10 CFR Part 20. NRC Appendix A A-17 regulations also require occupational and public exposure to radioactive material be as low as is reasonably achievable, as required by 10 CFR 20.1101(b). Section 2.7 of the EIS further describes the waste disposal options for radiological and nonradiological waste. In addition, a provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) states that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE) does not have access to a disposal path. For example, if a disposal pathway for GTCC waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its safe storage and disposal. A.2 Comments Received on the Draft EIS On May 11, 2015, the NRC made publicly available the Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit Application for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-2183, referred to as the draft EIS) to Federal, State, regional, local government agencies, tribes, and interested members of the public. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its Notice of Availability regarding the draft EIS on May 22, 2015 (80 FR 29701). The public comment period ended on July 6, 2015 (80 FR 27710). As part of the process to solicit public comments on the draft EIS, the NRC did the following: placed a copy of the draft EIS at the Hedberg Public District Library in Janesville, Wisconsin; made the draft EIS available in the NRC's Public Document Room in Rockville, Maryland; placed a copy of the draft EIS on the NRC Web site, at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr2183/; provided a copy of the draft EIS to members of the public who requested one; sent copies of the draft EIS to certain Federal, tribal, state, and local government agencies; published a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register on May 14, 2015 (80 FR 27710); filed the draft EIS with the EPA (80 FR 29701); and announced and held two public meetings at the Rotary Botanical Gardens in Janesville, Wisconsin, the afternoon and evening of June 10, 2015, to describe the preliminary results of the environmental review and take public comments. Approximately 25 people attended the afternoon meeting and 25 people attended the evening meeting. A certified court reporter prepared written transcripts of the meetings. A meeting summary, presentation slides, and transcripts are available in ADAMS (No. ML15170A262). The NRC received eight written comments on the draft EIS through http://www.regulations.gov/, written letter, and written comments provided during public meetings, as well as one oral comment provided during the public meetings. Some of the commenters who spoke at the public meetings also submitted written comments. The total number of commenters is nine. Appendix A A-18 To identify individual comments, the NRC reviewed the comment submittals and the afternoon and evening meeting transcripts, assigning each commenter a unique identifier, so every comment could be traced back to its author. Table A-3 identifies the individuals who provided comments and the Commenter ID associated with each person's set of comments. The comments received and associated responses are provided below to make it easier for commenters to find their comments and the NRC staff response. Table A-3. Individuals Providing Comments During the Draft EIS Comment Period Each commenter is identified, along with an affiliation, and the source of the comment. Commenter Affiliation (if stated) ID Comment Source ADAMS No. Bill McCoy Self 1 Afternoon public meeting ML15181A447 Bill McCoy Self 2 Written comment ML15188A088 Alfred Lembrich Self 3 Written comment ML15188A089 R. Vann Bynum SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 4 Written comment ML15182A117 Logan Pappenfort Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 5 Written comment ML15175A169 Kenneth Westlake U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 6 Written comment ML15201A575 Laura Bub Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 7 Written comment ML15189A069 Lindy Nelson U.S. Department of the Interior 8 Written comment ML15191A322 Leslie Eisenberg Wisconsin Historical Society 9 Written comment ML15191A323 In the sections below, each comment has a comment ID consisting of two numbers separated by a hyphen. The part of the comment ID before the hyphen is the Commenter ID from Table A-3. The part of the comment ID after the hyphen is the comment number, which refers to the sequential comment given by the commenter. For example, comment X-Y is the Y comment from commenter X. The following sections present the comments and the NRC responses to them. Consistent with 10 CFR 51.91, when comments have resulted in modification or supplemental information presented in the draft EIS, those changes are noted within the NRC response. When comments do not warrant further response, the NRC staff explains why, citing sources, authorities, or reasons that support the explanation, as appropriate. Changes made to the draft document are marked with a change bar (vertical lines) on the side margin of the page. Some of the references have been updated in the final EIS, such as the most current version of the SHINE ER (SHINE 2015a). The response to comments refers to citations as they are cited in the chapter that they appear in the final EIS. The NRC staff placed comments received during the comment period into categories based on topics in the EIS. These categories are listed in Table A-4. Appendix A A-19 Table A-4. Issue Categories Technical Issues Accidents Air Quality Alternatives Ecological Resources Historic and Cultural Resources Human Health Land Use Proposed Action Socioeconomics Transportation Waste Management Water Resources In addition, the NRC staff received comments on the environmental review process; opposition to the proposed action; siting, safety, and emergency planning; other out-of-scope comments; and editorial comments. The following pages contain the comments, identified by the commenter's identification and comment number, and the NRC staff's response. Comments are presented in the same order as listed in Table A-4. A.2.1 Accidents Comment 4-45: Page 4-47, Line 12: The radiation effects of the postulated maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) in the radioisotope production facility would be mitigated by the walls in the noble gas removal system room and isolated by Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) Ventilation Zone 1 (RVZ1) and RCA Ventilation Zone 2 (RVZ2), as described in Subsection 13b.2.1.3 of the PSAR. Recommend revising the wording to state, "The radiation effects of this MHA in the radioisotope production facility would be mitigated by the walls in the noble gas removal system room and isolated by RVZ1 and RVZ2." Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. Consistent with the comment, the NRC staff revised the maximum hypothetical accident discussion to reflect that the radiological effects of the MHA would be mitigated by the walls in the noble gas removal system room and isolated by Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) Ventilation Zone 1 (RVZ1) and RCA Ventilation Zone 2 (RVZ2). Comment 4-46: Page 4-47, Line 28: Only the RVZ1 and RVZ2 portions of the RCA Ventilation System (RV) are safety-related. RCA Ventilation Zone 3 (RVZ3) and Facility Ventilation Zone 4 (FVZ4) are nonsafety-related (see Table 3.5-1 of the PSAR). Recommend revising the wording to state, "These safety-related structures, systems, and components include the systems described above (i.e., the irradiation unit cell confinement, radiation monitoring system, pipe penetration shields, TSV off-gas system, noble gas removal system walls, RVZ1, RVZ2, secure chemical containers, and other safety-related structures, systems, and components)." Appendix A A-20 Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC revised the maximum hypothetical accident discussion to reflect that only the Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) Ventilation Zone 1 (RVZ1) and RCA Ventilation Zone 2 (RVZ2) (rather than the entire RCA ventilation system) are safety-related, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-47: Page 4-48, Line 1: SHINE revised the description of the hazardous chemical dispersion analysis for the SHINE facility provided in Subsections 13b.3.2 and 19.4.11.2.13 of the PSAR via Reference (4) [SHINE 2015b]. Recommend revising the description of the SHINE hazardous chemical dispersion analysis contained in Section 4.11.2, including the results reported in Table 4-13, to be consistent with the revised Subsection 19.4.11.2.13 and Table 19.4.11-1 provided via Reference (4) [SHINE 2015b]. Response: This comment suggests that the NRC staff include a revised version of SHINE's description of the hazardous chemical dispersion model as described in SHINE's response to the NRC's requests for addition information (RAIs) submitted on June 16, 2015. The NRC staff revised the description of the hazardous chemical dispersion analysis and Table 4-13 in the EIS (Section 4.11.2) to be consistent with the information provided in SHINE's June 2015 response to RAIs, as suggested by the comment. A.2.2 Air Quality Comment 4-27: Page 4-7, Line 14: As shown in Revision 6 of CALC-2013-0007, provided as Attachment 3 to Enclosure 1 of Reference (2) [SHINE 2015c], hydrocarbons emissions from diesel equipment exhaust are estimated to be 22 tons/year, not 2 tons/year. Recommend revising the value to 22 tons/year, and the corresponding "Total" and "Percent of Rock County Annual Emissions" for hydrocarbons accordingly. Response: This comment suggests that the NRC staff include SHINE's revised assumptions for the estimated hydrocarbon emissions from diesel equipment exhaust. The NRC staff revised the hydrocarbon emissions from diesel equipment, total hydrocarbon emissions, and percent of Rock County annual emissions in Table 4-3 of the EIS to reflect the revisions in SHINE's response to RAIs submitted on February 6, 2015, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-28: Page 4-7, Line 14: Reference MRI 2006 describes a recommended PM2.5/PM10 ratio of 0.1, not PM10/PM2.5. Recommend revising Note (b) of Table 4-3 to state, "-and for PM2.5/PM10, a ratio of 0.1 (EPA 1984; MRI 2006)." Appendix A A-21 Response: This comment suggests a correction to a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the PM2.5/PM10 ratio in note (b) in Table 4-3 and Table 4-9 of the EIS, as suggested by the comment. Comments 4-30 and 4-32: 4-30: Page 4-12, Line 17: SHINE does not expect to ship all off-site (radiological) waste shipments to Clive, Utah. In order to determine bounding emissions values during the operations phase, SHINE assumed all off-site (radiological) waste shipments are shipped to the EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah, as it is furthest disposal facility from the SHINE facility. The expected waste disposal facilities for SHINE's off-site (radiological) waste shipments are provided in Subsection 19.4.10.1.1 of the PSAR. Recommend revising the wording to state, "However, these emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI because they are expected to be shipped to facilities in Clive, Utah; Andrews, Texas; and/or Kingston, Tennessee (SHINE 2013a) and would therefore traverse various counties, AQCRs, and states." 4-32: Page 4-14, Line 8: SHINE does not expect to ship all offsite (radiological) waste shipments to Clive, Utah. See previous comment for Page 4-12, Line 17 [Comment 4-30]. Response: These comments suggest a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the discussions regarding offsite (radiological) waste shipments, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-33: Page 4-15, Line 1: Since the decommissioning phase is only expected to be six months, SHINE provided air emissions estimates during decommissioning in tons, not as an annual rate (i.e., tons/year). Recommend revising the units in Table 4-9 to tons. Response: This comment suggests a correction to a table in the EIS. The NRC revised Table 4-9 of the EIS, as suggested by the comment, to state the estimated number of tons for decommissioning. Comment 4-34: Page 4-15, Line 1: SHINE revised the total emissions during the decommissioning phase in Revision 6 of CALC-2013-0007, provided as Attachment 3 to Enclosure 1 of Reference (2) [SHINE 2015c]. Recommend revising Table 4-9 to reflect the most current SHINE estimation of emissions during the decommissioning phase. Response: This comment suggests a revision in the EIS to reflect SHINE's revised emissions calculations included in SHINE's response to RAIs submitted on February 6, 2015. The NRC staff reviewed SHINE's response to RAIs and revised Table 4-9 in the EIS accordingly, consistent with SHINE's revised emission calculations. Comment 6-9: On December 18, 2014, the Council on Environmental Quality released revised draft guidance for public comment that describes how Federal departments and agencies should consider the Appendix A A-22 effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change in their NEPA reviews. The revised draft guidance supersedes the draft GHG and climate change guidance released by CEQ in February 2010. This guidance explains that agencies should consider both the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change, as indicated by its estimated GHG emissions, and the implications of climate change for the environmental effects of a proposed action. Recommendation: As discussed above under "Green Infrastructure," EPA recommends that the Applicant identify opportunities to minimize GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the facility to the extent feasible. For example, clean energy options, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, can be considered in the purchase of maintenance equipment, new equipment and vehicles. We also recommend any measures that may reduce the facility's carbon dioxide (C02) footprint, particularly from fuel combustion during the life of operations. Finally, EPA recommends that the applicant consider the need to develop adaptation measures to address impacts from climate change on the facility, such as increased intensity and frequency of storm and flood events. EPA notes that our diesel emissions reduction measures, as recommended in our August 14, 2013 scoping letter, were included in the Draft EIS. EPA commends NRC for including this language and continues to encourage the Applicant to incorporate these measures into their construction planning. Response: This comment recommends that the applicant identify opportunities to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the construction and operation of the facility to the extent feasible. The NRC does not have the authority to require mitigation measures. The NRC staff has forwarded the commenter's recommendation to the applicant. In its ER, SHINE stated that it is committed to minimizing GHG emissions and that it will develop a comprehensive program to avoid and control GHG emissions associated with the facility. Initiatives to reduce GHG emissions may include: participating in EPA initiatives, such as the Climate Leaders Program, ENERGY STAR Commercial Buildings Program, Green Power Partnership, and SmartWay Transport Partnership; developing a GHG emissions inventory and investigating and implementing methods for avoiding or controlling the GHG emissions identified in the inventory; implementing energy efficiency and conservation programs at the SHINE facility, installing solar panels, and/or purchasing electricity generated from renewable energy sources; and encouraging carpooling or other measures to minimize GHG emissions due to vehicle traffic during construction and operation of the SHINE facility. The comment also recommends that the applicant consider the need to develop adaptation measures to address impacts from climate change on the facility. Such climate change adaptation measures are out of scope for the environmental review, which documents the potential environmental impacts of construction, operations, and decommissioning on the environment, and, therefore, were not evaluated in the development of this EIS. However, the NRC staff's safety evaluation report (SER) considers the geography and demography; nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities; meteorology; hydrology; and geology, seismology, and geotechnical engineering related to the proposed SHINE site to ensure that the facility meets the regulatory occupational and public dose limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20. For Appendix A A-23 example, Chapter 2 in the SER evaluates the preliminary design of structures, components, equipment, and systems intended to ensure safe operation, performance, and shutdown when subjected to extreme weather, floods, seismic events, missiles (including aircraft impacts or from extreme weather events), and loss of offsite power. As a part of this review, the NRC staff evaluates whether any potential radiological releases would be within the regulatory occupational and public dose limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20. Chapter 2, "Site Characteristics," of NUREG-1537, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non Power Reactors," Parts 1 and 2, provided the guidance for reviewing and evaluating the SHINE site characteristics, as described in the SHINE preliminary safety analysis report. "Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, 'Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors,' for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors," Parts 1 and 2, provided relevant supplemental nonreactor guidance for reviewing the SHINE site characteristics. The NRC staff will document its evaluation in Chapter 2 of the SHINE SER. In response to this comment, the NRC staff revised Table 6-2 in the EIS to include the mitigation measures SHINE may include to reduce GHG emissions. Comment 7-2: The dEIS states that, "As of February 2014, the WDNR was actively working with SHINE to determine which of these permits would be required (WDNR 2014a)," and "SHINE intends to submit an application for a Type A Registration Construction Permit to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (SHINE 2013b)." It should be noted that the Department has not yet received an application for an air pollution control permit from SHINE. Section 4.2.2 discusses air emissions from operations. The Department is unable to confirm the assumed emissions without a permit application. Response: This comment states WDNR cannot confirm SHINE's estimated emissions because, as of June 2015, SHINE has not submitted an application to WDNR. In response to this comment, the NRC staff deleted the statement in the EIS regarding WDNR working with SHINE to determine the applicability of air quality permits from WDNR. Consistent with SHINE's ER and its response to a request for additional information (RAI) submitted on November 19, 2013, the EIS states that SHINE intends to submit a Type A Registration Construction Permit application. A.2.3 Alternatives Comments 1-2 and 3-3: 1-2: There's other places in the State of Wisconsin that this building could be put, Badger Army Depot is for one. It's less than a five minute helicopter flight to Dane County Airport. I just left from up there this morning to do the fast track. So my recommendation is because of the contaminated land already up there, to save us from having contaminated land down here in Janesville. 3-3: There are also many remote, somewhat useless land site available elsewhere, like former mining sites, etc. Response: These two comments suggest additional alternative sites for the NRC staff to examine in the final EIS. The NRC staff acknowledges that a large number of potential alternative sites could exist within Wisconsin and the surrounding region. When a large number of potential Appendix A A-24 alternatives exist, NEPA requires that an agency analyze a reasonable number of examples in the EIS (46 FR 18026). For the purposes of this EIS, the NRC staff determined that examining two alternative sites in depth was reasonable, because the proposed site and the two alternative sites are located in other regions and environments within Wisconsin and the SHINE site selection process evaluated several other sites. The Badger Army Ammunition Plant, suggested as an alternative by one commenter, is located in Sauk County, Wisconsin, and includes 7,354 acres (2,976 hectares) of industrial buildings, grasslands, and open space. The Badger Plant was constructed in 1942 as an ammunition propellant production factory in support of World War II. The plant was also used to produce ammunition during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 1997, the U.S. Army announced its intention to decommission the plant as part of a larger effort to decommission ordnance plants no longer needed after the Cold War. In early 2000, the Sauk County Board of Supervisors initiated a planning process for reusing the site, including the development of the Badger Reuse Plan (Badger Reuse Committee 2001). The plan calls for the site to be managed in various ways, including conservation, prairie and savanna restoration, agriculture, education, and recreation. The General Services Administration is in charge of the redistribution of this land and has offered portions of it to the following Federal and State agencies, local government, and Tribe: U.S. Department of Agriculture Dairy Forage, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Ho-Chunk Nation, National Park Service and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Town of Sumpter, and Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Based on the above information, the NRC staff excluded the Badger Army Ammunition Plant from detailed evaluation because the land is not currently available for private development and because construction and operation of the SHINE facility is not compatible with the goals of the Badger Reuse Plan. In addition, NEPA does not require the NRC staff to analyze every possible alternative site in situations when a large number of potential alternatives exist. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to these comments. Comment 4-51: Page 5-96, Line 9: Although molybdenum-100 is a naturally occurring isotope, molybdenum enriched in molybdenum-100 is not naturally occurring. Recommend revising the wording, "For the linear-accelerator-based alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by irradiating natural molybdenum (molybdenum enriched in the radioisotope molybdenum-100) in an accelerator." to state, "For the linear-accelerator-based alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by utilizing an accelerator to irradiate natural molybdenum that has been enriched in the radioisotope molybdenum-100." Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS, as suggested by the comment. A.2.4 Ecological Resources Comment 4-19: Page 3-33, Line 1: Table 3-8, Common and Abundant Wildlife Observed on or Near the Proposed Site, contains wildlife which SHINE did not classify as either Common or Abundant. SHINE field surveys classified the abundance of Canadian geese as "occasional," the abundance of red-tailed hawk as "uncommon," the abundance of killdeer as "occasional," and the abundance of field sparrow as "uncommon." In addition, although the field survey abundance of avifaunal species was provided by SHINE in Table 19.3.5-5 of the PSAR, SHINE did not classify the abundance of Appendix A A-25 mammals or reptiles and amphibians in field surveys. Recommend revising the title of Table 3-8 to "Wildlife Observed On or Near the Proposed Site." Response: This comment suggests that Table 3-8 in the EIS be revised to reflect, consistent with the ER, that certain species listed in Table 3-8 are not "common" or "abundant," but that are observed to be "occasional" or "uncommon." The NRC staff has revised the title of Table 3-8 to "Wildlife Observed On or Near the Proposed Site," to show that SHINE's observations indicated that the species listed in the table are common, abundant, occasional, or uncommon. Comment 4-37: Page 4-24, Line 29: The proposed SHINE facility would permanently convert 0.18 ac. of developed open space into an industrial area, not developed or open areas. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff agrees and revised the EIS by changing "developed or open areas" to "developed open space," as suggested by the comment. A.2.5 Historic and Cultural Resources Comment 5-1: The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma is unaware of any documentation directly linking Indian Religious Sites to the newly proposed project location. There appear to be no objects of cultural significance or artifacts linked to our tribe located on or near the project location. The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma is unaware of items covered under NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) to be associated with the proposed project site. These items include: funerary or sacred objects; objects of cultural patrimony; or ancestral human remains. The Peoria Tribe has no objection at this time to the proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility. If, however, at any time items are discovered which fall under the protection of NAGPRA, the Peoria Tribe requests immediate notification and consultation. In addition state, local and tribal authorities should be advised as to the findings and construction halted until consultation with all concerned parties has occurred. Response: This comment states that the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma is unaware of any documentation directly linking Indian religious sites to the newly proposed project location, and the Peoria Tribe requests immediate notification and consultation if, at any time, items are discovered that fall under the protection of NAGPRA. The NRC coordinates with Federal, State, and local agencies, as appropriate, throughout its NEPA review process. Consistent with the NRC standard review plan, documentation of all coordination and consultation activities is included in the EIS (Appendix D). Section 4.6.4.1 of the EIS describes SHINE's sitewide cultural resource management plan (CRMP) to manage and protect as-yet unidentified cultural resources, which describes when further notifications and consultations would occur. For example, if cultural resources or materials are discovered during construction, the activity would be immediately halted; the area would be protected; the SHINE Environment, Health, and Safety (ES&H) Manager would be notified; and consultation with the Wisconsin Historical Society might be initiated. Consultation may require additional investigation and preservation Appendix A A-26 plans, which would be developed by the SHINE ES&H Manager. All investigation and preservation plans would be approved by SHINE management and in consultation with the Wisconsin Historical Society. Work that uncovered potential cultural resources would not recommence without SHINE management approval. If actual or suspected human remains are unearthed during construction, construction activities would halt immediately, and the area would be protected. The procedures for uncatalogued burial sites found in Wisconsin Statute 157.70 would be followed, and local law enforcement would be contacted, as described in SHINE's response to RAIs on November 19, 2013. Additionally, SHINE would educate its employees and contractors on requirements of the CRMP if they are engaged in the construction of the proposed site in a capacity that disturbs the ground or that could result in the discovery of cultural resources. Actions for the special case of the discovery of human remains would be discussed in the training CRMP. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment. Comment 9-1: I have reviewed the specifications for the entire project on behalf of the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office and agree with the "no historic properties" determination presented for the proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin, and for the two alternate sites located in Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point, Wisconsin. Response: This comment states that the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office agrees with the NRC staff's determination of "no historic properties." In response to this comment, the NRC staff has updated the Historic and Cultural resources discussions in Sections 4.6, 5.2.2.6, and 5.2.3.6 in the EIS to reflect the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office's determination. A.2.6 Human Health Comment 4-42: Page 4-39, Line 34: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-2 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014] clarified the duration of the decommissioning phase for the SHINE facility (six months). Recommend revising the duration of decommissioning period and the resulting estimate of recordable cases of non-fatal workplace injuries and illnesses during the decommissioning period. Response: This comment suggests that the NRC staff use an estimate of 6 months for the decommissioning phase, as clarified in SHINE's response to RAIs submitted on October 15, 2014. The NRC staff revised Section 4.8.3 to reflect a decommissioning period of 6 months, as suggested by the comment. In addition, the NRC staff updated the estimates of recordable cases of nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses consistent with SHINE's response to the RAIs. As noted in Section 4.8.3, using a 6-month duration reduced the estimated number of recordable cases of nonfatal workplace injuries and illness. Comment 6-4: The Draft EIS includes several determinations about whether a potential impact is based on models. In most instances, the name of the model and specifics about model inputs and assumptions are not included in the Draft EIS. EPA is aware that this information could be proprietary or included in other documents. Appendix A A-27 Recommendation: EPA recommends that the Final EIS include the name of the models, inputs, and assumptions identified in the Draft EIS for the following determinations, with locations in the Draft EIS given in parentheses. If this information is provided elsewhere, please provide specific locations. Or, if this information is proprietary, please contact us to discuss comment resolution in the Final EIS. Estimate values for gaseous radioactive effluents and determination for exposure potential to an individual(s) off site. (Table 2-2, page 2-16); Determining compliance with regulatory requirements for public exposure to radiation (Section 3.8.1.2, page 3-54, lines 1-5; Section 4.8.2.1, page 4-36, lines 44-46, and page 4-37, lines 1-2; Section 4.11.1, page 4-4 7, lines 18-25; Section 4.13.8, page 4-70, lines 38-46; Section 5.2.2.13, page 5-46, lines 21-47, and page 5-47, lines 1-2; Section 5.2.3.8, page 5-71, lines 5-10; Section 5.2.3.13, page 5-91, lines 28-44) Response: This comment expresses concerns regarding the level of detail in descriptions of computer models to determine the potential impacts in the EIS. The purpose of the EIS is to provide the public and the Commission with a description of potential environmental impacts. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A, and 40 CFR 1502.15, the level of detail provided within the EIS is commensurate with the potential for adverse or significant environmental impacts. This is consistent with one of the goals of NEPA, which is to concentrate on issues significant to the proposed action and their potential environmental impacts, and further, that affected resources are analyzed in proportion with their importance and the expected level of impact to them. In addition to the EIS, the NRC staff's thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from operating the SHINE facility will be documented in the NRC staff's SER. Part of this independent review will verify that the radiological exposure to the members of the public would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20. How the NRC staff gathered data for the EIS, as well as additional information that will be provided in the final SER, is described below. For the values of the gaseous radioactive effluents used to determine potential exposure to offsite individuals found in Table 2-2 of the EIS, the NRC staff used the gaseous effluent numbers provided by SHINE in Table 19.4.2-1 from its ER. The development of those numbers is documented in S&L 2012-08751 Rev. 2, "Normal Gaseous Effluent Releases: Radionuclide Concentrations and Dose Assessment," a proprietary document produced by the consulting firm Sargent & Lundy. Those numbers are based on an estimate of 50 weeks of operation a year for SHINE's production facility, as described in SHINE's ER. The NRC staff reviewed the estimates and found them acceptable to discuss the impacts associated with the proposed action. For more information, Section 2.7.1.1 of the EIS contains a gaseous waste effluent discussion, and Section 19.4.2.1.2.1.1 of SHINE's ER discusses the gaseous effluents from isotope production. SHINE also used models to calculate the radioactive dose estimates presented in Sections 3.8.1.2, 4.8.2.1, and 4.11.1 of the EIS. Additional information on the dose estimates of the maximally exposed individual referred to in Section 3.8.1.2 and the maximum dose to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous effluents referred to in Section 4.8.2.1 of the EIS is in Section 19.4.8.2.4.1 of the ER, which includes a discussion of computer models and calculations. The calculated number for the maximum dose to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous effluents is presented in Table 19.4.8-5 of SHINE's ER. Additional information on the maximum hypothetical accident dose estimates referred to in Section 4.11.1 of the EIS is in Section 19.4.11.2.1 of the ER, and it includes a discussion of the methodology and calculations used for those dose estimates. The NRC staff reviewed the dose estimates for Appendix A A-28 the maximally exposed individual, the maximum hypothetical accident, and the maximum dose to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous effluents and found them to be below the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, as well as below the as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) dose constraints found in 10 CFR 20.1101. As noted above, the NRC staff's thorough independent review of dose estimates will be documented in the NRC staff's SER. Part of this independent review will be to verify that the radiological exposure to the members of the public would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20. The comment also seeks clarification for the assumptions made in determining the human health impacts in the cumulative analysis in Section 4.13.8 of the EIS. To determine those impacts, the NRC staff reviewed the information provided in Section 19.4.13.8.2 of SHINE's ER. Facilities listed therein as having the potential for adding radiological exposure to members of the public were considered in the cumulative impacts analysis in Section 4.13.8 of the EIS. As discussed in Section 4.13.8 of the EIS, the NRC staff will complete its thorough independent safety evaluation to verify that the cumulative radiological exposure to the members of the public would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20 and document its findings in its SER. The comment also seeks clarification for the assumptions made in determining the human health impacts in the alternatives analysis within Sections 5.2.2.13, 5.2.3.8, and 5.2.3.13. The NRC staff notes that, according to the Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria" (NRC 2012), the NRC staff may present a qualitative discussion of potential impacts to each resource area, such as that provided in Sections 5.2.2.13, 5.2.3.8, and 5.2.3.13. For example, Sections 5.2.2.13, 5.2.3.8, and 5.2.3.13 of the EIS qualitatively discuss the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point alternative sites, respectively. In determining those impacts, the NRC staff reviewed the information provided in Sections 19.5.2.1.2.1.9, 19.5.2.1.2.2, and 19.5.2.1.2.2.14 of SHINE's ER. Table 19.5.2-1 and Table 19.5.2-14 in SHINE's ER lists sites near the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point alternative sites that use radioactive materials. The NRC staff reviewed all of the data presented in SHINE's ER regarding the alternative sites and determined that, based on the regulatory controls that are or would be in place to control radiation exposure, the distance between the facilities that use radioactive material, and the dilution of the radioactive materials, the cumulative radiological impacts on human health would be SMALL. Because sufficient detail is already included in the EIS, the NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. Comment 6-5: The Applicant will employ three separate water treatment processes: a demineralization process, a cooling water treatment process, and a facility heating water treatment process. Rock County, Wisconsin is a Zone One Radon County (http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html), meaning there are relatively high concentrations of naturally occurring radiation in the soil and groundwater in this area. Water treatment and demineralization will have a tendency to concentrate naturally occurring radioactive materials. Recommendation: The Final EIS should address plans for monitoring and subsequent handling and disposal of wastewater and wastewater treatment residuals should high concentrations of radium or other radionuclides be encountered during the production process. Appendix A A-29 Response: This comment suggests that the EIS address plans for SHINE's wastewater treatment processes in regard to naturally occurring radioactive materials. Section 2.7.12 of the EIS describes SHINE's radioactive liquid waste treatment and disposal processes. Treatments for radioactive liquid wastes would include radioactive decay, pH adjustment, volume reduction through evaporation, and solidification in a hot cell using Portland cement. In its ER, SHINE (2015a) stated that radioactive wastes would be stored on site long enough for radioactive decay before being packaged and shipped out to a disposal facility. As discussed in Section 2.5.1 of the EIS, SHINE would obtain water for operations from the Janesville Water Utility. Water from the Janesville Water Utility would be treated prior to SHINE's use, and therefore, would be below the maximum contaminant level for uranium and other radionuclides, which is a standard set and enforced by EPA and States in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. As such, it would be unlikely that SHINE would accumulate much naturally occurring radioactive material in its radioactive liquid waste streams during the production process. If any were to accumulate, it would be handled by the same processes described in Section 2.7.12 of the EIS for treatment and disposal. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment because the information suggested by the comment is described in the EIS. Comment 6-6: Agreement States and NRC regulated facilities are to keep all exposures of the public to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). In order for EPA to rescind regulation of airborne dose exposure from NRC-licensed or Federal facilities, NRC and any delegated program would meet the requirements of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 61, Subpart I requirements, as outlined in the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and EPA. Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify how the Applicant plans to achieve ALARA to the airborne dose exposure to radionuclides as agreed to between NRC and EPA in the 1998 MOU regarding 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, prior to the rescission. Response: This comment suggests that the EIS clarify how SHINE plans to achieve the ALARA dose criteria for public exposure to airborne radioactive effluent releases, as described in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, before the rescission. Subpart I does not apply to SHINE, as stated in 40 CFR 61.100: The provisions of this subpart apply to facilities owned or operated by any Federal agency other than the Department of Energy and not licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, except that this subpart does not apply to disposal at facilities regulated under 40 CFR part 191, subpart B, or to any uranium mill tailings pile after it has been disposed of under 40 CFR part 192, or to low energy accelerators. Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 61 was last updated in 1996 (61 FR 68972) and in the rule summary, it states: As required by section 112(d)(9) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, EPA has determined that the NRC regulatory program for licensed facilities other than commercial nuclear power reactors protects public health with an ample margin of safety, the same level of protection that would be afforded by continued implementation of subpart I. Section 3.8.1.2 of the EIS describes the NRC regulatory requirements for public exposure to radioactive effluents. The ALARA dose constraint, which is applicable to the SHINE facility, is found in 10 CFR 20.1101(b) and requires NRC licensees to use, to the extent practical, Appendix A A-30 procedures and controls based on sound radiation protection principles to achieve ALARA doses to members of the public (and facility workers). Guidance for regulatory compliance for applicants of non-power reactors is found in NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors." The NRC staff notes that neither agency could locate an 1998 MOU. Nonetheless, as described above, 10 CFR 20.1101(b) requires NRC licensees to use, to the extent practical, procedures and controls based on sound radiation protection principles to achieve ALARA doses to members of the public (and facility workers). Because SHINE has to comply with the ALARA dose criteria in 10 CFR 20.2101(b) as stated in Section 3.8.1.2 of the EIS, EPA has determined that NRC regulations provide adequate public protection from radioactive effluents, and 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, does not apply to SHINE, the NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. A.2.7 Land Use Comments 4-17, 4-24, 4-52, and 4-54: 4-17: Page 3-1, Line 35: 0.2 percent of the proposed SHINE site is developed open space, not developed land or open space. Recommend revising accordingly. 4-24: Page 4-1, Line 33: The proposed SHINE site currently includes 0.18 ac. of developed open space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising accordingly. Page 4-1, Line 35: The proposed SHINE site currently includes 0.18 ac. of developed open space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising accordingly. 4-52: Page 5-102, Line 2: The proposed SHINE site would include 0.18 ac. of developed open space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising the description provided for the cost benefit category "Land Use" accordingly. Page 6-2, Line 1: The proposed SHINE site would include 0.18 ac. of developed open space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising the Summary of Impact for Land Use accordingly. 4-54: Page 6-10, Line 6: Construction, operations, and decommissioning would require 0.18 ac. of developed open space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: These comments suggest revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the text to describe portions of the SHINE site as "open developed space" throughout the EIS, as suggested by the comments. A.2.8 Proposed Action Comment 4-2: Page 2-5, Line 8: As described in the SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-1 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014], a concrete batch plant will not be located on the proposed SHINE site Appendix A A-31 during construction. Recommend removing "concrete batch plant operation" from the list of activities included in construction. Page 2-5, Line 14: As described in the SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-1 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014], a concrete batch plant will not be located on the proposed SHINE site during construction. Recommend removing the discussion of feed materials necessary for operating the concrete batch plant. Response: These comments suggest revisions to correct a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff deleted the discussion of an onsite concrete batch plant, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-3: Page 2-7, Line 1: The SHINE Waste Staging and Shipping Building is incorrectly labeled as the Waste Storage and Shipping Building. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests a revision to correct an illustration in the EIS. The NRC staff revised Figure 2-4 to include the correct label in the EIS, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-4: Page 2-7, Line 17: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-7 (Reference 2) [SHINE 2015c] clarified the expected number of truck deliveries per month (36), the number of medical isotope shipments per month (39), the average number of radioactive waste shipments per year (25.6), and the number of off-site (non-radiological) waste shipments per month (1). Recommend revising the number of shipments and deliveries accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the number of shipments and deliveries in the EIS, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-6: Page 2-11, Line 10: It is stated that the deuterium ion beam strikes tritium nuclei, resulting in lighter hydrogen atoms and neutrons being produced. However, the deuterium ion beam striking the tritium gas results in the production of helium nuclei and neutrons rather than lighter hydrogen atoms, as described in Subsection 19.2.2.1 of the PSAR. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS to indicate that the resulting ion beam would strike the tritium gas and produce helium nuclei and neutrons, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-7: Page 2-11, Line 28: The off-gas system being described recombines radiolytically-produced hydrogen and oxygen and captures iodine using an adsorption material. The off-gas system handles and contains radiolytic and fission products gases, rather than specifically recovering xenon-133 and iodine-131. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS to indicate that the off-gas system would be used to handle and contain Appendix A A-32 radiolytic and fission product gases released from the target solution, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-8: Page 2-11, Line 32: The hot cells in the SHINE facility are not containments. Recommend revising the parenthetical to state, "shielded nuclear radiation confinement chambers." Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the parenthetical statement in the EIS to indicate that the SHINE hot cells are shielded nuclear radiation confinement chambers, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-9: Page 2-11, Line 41: The purification process described would yield a high-purity product. The dissolution and evaporation processes, which occur as part of the SHINE extraction process, yield a crude Mo-99 product, rather than a high purity product. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS to indicate that the SHINE dissolution and evaporation processes yield a crude Mo-99 product, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-10: Page 2-12, Line 38: The SHINE facility does not include a diesel-driven fire pump system. The fire water supply system, described in Subsection 9a2.3.3 of the PSAR, includes an electric motor-driven fire pump and a diesel engine-driven fire pump. In addition, as described in the SHINE Response to Proposed Action Request #3 (Reference 3) [SHINE 2013b], the 1,860 annual gallons of diesel fuel estimate includes testing and maintenance on both the standby diesel generator and the diesel-driven fire pump. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify statements in the EIS. The NRC staff revised statements in the EIS to indicate that SHINE would use approximately 1,860 gal (7,000 L) of diesel fuel annually to maintain and test a standby diesel generator, as well as a diesel engine-driven fire pump, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-11: Page 2-12, Line 42: The SHINE facility includes a single natural gas-fired boiler, as described in the SHINE Response to Air Quality Request #9 (Reference 3) [SHINE 2013b]. Recommend revising accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS to indicate that SHINE has a single natural gas-fired boiler, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-13: Page 2-14, Line 10: As described in Subsection 5a2.1.1 of the PSAR, the Primary Closed Loop Cooling System (PCLS) removes heat from the target solution vessel (TSV) via the Appendix A A-33 exterior surfaces of the TSV. Recommend revising the wording to state, "The primary closed-loop cooling system would remove heat from the target solution vessel by actively circulating water along the exterior surfaces of the vessel." Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS to indicate that the cooling system would remove heat from the target solution vessel by actively circulating water along the exterior surfaces of the vessel, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-14: Page 2-15, Line 4: The neutron drivers are expected to be replaced on an approximately yearly basis, as described in Subsection 19.2.5.3.1. Recommend revising the parenthetical to state, "i.e., the neutron driver that would be periodically replaced". Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the parenthetical statement to indicate that the neutron driver would be periodically replaced, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-15: Page 2-15, Line 22: The TSV is part of the subcritical assembly system, which is separate from the TSV off-gas system. Recommend revising the wording to reflect Subsection 19.4.2.1.2.1.1 of the PSAR, which states, "Process off-gases are treated in two separate, but connected, systems: the target solution vessel (TSV) off-gas system and the process vessel vent system (PVVS)." Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement in the EIS to indicate that gaseous radioactive effluents would be routed through the target solution vessel off-gas system and the process vessel vent system, as suggested by the comment. Comment 6-3: The Draft EIS lists three isotopes currently slated for production at the facility (molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133). The Draft EIS is unclear if the Applicant anticipates needing to add additional isotopes to the facility's production capabilities (based on market conditions or technological advancements, for example). Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify whether the Applicant anticipates needing to add additional isotope production capabilities (other than the ones listed). If the Applicant anticipates needing additional production capabilities, the Final EIS should identify potential expansion locations and resultant impacts, including anticipated management of waste streams associated with additional isotope production. Response: This comment seeks to clarify SHINE's intentions to add production capability for radioisotopes other than those listed in its construction permit application. The radioisotopes listed in SHINE's construction permit application are molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), iodine-131 (I-131), and xenon-133 (Xe-133). The EIS evaluates the environmental impacts from the proposed action, as described in Section 1.2 in the EIS, which includes the production of Mo-99, I-131, and Xe-133. If, in the future, SHINE decides to produce radioisotopes other than those listed in its construction permit Appendix A A-34 application, SHINE would need to determine whether an amendment to its license would be necessary. If an amendment is necessary, the NRC staff would then review the amendment application and the environmental impacts of producing the additional radioisotopes. A.2.9 Socioeconomics Comment 4-21: Page 3-49, line 44: The Fireside Theater is the Fireside Dinner Theatre, and it is located on Janesville Avenue in Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin. It is not located in Janesville, Wisconsin. Recommend removing the Fireside Theater from the list of tourist attractions and activity centers in Janesville. Response: This comment suggests revisions to correct a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff removed the Fireside Theater from the list of tourist attractions and activity centers in Janesville, as suggested by the comment. Comment 4-22: Page 3-50, Line 28: The nearest snowmobile trail to the SHINE site was described in Subsection 19.3.7.2.5.3 of the PSAR. Recommend revising the citation (SHINE 2013b) to (SHINE 2013a). Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. As suggested by the comment, the NRC staff revised the EIS reference citation to SHINE 2015, which is the most recent version of the ER that describes the nearest snowmobile trail. Note that in some chapters, such as Chapter 3, the most recent version of the ER is cited as SHINE 2015a. Comment 4-39: Page 4-31, Line 29: SHINE estimated there would be 26 Equipment Operator/Engineers available in Rock County during the Decommissioning Phase, as shown in Table 19.4.7-1 of the PSAR. Recommend revising the "Available Labor Force in ROI" for Equipment Operator/Eng. during Decommissioning from 20 to 26, and revising the corresponding "Total" accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. As suggested by the comment, the NRC staff revised Table 4-12 in the EIS to indicate the availability of 26 equipment operators/engineers in the region of influence during decommissioning and the corresponding total. Comment 4-40: Page 4-36, Line 6: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-5 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014, ML14296A189] clarified the peak number of workers at the site during the construction phase (451). Recommend revising the peak number of workers at the site during construction from 421 to 451. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the peak number of workers at the site during construction from 421 to 451, as suggested by the comment. Appendix A A-35 Comment 4-49: Page 5-69, Line 26: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-5 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014, ML14296A189] clarified the peak number of workers that SHINE anticipates at the site during the construction phase (451). Recommend revising the number of workers needed to construct the proposed facility from 420 to 451. Page 5-69, Line 31: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-5 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014, ML14296A189] clarified the peak number of workers that SHINE anticipates at the site during the construction phase (451). Recommend revising the number of workers needed to construct the proposed facility from 420 to 451. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the peak number of workers needed at the site during construction from 420 to 451, as suggested by the comment. A.2.10 Transportation Comment 4-53: Page 6-9: SHINE will not be providing a traffic signal at the entrance and exit to the SHINE site, as described in the SHINE Response to Transportation Request #1 (Reference 3) [SHINE 2013b]. The increase in traffic volume from employees working at the SHINE facility results in a slight degradation in the level of service at the intersection of U.S. Highway 51 and State Highway 11 during the morning peak hour, resulting in an increased delay at the intersection, as described in Subsection 19.4.7.2.1 of the PSAR. Optimizing the signal timing at the intersection to accommodate a greater turning movement from westbound State Highway 11 to southbound U.S. Highway 51 would mitigate traffic delays. Recommend revising the Mitigation Measures for Transportation accordingly. Response: This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the statement to explain that optimizing the signal timing for vehicles turning from westbound State Highway 11 to southbound U.S. Highway 51 would mitigate traffic delays. Comment 6-10: The Draft EIS states that the Beloit-Janesville Express operates weekdays between Beloit and Janesville (Section 3.9.1 - Roads); the closest stops to the facility are Kellogg Ave (to the north) and Sunny Lane (to the south). At this time, there are no plans to include a new stop on this route serving the facility. Recommendation: EPA recommends the Applicant and the Janesville Transit System determine whether a stop at the facility would benefit employees of the facility and help to alleviate potential degradation to traffic patterns along U.S. Highway 51. The Applicant anticipates an additional 1,000 vehicle trips daily associated with the facility (or an approximately 11 % increase from current conditions) in traffic volumes on U.S. Highway 51 during construction activity (Section 4.10.1 Transportation - Construction). EPA commends the Applicant for already committing to staggered work schedules during construction and demolition, during which an increase in the number of trucks and vehicles would be highest. We also commend the Applicant for planning to implement a carpooling program for employees during operation to minimize worker vehicle emissions. Appendix A A-36 Recommendation: EPA recommends on-going coordination with local traffic authorities to ensure levels of service remain appropriate and that users of the road are kept updated of closures and delays. Any anticipated system or infrastructure upgrades deemed necessary as a result of the facility should be identified in the Final EIS. Response: This comment recommends that the applicant work with the Janesville Transit System to determine ways to help alleviate potential traffic. The NRC does not have the authority to require this mitigation measure. The NRC staff has forwarded these recommendations to the applicant. In addition, the recommended mitigation has been added to Section 6.3.1 in the final EIS, which discusses mitigation measures recommended by EPA. A.2.11 Waste Management Comments 4-16 and 4-43: 4-16: Page 2-16, Line 29: Class A waste is shipped approximate yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site, as described in Subsection 19.2.5.3.1 of the PSAR; however, one year is not a limit of accumulation/storage. Recommend revising the wording to state, "Class A waste is shipped approximately yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site." 4-43: Page 4-40, Line 38: Class A waste is shipped approximate yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site, as described in Subsection 19.2.5.3.1 of the PSAR; however, one year is not a limit of accumulation/storage. Recommend revising the wording to state, "Class A waste is shipped approximately yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site." Response: These comments suggest revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the EIS to reflect that Class A waste is shipped approximately yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site, as suggested by the comments. Comment 6-11: The Draft EIS states that the Applicant does not intend to treat or permanently store hazardous wastes on site, meaning it will not require a hazardous waste treatment or storage permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Section 2.7.2 Nonradioactive Waste, page 2-17, lines 38-42). Recommendation: EPA recommends this section be clarified to indicate that Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is the permitting authority for hazardous waste treatment and storage per RCRA. Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the EIS to show that WDNR is the permitting authority for hazardous waste treatment and storage per the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Comment 6-1: EPA has reviewed the Draft EIS and cited reference materials regarding radioactive solid wastes. Table 11.2-1, "Waste Stream Summary" (reference SHINE 2013a Chapter 11 - Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Appendix A A-37 Report) provides the destinations of the solid, resin, and liquid wastes. Zeolite Beds and another proprietary waste stream are said to be generated as greater-than-class-C (GTCC) with Waste Control Specialists listed as a destination. Waste Control Specialists has GTCC storage capability, but not GTCC disposal capability. The Draft EIS states that if a disposal pathway for GTCC waste does not exist, the Department of Energy (DOE) will be responsible for its safe storage and disposal in accordance with the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2065). There is currently no disposal path for GTCC waste and DOE is currently evaluating alternatives for GTCC disposal (http://www.gtcceis.anl.gov). Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify whether DOE or the Applicant will be responsible for the storage of the facility's GTCC wastes at Waste Control Specialists. The Final EIS should state that once DOE establishes a disposal pathway for GTCC, it should promptly facilitate the disposal of the Applicant's GTCC wastes. EPA also recommends that the Applicant clarify whether a radioisotope production process can be engineered so as to eliminate the generation of GTCC waste for which there is no current disposal path, and otherwise reduce or limit the generation of other waste streams to Class A levels. Response: This comment states that greater than Class C (GTCC) waste would be generated during operation of the SHINE facility, and it recommends that the final EIS clarify whether DOE or the applicant would be responsible for the storage of the facility's GTCC waste once it is shipped to Waste Control Specialists, given that no disposal pathway exists for GTCC. DOE may have a role in final disposition of GTCC wastes, due to a mandate in the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (AMIPA). The AMIPA requires DOE to establish a Uranium Lease and Take Back (ULTB) Program, which includes, inter alia, a requirement that DOE be responsible for the final disposition of radioactive waste generated in medical isotope production using DOE-leased uranium, for which DOE determines a producer does not have access to a disposal path. However, the ULTB Program has not yet been established, so the Department cannot yet describe the process through which wastes would be accepted or disposed. Chapter 11 of the SHINE PSAR describes SHINE's proposed radioactive waste management program, radioactive waste controls, and release of radioactive waste. The NRC staff documented its evaluation of these areas for the purposes of issuing a construction permit in Chapter 11 of its SER. If SHINE submits an application for an operating license, further evaluation of the programs and controls related to SHINE's waste management would occur during the review of SHINE's FSAR in support of an operating license application. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(b) requires that the NRC staff prepare a supplement to the EIS that would update the prior review based on any new or updated information provided in the operating license application or identified during the NRC's staff independent review. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. Comment 6-2: UREX process raffinate is listed as a Class B liquid waste with Energy Solutions as the destination. Energy Solutions is not authorized to receive Class B and Class C waste according to its waste acceptance criteria document (http://www.energvsolutions.com/wp-contentluploads/2014/J 1 /B WF-W AC-Rev-93.pdf). Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify how Energy Solutions can be a destination for Class B UREX process raffinate waste. Appendix A A-38 Response: This comment seeks clarification regarding the disposal of UREX raffinate, a Class B radioactive waste. Table 19.2.5-1 in SHINE's ER states that UREX raffinate would be generated as a Class B radioactive waste. However, as described in a letter dated October 1, 2015, SHINE indicated that UREX raffinate would be stored on site, during which time decay would occur. SHINE expects that sufficient decay would occur such that the waste would be classified as Class A waste and, at which point, SHINE would transport it to EnergySolutions (SHINE 2015d). See Section 2.7.1 of the EIS for a further description of SHINE's radioactive waste processes. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. Comment 7-3: There is reference in the dEIS to properly handling the low level mixed waste that is proposed to be generated. It should be noted that in January 2014, the Department communicated with SHINE related to this topic and SHINE was informed of the Department's requirements. Several times in the document, NR 460, Wisconsin Administrative Code, is referenced regarding hazardous waste and nonhazardous waste. See the following from the draft: "In the State of Wisconsin, EPA has delegated the primary responsibility for implementing RCRA regulations to the State of Wisconsin. For example, Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 460 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste." This should be corrected to reference NR 660, Wisconsin Administrative Code (not NR 460) and the reference to nonhazardous waste should be deleted or should include that the nonhazardous Solid Waste General requirements are detailed in NR 500, Wisconsin Administrative Code. Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. As suggested by the comment, the NRC revised the EIS to show that State of Wisconsin RCRA regulations are in NR 660 and that nonhazardous waste requirements are covered by NR 500. A.2.12 Water Resources Comment 4-18: Page 3-29, Line 34: As described in Section 3.3.1 of the Preliminary Hydrological Analyses of the SHINE site, provided as Attachment 23 to Enclosure 1 of Reference (3) [SHINE 2013b], advective travel time analyses would be updated for the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) when a full year of groundwater monitoring data is available. Table 2.4-13 of the PSAR provides the SHINE estimate for advective travel time to the Rock River. Recommend revising the wording to state, "SHINE estimated that the expected travel time to the Rock River is 9.0 years." Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the discussion as suggested by the commenter and included the updated information from the preliminary safety analysis report, which is cited as SHINE 2015a in Section 3.4.2.1 of the final EIS. Appendix A A-39 Comment 4-35: Page 4-21, Line 43: An estimate of the amount of water to be used for dust mitigation and suppression during construction was provided via Reference (3) [SHINE 2013b]. Recommend revising the reference citation from (SHINE 2013a) to (SHINE 2013b). Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff corrected the reference citation to refer to SHINE's response to RAIs, which is SHINE 2013 in Chapter 4 of the final EIS. Comment 4-36: Page 4-23, Line 12: Figure 19.2.3-1 of the PSAR provides an average daily demand quantities for the SHINE facility, and those average values are not based on 5.5 days of water usage per week. Though a single irradiation cycle is 5.5 days, the SHINE facility will be in operation seven days per week. Recommend revising Note (a) of Table 4-11 to state, "Values are average daily demand. Conversions are rounded." Response: This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the footnote as suggested. Comment 7-1: Within the document, lines 40-42 of page 4-19 currently state that: "This stormwater system would be designed to address the 1-year, 2-year, and 24-hour storm events per State regulations and the 10-year and 100-year events, as required by the City of Janesville (SHINE 2013a)." The Department recommends that the storm water system design reference compliance with NR 151 and NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code instead of (or in addition to) the specific regulations. The peak discharge requirement (from various storm events) that is referenced is only one of the storm water requirements and there are other specific regulatory obligations that would need to be met (total suspended solids reduction & infiltration, for example). Additionally, referencing compliance with NR 151 and NR 216, Wis. Adm. Codes, incorporates both the Construction Site Storm Water Runoff permit and the Industrial Storm Water permit that are both required of this site. The sentence might be most simply re-worded to read, "The storm water system(s) shall be designed to comply with NR 151 and NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code and the City of Janesville's requirements." Response: This comment discusses the conceptual design basis of SHINE's proposed stormwater management system, as described in its ER, and the appropriate State regulations that would be applicable to the SHINE project. Section 4.4.1.2 of the EIS discusses the applicability of Wisconsin NPDES permit requirements to the project, including the need for SHINE to obtain a Wisconsin General Permit for construction site stormwater runoff. Section 4.3.1 of the EIS also references compliance with NPDES permitting provisions and, specifically, the applicability of Wisconsin Administrative Codes NR 151 and NR 216. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. Appendix A A-40 A.2.13 Environmental Review Process Comment 3-2: Our ground water is precious and our high quality land and dairy use is very important as well as the safety of our citizens. One of you sub- environmental agencies reported that it was not their duty to rule on the building permit process. That means the environmental component didn't even investigate fully any of our concerns apparently. Response: This comment suggests that an environmental agency does not review the building permit. The NRC staff conducts an environmental review for a construction permit application in accordance with its NEPA regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. In addition, SHINE is required to receive various permits and approvals from other Federal, State, and local agencies, some of which are intended to protect the environment. Appendix B of the EIS provides a summary of the other Federal, State, and local permits and approvals that would be required for SHINE to build and operate the proposed facility. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment. Comment 6-13: EPA continues to recommend clear and objective metrics or thresholds be identified for the three significance levels (SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE), particularly for where there are ranges. Response: This comment recommends providing a clear and objective explanation of thresholds or metrics at which an impact will be defined as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, especially when the impact level is a range (e.g., SMALL to MODERATE). Impacts to resources affected by the proposed action and the various alternatives are defined in the Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors; and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria" (NRC 2012). The Final Interim Staff Guidance established a standard of significance for each environmental resource area based on the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significantly" (see 40 CFR 1508.27). Since the significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, both "context" and "intensity," as defined in CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1508.27, were considered. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects will occur. In the case of the SHINE environmental review, the context is the environment surrounding the proposed or alternative site, and intensity refers to the severity of the impact in whatever context it occurs. Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL-environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commission's regulations are considered SMALL. MODERATE-environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource. LARGE-environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. Appendix A A-41 These above definitions are in Section 1.4 of this EIS. The NRC staff also used the following definitions: Significance indicates the importance of likely environmental impacts and is determined by considering two variables: context and intensity. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects will occur. Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, in whatever context it occurs. Ranges of impacts may be provided if environmental conditions are uncertain, or if there are multiple circumstances associated with environmental conditions surrounding the proposed or alternate sites. For example, at the proposed SHINE site, the potential impact on transportation during operations would range from SMALL to MODERATE. Most of the time, the impacts would be SMALL because of the relatively small increase in traffic as compared to the average daily and annual traffic flows near the proposed SHINE site and because SHINE and common carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material. However, impacts would be MODERATE during periods of morning peak-hour traffic delays because the additional traffic attributable to SHINE worker vehicles would result in morning peak-hour traffic delays sufficient to reduce the existing level of service (traffic flow) at a key intersection near the SHINE facility. In response to this comment, the NRC staff revised Section 1.4 to better define "significance," "context," and "intensity." In addition, the NRC staff revised the introduction to Section 4.0 to describe situations in which the NRC staff may use a range of impact levels. A.2.14 Opposition to the Proposed Facility Comments 1-1, 1-3, and 3-4: 1-1: I know two years ago I spoke on the same; for safety around the airport and everything else. I did talk to pilots going in and out of the airport, and they said this is the wrong place for this building to be put. They would hope the NRC would see to deny the building permit for this. 1-3: As a citizen of Janesville, I am saying no for the building permit to be issued to SHINE. I don't care what the city official says; I'm speaking on behalf of a citizen of Janesville. 3-4: I feel that the location is not protected by sufficient safeguards when it is placed within the city limit of a city with 63,000 inhabitants, to say nothing about the dangers to our land and resources and so close to a busy airport and highways. Shine even admits that they need much more money to move forward. Any building permit should be delayed until much, much later to really determine the need for Shines production, especially at this site. It is the worst possible site for such an outdated dangerous process. Also no permits should be issued until Shine has the money in hand before even moving an inch forward on this process. Any building permit would be premature. The NRC should face the facts and ask itself if this facility and location is really needed considering the modern advancement of technology that has been tested and has been proven to produce of Molly 99 by a much safer method. As a resident of this city, I therefore request that the NRC deny any building permit requested by Shine at this time and at this proposed location within the Janesville city limits. Especially because in my opinion this site is a very poor location and there are way too many all-around safety issues that have not been properly investigated or resolved and concerning the Appendix A A-42 environment. It seemingly also lacks a great many safeguards at this location and because of outdated processes. Response: The above comments express opposition to the proposed SHINE facility. The commenters cite the potential for accidents-including those from an aircraft, potential siting issues due to the proximity of the City of Janesville, and general safety concerns-as reasons for their opposition. These comments express general opposition to the SHINE facility or discuss safety-related concerns but provide no substantive information relevant to the environmental review. Therefore, these comments are outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the following information is provided to respond to portions of the comments related to in-scope topics, such as potential accidents. Commenters expressed concerns regarding potential accidents from aircraft or other radiological exposures. Section 4.11 discusses the environmental impacts associated with potential radiological and hazardous chemical accidents that might occur at the proposed SHINE facility. The term "accident," as used in this EIS, refers to any off-normal event that releases radioactive or hazardous chemicals into the environment that may affect facility workers and members of the public. Potential initiating events and credible operational accidents for the proposed SHINE facility constitute the design-basis accidents. In its ER, SHINE considered the impacts of an aircraft collision as a design-basis accident. In Section 4.11, however, the NRC staff considers the potential impacts from the maximum hypothetical accident as the basis for the analysis of environmental impact from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility. The maximum hypothetical accident considers a potential accident that would result in the same or higher radiological exposures as a credible design-basis accident, such as an aircraft collision with the SHINE facility or another accident that could result in radioactive releases. Therefore, the analysis in this EIS considers the potential exposures from accidents that would result in the same or higher exposures as that from an aircraft collision. SHINE determined that the calculated doses for the maximum hypothetical accident at the proposed SHINE facility would be within the annual dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301 of 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) to a member of the public. Section 4.11 describes various ways in which SHINE would minimize radioactive releases in case of an accident. As described in Section 4.11, the NRC staff will complete a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from the maximum hypothetical accident. The NRC staff's SER will document this independent evaluation. Assuming that the NRC staff determines, in its SER, that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential radiological accidents, including aircraft collisions, would be SMALL. Also see the response to Comment 3-1 in A.2.15, "Out of Scope: Siting, Safety, and Emergency Planning." The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of these comments. A.2.15 Out of Scope: Siting, Safety, and Emergency Planning Comment 3-1: Why would the NRC allow the use of uranium based processes to produce Molly 99 within the city limits of a city with excess of 63,000 inhabitants. It was my understanding that the NRC once said that they prefer any uranium used in production or use should be beyond 10 miles from, densely populated areas or cities. Appendix A A-43 Why would the NRC allow this at this time when there are much safer production methods without using the kind of uranium that Shine proposes, such as North Star in Beloit, 10 miles away. There are other modern methods to meet the demand for Molly 99 without the dangers of contamination and accidents within our city limits. I thought the NRC was interested in safety and reducing the amount of uranium being used around the country instead of expanding the dangers everywhere by allowing it all over among populated areas. Response: This comment expresses concerns related to the siting of the SHINE facility and general safety concerns. This comment is outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the following information is provided as background regarding the safety review for the SHINE construction permit application. The NRC staff will evaluate the geography and demography; nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities; meteorology; hydrology; and geology, seismology, and geotechnical engineering related to the proposed SHINE site to ensure that the facility meets the regulatory occupational and public dose limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20. Chapter 2, "Site Characteristics," of NUREG-1537, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non Power Reactors," Parts 1 and 2, provided the guidance for reviewing and evaluating the SHINE site characteristics, as described in the SHINE preliminary safety analysis report. "Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, 'Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors,' for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors," Parts 1 and 2, provided relevant supplemental nonreactor guidance for reviewing the SHINE site characteristics. The NRC staff will complete a thorough independent safety review that will be documented in the NRC staff's SER. This review will include an assessment of impacts from radiological exposures to members of the public and onsite doses to facility workers. NRC's review will evaluate whether the maximum dose to a member of the public during normal operations and during the maximum hypothetical accident would be within the limits defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC would not issue the construction permit unless the NRC staff's independent review verifies that the maximum dose to a member of the public during normal operations and during the maximum hypothetical accident would be within the limits defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment. Comment 6-7: The facility will produce more than 500,000 Curies per year of radioactive material. EPA recognizes that the probability of an accident is low, given the type of technology used at the facility. However, given the large amount of radioactive material produced and since this is the first of its kind in the area, the section detailing accidents and response should be strengthened (Section 4.11 Accidents). Recommendation: EPA recommends the Applicant provide additional details on accident preparedness plans. We recommend including reference to any agreements with local, state, or Federal emergency responders. We also recommend the Final EIS include details of public outreach specifically related to emergency response (such as handouts sent to adjacent property owners). Response: This comment expresses concerns regarding the level of detail provided in SHINE's description of its emergency plan and a description of the emergency plan within the EIS. This comment is outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the following information is provided Appendix A A-44 as background regarding the emergency planning review for the SHINE construction permit application. With respect to emergency planning, NUREG-0849, Section 3.0, "Organization and Responsibilities," Evaluation Items 1.a. and 1.c., state that the emergency plan should describe "[t]he functions as applicable to emergency planning of Federal, State, and local government agencies and the assistance that they would provide in the event of an emergency" and "[t]he arrangements and agreements, confirmed in writing with local support organizations that would augment and extend the capability of the facility's emergency organization." The NRC has reviewed SHINE's preliminary emergency plan as required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(10) and described in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The SHINE Preliminary Emergency Plan, Rev. 0, in Section 3.7, addresses arrangements and agreements made with local support organizations that would augment and extend the capability of the facility's emergency organization. In response to an RAI issued by the NRC staff, SHINE stated the following in its October 15, 2014 (ADAMS No. ML14296A192) reply: SHINE will provide letters of agreement made with local support organizations that would augment and extend the capability of the facility's emergency organization with the SHINE Emergency Plan, which will be provided as part of the SHINE OL Application. The NRC staff will evaluate the adequacy of these agreements during its review of the operating license application, if it is submitted to the NRC, and will detail those findings in its SER. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment. Also see responses under Section A.2.1, Accidents, regarding the adequacy of the accidents analysis in the EIS and additional analyses that will be conducted in the SER. A.2.16 Out of Scope: Other Comment 2-1: Building is only good for 35 years then has to go down. That will cost 7 to 10 percent more to put down this building. Response: This comment expresses concerns related to the adequacy of funds during decommissioning. This comment is outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the following information is provided as background regarding NRC's role in verifying the financial viability of SHINE. As described in Section 2.7, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, a licensed production or utilization facility that permanently ceases operations shall submit a decommissioning report. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.33(k) requires that an applicant for an operating license submit a report to indicate how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the facility. Comment 6-8: The Draft EIS details the locations of permanent structures, buildings, and roads required for the facility, including an estimate of the type and amount of construction materials required. Structures and building includes an administrative building, water and fuel tanks, production facility, and other various support buildings. This site would also include an entrance road and Appendix A A-45 parking lots. Overall, approximately 41 acres would be disturbed, of which 15 acres would be temporary. EPA commends the Applicant for already identifying several ways to reduce environmental impacts, such as committing to conversion of unused, temporarily disturbed lands to native prairies. EPA has several recommendations regarding immediate site land use planning and green infrastructure. Please note that we are aware of NRC's limited ability to include the following recommendations in the license; however, we find these measures to further reduce environmental impacts and would encourage the Applicant to incorporate them into site planning. The Final EIS should clarify to what extent the DOE (as a cooperating agency and prospective provider of funding to the Applicant under a cooperative agreement) would require energy efficiency measures, greenhouse gas reductions, and other sustainability measures, per Executive Order 13693. Any locations on the site which are not planned for operations should be considered for conversion to native habitats, increasing the area which can be beneficially used for wildlife, infiltration or stormwater retention, and aesthetics, among other functions. The Final EIS should include more information on the sources of the required construction materials, as listed in Table 2-1 (Estimated Construction Material Requirements). Please outline whether this material can be made of second-sourced material (i.e., reclaimed aggregate). EPA understands there are specific safety codes that may prevent this; however, we recommend that any auxiliary buildings, new roads, and other non-safety related structures be constructed with materials that are recycled, if possible. If you need more information about this, please see our website about environmentally responsible purchasing at www.epa.gov/epp. Any roads, parking lots, sidewalks, or other surfaces slated for driving or walking should be constructed using permeable pavement to reduce runoff. EPA recommends staggering construction schedules of the new facilities so that no additional undisturbed land is permanently disturbed. This could mean having one temporary laydown area (that is ultimately slated for a permanent use) serving the construction of new permanent facilities. EPA encourages the Applicant to construct all buildings to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. If LEED standards are pursued, this information should be included in the Final EIS. Any potential use of Energy Star appliances, EPA's WaterSense program, or other similar programs should be identified in the Final EIS. In lieu of including this commitment in the license, the Applicant should report to EPA once these measures have been implemented, if applicable. Appendix A A-46 Response: This comment recommends ways that the applicant could mitigate impacts by using green infrastructure and modifying site planning, construction, and operational methods. The NRC does not have the authority to require these mitigation measures. The NRC staff has forwarded the recommendations to the applicant. In response to this comment, the NRC staff added the recommended mitigations to Section 6.3.1 in the EIS. This comment also recommends that the final EIS clarify to what extent the DOE would require energy efficiency measures, greenhouse gas reductions, and other sustainability measures, per Executive Order 13693. The DOE would not require any of the measures described in the comment. The SHINE facility would be considered a non-Federal facility, and is therefore not subject to such Federal facility requirements. A.2.17 Editorial Comments 4-1, 4-5, 4-12, 4-20, 4-23, 4-25, 4-26, 4-29, 4-31, 4-38, 4-41, 4-44, 4-48, 4-50, and 4-55: 4-1: Page 1-3, Line 36: A single value of 5,000 6-day curies (Ci) is converted to two values of 6-day becquerels (Bq) (2x1014 and 3x1014). Recommend removing the 3x1014 6-day Bq value. Page 1-3, Line 44: The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 appears to have been incorporated into Section 2065 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, not Section 3171. Subpart F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which includes Section 3171, describes the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. Recommend revising the U.S. Code reference to 42 U.S.C. 2065, consistent with Section 2.7.1.2, Section 4.9.1, and Section 4.13.9. Page 1-8, Line 4: The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 appears to have been incorporated into Section 2065 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, not Section 3171. Subpart F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which includes Section 3171, describes the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. Recommend revising the U.S. Code reference to 42 U.S.C. 2065, consistent with Section 2.7.1.2, Section 4.9.1, and Section 4.13.9. 4-5: Page 2-8, Line 5: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "An individual irradiation unit would comprise-" with "An individual irradiation unit would be comprised of-". 4-12: Page 2-13, Line 38: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "Ordiance" with "Ordinance". Page 2-14, Line 3: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "Ordiance" with "Ordinance". 4-20: Page 3-33, Line 1: The scientific name of the northern cardinal is "Cardinalis cardinalis" and the scientific name of the striped skunk is "Mephitis mephitis." Recommend revising Table 3-8 accordingly. Page 3-37, Line 41: Recommend revising the wording "Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that no Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species is unlikely to occur within the action area." to "Given the available information, the NRC staff Appendix A A-47 concludes that no Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species is likely to occur within the action area." 4-23: Page 4-1, Line 26: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "describe" with "described in". 4-25: Page 4-2, Line 30: The total value of temporarily disturbed land in Table 4-1 does not account for the 0.62 ac. of off-site land. Recommend revising the total value of disturbed land to 15.16 ac. (6.13 ha.). 4-26: Page 4-6, Line 9: Typographical error in the words "Semi Tractor" in the equipment listing provided in Table 4-2. 4-29: Page 4-8, Line 34: Section 4.14 does not contain a reference for (SHINE 2013). Recommend revising the citation to (SHINE 2013b), which provided measures to minimize emissions due to worker vehicles. Page 4-9, Line 31: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "construction" with "operations." Page 4-11, Line 3: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "Version 123145" with "Version 12345." 4-31: Page 4-13, Line 31: Typographical error in the Total Activity for the Backhoe/Loader Cat 430. Recommend revising the Total Activity to 3,542 hours. Page 4-13, Line 31: Typographical error in the Total Activity for the Pickup Truck F-250. Recommend revising the Total Activity to 9,583 hours. 4-38: Page 4-28, Line 19: Per the NRC's response to Comment 02-1 in Section A.1.6 of Appendix A, the last attempt to contact the Forest County Potawatomi was in February 2015. Recommend revising accordingly. 4-41: Page 4-37, Line 31: A description of the Chemical Hygiene Plan was provided via Reference (3) [SHINE 2013, ML13303A887]. Recommend revising the reference citation from (SHINE 2013a) to (SHINE 2013b). Page 4-37, Line 38: A description of the Chemical Hygiene Plan was provided via Reference (3) [SHINE 2013, ML13303A887]. Recommend revising the reference citation from (SHINE 2013a) to (SHINE 2013b). Page 4-37, Line 45: A description of the Chemical Hygiene Plan was provided via Reference (3) [SHINE 2013, ML13303A887]. Recommend revising the reference citation from (SHINE 2013a) to (SHINE 2013b). 4-44: Page 4-42, Line 40: Table 3-21 provides average daily traffic counts in the vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility. Recommend revising the table reference from Table 3-14 to Table 3-21. Appendix A A-48 Page 4-46, Line 2: Recommend removing underline from the text. Page 4-46, Line 3: Recommend removing underline from the text. 4-48: Page 4-70, Line 17: Section 4.14 does not contain a reference for (SHINE 2013). Recommend revising the citation to (SHINE 2013a). Page 5-10, Line 9: Typographical error in the total acreage within a five mile radius of the SHINE site provided in Table 5-2. Recommend revising the total acreage within a five mile radius of the SHINE site from "50,2645 ac" to "50,265 ac". Page 5-20, Line 39: Typographical error. Recommend replacing "common cottontail" with "common cattail". Page 5-65, Line 21: Recommend removing underline from the text of both plants in Table 5-11. 4-50: Page 5-77, Line 32: The Stevens Point site is located in Census Tract 9607.02, not Census Tract 9607.2. Recommend revising accordingly. Page 5-81, Line 33: The Stevens Point site is located in Census Tract 9607.02, not Census Tract 9607.2. Recommend revising accordingly. 4-55: Page A-17, Line 21: The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 appears to have been incorporated into Section 2065 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, not Section 3171. Subpart F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which includes Section 3171, describes the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. Recommend revising the U.S. Code reference to 42 U.S.C. 2065, consistent with Section 2.7.1.2, Section 4.9.1, and Section 4.13.9. Response: These comments recommend editorial changes to the EIS. The NRC staff incorporated all the revisions into the EIS. All changes to the EIS text can be identified by change bars in the margin of each page. Comment 6-12: To facilitate the review, EPA continues to recommend figures be provided in color, where appropriate and where color gradient is used in analyzing the information. Response: This comment recommends that the NRC provide figures in color. No substantive information was provided. The NRC staff did not make this editorial change because the electronic version of the EIS contains color figures. Further, the use of black, white, and gray scale is in accordance with NRC's guidance for preparing documents such as the EIS in NUREG-0650, "Preparing NUREG-Series Publications," and because the use of color printing is significantly more expensive than black and white, NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment. A.3 References 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." Appendix A A-49 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 800, "Protection of historic properties." 46 FR 18026. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning the CEQ's [Council on Environmental Quality's] National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. Federal Register 46(55):18026-18028. March 23, 1981. 61 FR 68972. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "National Emission Standards for Radionuclide Emissions From Facilities Licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Facilities not Covered by Subpart H [Final rule]." Federal Register 61(251):68972-68981. December 30, 1996. 78 FR 39343. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. [Intent to prepare environmental impact statement and conduct scoping process; public meeting]." Federal Register 78(126):39343-39344. July 1, 2013. 80 FR 27710. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Construction Permit Application for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility [Draft environmental impact statement; public meetings and request for comment]." Federal Register 80(93):27710-27711. May 14, 2015. 80 FR 29701. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability." Federal Register 80(99):29701-29702. May 22, 2015. American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 42 U.S.C. §2065 et seq. Badger Reuse Committee. 2001. Final Report on the Work of the Badger Reuse Committee including Values, Criteria, and Concept Plan Map for the Reuse of the Badger Army Ammunition Plant Property. March 28, 2001. Available at <https://www.co.sauk.wi.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/baap-finalreport.pdf> (accessed 16 July 2015). Forest County Potawatomi. 2013. Letter from Cook M, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, to Wong MC, NRC.

Subject:

Request for scoping comments concerning the SHINE Medical Technologies radioisotope production facility. July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13224A164. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content," and Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria," for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. October 17, 2012. ADAMS Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075. [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. "Approval of Memorandum of Agreement between DOE and NRC on the Environmental Review Related to the Issuance of Authorizations to Construct Build and Operate SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc." Washington, DC: NRC. February 3, 2015. ADAMS No. ML13304B666. Appendix A A-50 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR): Chapter 13, "Accident Analysis," and Chapter 19, "Environmental Review." Monona, WI: SHINE. March 26, 2013, and May 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13172A324. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR): Chapter 13, "Accident Analysis," and Chapter 19, "Environmental Review." Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. Letter from Vann Bynum R, SHINE, to NRC, Document Control Desk.

Subject:

SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Revision to Sections 13b.3 and 19.4 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A131. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015c. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A395. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015d. Letter from Piefer G, SHINE, to NRC, Document Control Desk.

Subject:

SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit, Description of the SHINE Process for Preparing Consolidated Liquid Waste Streams for Disposal as Class A Waste. October 1, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15274A539. [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 216. Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Chapter NR 216. Storm Water Discharge Requirements. Revised April 2013. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/nr> (accessed 3 January 2013). [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 405. Prevention of Significant Deterioration. July 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/405.pdf>. [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406. Construction Permits. March 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/406.pdf>. [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 407. Operation Permits. February 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/407.pdf>. [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Construction Site Storm Water Permit Overview. Web page updated November 12, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Stormwater/construction/overview.html> (accessed 3 January 2013). [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. Letter from Heggelund E, WDNR Environmental Analysis and Review Specialist, to Moser M, NRC Environmental Project Manager.

Subject:

WDNR Comments for the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Statement and Scoping for SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production Facility. February 7, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14045A298. APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS

B-1 B. APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS A number of Federal laws and regulations affect environmental protection, health, safety, compliance, and consultation at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed facilities. Certain Federal environmental requirements have been delegated to State authorities for enforcement and implementation. Furthermore, States have enacted laws to protect public health and safety and the environment. It is the agency's policy to ensure that NRC-licensed facilities are operated in a manner that provides adequate protection of public health and safety and of the environment through compliance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, and other requirements. The requirements that may be applicable to the operation of NRC-licensed facilities encompass a broad range of Federal laws and regulations that address environmental, historical and cultural, health and safety, transportation, and other concerns. Generally, these laws and regulations relate to how a facility would conduct the work involved in performing a proposed action to protect workers, the public, and environmental resources. Some of these laws and regulations require permits or consultation with other Federal agencies or State, Tribal, or local governments. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), authorizes the NRC to enter into agreement with any State to assume regulatory authority for certain activities (42 U.S.C. 2021). The NRC and the Governor of Wisconsin signed an agreement transferring NRC regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials (in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass) to the State of Wisconsin, which became the 33rd Agreement State, effective August 11, 2003. As an Agreement State, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services is responsible for licensing and inspecting the above-named materials, except at nuclear power plants and Federal facilities (WDHS 2014). In addition to carrying out some Federal programs, State legislatures develop their own laws. State statutes supplement, as well as implement, Federal laws for the protection of air, water quality, and groundwater. State legislation may address solid waste management programs, locally rare or endangered species, and historical and cultural resources. The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., herein referred to as CWA), allows for primary enforcement and administration through State agencies, given that the State program is at least as stringent as the Federal program. The State program must conform to the CWA and to the delegation of authority for the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the State. The primary mechanism to control water pollution is the requirement for direct dischargers to obtain an NPDES permit or a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, when the authority has been delegated from the EPA, under the CWA, as is the case for Wisconsin. One important difference between Federal regulations and certain State regulations is the definition of waters regulated by the State. Certain State regulations may include underground waters, whereas the CWA only regulates surface waters. B.1 Federal, State, and Local Requirements Construction and operation of the SHINE facility would be subject to Federal, State, and local requirements. Tables B-1, B-2, and B-3 identify the principal Federal, State, county, and city Appendix B B-2 environmental regulatory requirements that may be applicable to the proposed SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) or the alternative sites. Along with each regulatory requirement is a brief description. The requirements are organized into categories, such as general requirements, water resources, and pollution prevention. Table B-1. Potentially Applicable Federal Statutes, Regulations, and Orders Statute/Regulation/Order Description General Requirements Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. The 1954 Atomic Energy Act, as amended (AEA), and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.), give the NRC the licensing and regulatory authority for nuclear energy uses within the commercial sector. The Acts give the NRC responsibility for licensing and regulating commercial uses of atomic energy and research and test reactors, and allow the agency to protect workers and the public by establishing dose and concentration limits for activities under NRC jurisdiction. The NRC implements its responsibilities under the AEA through regulations established in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (NEPA), requires Federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decisionmaking process by considering the environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. NEPA establishes policy, sets goals (in Section 101), and provides means (in Section 102) for carrying out the policy. Section 102(2) contains action-forcing provisions to ensure that Federal agencies follow the letter and spirit of the Act. For major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement that includes the environmental impacts of the proposed action and other specified information. 10 CFR Part 50 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities," contains NRC regulations issued under the AEA, as amended (68 Stat. 919), and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242) to provide for the licensing of production and utilization facilities. This part also gives notice to all persons who knowingly supply-to any licensee, applicant, contractor, or subcontractor-components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services, that relate to a licensee's or applicant's activities subject to this part, that they may be individually subject to NRC enforcement action for violation of 10 CFR 50.5. Appendix B B-3 Statute/Regulation/Order Description Air Quality Protection Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. The Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), is intended to "protect and enhance the quality of the nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population." The CAA establishes regulations to ensure maintenance of air quality standards and authorizes individual States to manage permits. Section 118 of the CAA requires each Federal agency, with jurisdiction over properties or facilities engaged in any activity that might result in the discharge of air pollutants, to comply with all Federal, State, inter-State, and local requirements with regard to the control and abatement of air pollution. Section 109 of the CAA directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants. EPA has identified these standards and set them for the following criteria pollutants: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. Section 111 of the CAA requires the establishment of national performance standards for new or modified stationary sources of atmospheric pollutants. Section 160 of the CAA requires the evaluation of specific emission increases before permit approval to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. Section 112 requires specific standards for the release of hazardous air pollutants (including radionuclides). These standards are implemented through plans developed by each State and approved by the EPA. The CAA requires sources to meet standards and to obtain permits to satisfy those standards. Nuclear facilities may be required to comply with CAA Title V, Sections 501-507, for sources subject to new source performance standards or sources subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. EPA regulates emissions of air pollutants in 40 CFR Parts 50 to 99. Environmental Justice and Public Health Protection 10 CFR Part 20 10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation," contains NRC regulations that establish standards for protection against ionizing radiation resulting from activities conducted under licenses issued by the NRC. The NRC issued these regulations under the AEA, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. The purpose of these regulations is to control the receipt, possession, use, transfer, and disposal of licensed material by any licensee in such a manner that the total dose to an individual (including doses resulting from licensed and unlicensed radioactive material and from radiation sources other than background radiation) does not exceed the standards for protection against radiation prescribed in the regulations in this part. Executive Order 12898 Executive Order 12898, "Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations," requires Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Amended by Executive Order 12948. Executive Order 13045 Executive Order 13045, "Protection of children from environmental health risks and safety risks," prioritizes the identification and assessment of environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and ensures that those risks are addressed. Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq. The Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended, requires facilities to maintain noise levels that do not jeopardize public health or safety. Appendix B B-4 Statute/Regulation/Order Description Occupational Safety and Health Administration occupational noise exposure regulations, 29 CFR 1910.95 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations establish workplace standards for noise. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651 The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires compliance with all applicable worker safety and health legislation (including guidelines of 29 CFR Part 1960). Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions, 69 FR 52040 (2004) The NRC is committed to the general goals of Executive Order 12898 and to full compliance with the NEPA requirements. Historic preservation and cultural resources National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), was enacted to create a national historic preservation program, including the National Register of Historic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Section 106 of the Act requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations implementing Section 106 of the Act are found in 36 CFR Part 800. The regulations call for public involvement in the Section 106 consultation process, including Indian Tribes and other interested members of the public, as applicable. Land-Use Protection Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, 7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq. The Farmland Protection Policy Act sets guidelines that require all agencies to identify prime farmland proposed to be converted to nonagricultural land use and to evaluate the impact of the conversion. Protected Species Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), was enacted to prevent the further decline of endangered and threatened species and to restore those species and their critical habitats. Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service on Federal actions that may affect listed species or designated critical habitats. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1801-1884 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (MSA), governs marine fisheries management in U.S. Federal waters. The Act created eight regional fishery management councils and includes measures to rebuild overfished fisheries, protect essential fish habitat, and reduce bycatch. Under Section 305 of the Act, Federal agencies are required to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service for any Federal actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitat. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq. To minimize adverse impacts of proposed actions on fish and wildlife resources and habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that Federal agencies consult Government agencies regarding activities that affect, control, or modify waters of any stream or bodies of water. It also requires that justifiable means and measures be used in modifying plans to protect fish and wildlife in these waters Appendix B B-5 Statute/Regulation/Order Description Waste Management and Pollution Prevention Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires the EPA to define and identify hazardous waste; establish standards for its transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal; and require permits for persons engaged in hazardous waste activities. Section 3006 (42 U.S.C. 6926) allows States to establish and administer these permit programs with EPA approval. EPA regulations implementing the Act are found in 40 CFR Parts 260 to 299. Regulations imposed on a generator or on a treatment, storage, or disposal facility vary according to the type and quantity of material or waste generated, treated, stored, or disposed of. The method of treatment, storage, and disposal also affects the extent and complexity of the requirements. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 establishes a national policy for waste management and pollution control that focuses first on source reduction and then on environmental issues, safe recycling, treatment, and disposal. Water Resources Protection Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. and the NPDES, 40 CFR Part 122 The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended (CWA), was enacted to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's water." The Act requires all branches of the Federal Government that have jurisdiction over properties or facilities engaged in any activity that might result in a discharge or runoff of pollutants to surface waters to comply with Federal, State, inter-State, and local requirements. As authorized by the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into U.S. waters. The NPDES program requires all facilities that discharge pollutants from any point source into U.S. waters to obtain an NPDES permit. A nuclear facility may also participate in the NPDES General Permit for Industrial Stormwater due to stormwater runoff from industrial or commercial facilities to U.S. waters. EPA is authorized under the CWA to directly implement the NPDES program; however, EPA has authorized many States to implement all or parts of the national program. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is the responsible State agency for NPDES permitting. Section 401 of the CWA requires States to certify that the permitted discharge would comply with all limitations necessary to meet established State water-quality standards, treatment standards, or schedule of compliance. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead agency for enforcement of CWA wetland requirements (33 CFR Part 320). Under Section 401 of the CWA, EPA or a delegated State agency has the authority to review and approve, impose a condition, or deny all permits or licenses that might result in a discharge to State waters, including wetlands. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. The Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended (CZMA), was enacted by Congress in 1972 to address the increasing pressures of overdevelopment upon the Nation's coastal resources. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administers the CZMA. The CZMA encourages States to preserve; protect; develop; and, where possible, restore or enhance valuable natural coastal resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using those habitats. Participation by States is voluntary. To encourage States to participate, the CZMA makes Federal financial assistance available to any coastal State or territory, including those on the Great Lakes, which is willing to develop and implement a comprehensive coastal management program. Appendix B B-6 Statute/Regulation/Order Description Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. The Wild and Scenic River Act created the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, which was established to protect the environmental values of free-flowing streams from degradation by impacting activities, including water resources projects. Transportation Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 14 CFR Part 77 The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, refers to construction of structures that may potentially affect air navigation. Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1975, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., 49 CFR Part 107 The Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1975, as amended, refers to transportation of hazardous materials. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular, AC 150/5200-33B The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular, AC 150/5200-33B, "Hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports," provides guidance on certain land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports. It also discusses airport development projects that could affect aircraft movement near hazardous wildlife attractants. Table B-2. Potentially Applicable Wisconsin State Requirements Statute/Regulation/Order Citation Responsible Agency Description Air Quality Protection Wisconsin Air Pollution Statutes Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 285 WDNR, Air Management Program Defines air quality standards, permits and fees, and enforcement and penalties. Wisconsin Air Pollution Control Rules Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapters NR 400-499 WDNR, Air Management Program Contains State air pollution control rules. See NR 406 and NR 407 for construction permit and operation permit rules. Greenhouse gases are covered in NR 407.075. Land Use and Economic Programs Wisconsin Tax Increment District Law ss.66.1105 Department of Revenue Allows municipalities a way to encourage economic development within a designated portion of a municipality. Wisconsin Statute on Migrant Protection Wisconsin Statutes, Chapters 103.90-103.97 Department of Workforce Development Provides migrant worker protections. Wisconsin Statutes on Farmland Preservation Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 91 WDNR Defines prime farmland. Appendix B B-7 Statute/Regulation/Order Citation Responsible Agency Description Building Plan Review Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 101; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapters SPS 361 and 362 Department of Safety and Professional Services Is required before a local building permit can be issued for a commercial building to ensure compliance with State building codes. Protected Species Wisconsin Statutes on State-Protected Species Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 29, and Administrative Rule NR 27 WDNR Identifies rare species, natural communities, or natural features tracked in the Natural Heritage Inventory database. Transportation State Trunk Highways, Federal Aid Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 84 Wisconsin DOT Advises towns, villages, cities, and counties on construction and maintenance of highways and bridges. Wisconsin Airport Land Use Guidebook Guidebook Bureau of Aeronautics, Wisconsin DOT Helps communities and airports work cooperatively to plan for and establish compatible land use around airports and to mitigate existing incompatible conditions. Waste Management and Pollution Prevention Wisconsin Statutes on Pollution Prevention Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 299.13 WDNR Establishes pollution prevention policy and includes regulations. Wisconsin Statutes on Hazardous Waste Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 291; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapters NR 660 and 662 WDNR Regulations regarding the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Water Resources Protection Wisconsin Water Resources Statutes Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 283; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 216 WDNR Requirements to protect water quality, including permits and plans to minimize erosion and control stormwater runoff. See above description under the CWA. Appendix B B-8 Table B-3. City of Janesville and Rock County, Wisconsin, Ordinances and Plans Ordinance or Plan Responsible Agency Description Land-Use Protection Rock County Comprehensive Plan 2035, 2009 Rock County Planning, Economic & Community Development Agency Guides long-term economic development; sets policies and goals for cultural and historic resource conservation (Rock County Planning, Economic & Community Development Agency, Strategic & Comprehensive Planning Division). Janesville, Wisconsin's Park Place Development Guide City of Janesville Community Development Department Guide for following development processes. City of Janesville Ordinance 18.24.050A City of Janesville Community Development Department Ensures compliance with local ordinances for site layout and plans for parking, lighting, landscaping, etc. City of Janesville Ordinance 15.01.100A City of Janesville Community Development Department Ensures compliance with local ordinances regarding the construction of buildings; installation of plumbing systems; installation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; and occupancy of completed buildings. City of Janesville Ordinance 13.16 City of Janesville Community Development Department Ensures compliance with local ordinances regarding construction, installation, and operation of connections to the municipal sewer and water systems. City of Janesville Ordinance 18.24.040 City of Janesville Community Development Department Ensures compliance with local ordinances regarding the construction of multiple buildings on the same site. Transportation Airport Overlay Zoning District Ordinance of the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport (SWRA) City of Janesville Community Development Director Promotes the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the community and residents; protects the SWRA approaches and surrounding airspace from encroachment; and limits exposure of impacts to persons and facilities near the SWRA. Rock County Hazard Mitigation Plan Rock County Local Emergency Planning Committee Ensures compliance with local ordinances regarding the construction, maintenance, and operation of utilities within highway right-of-way. The permit includes risk assessments for all types of hazards. B.2 Operating permits and other requirements Table B-4 lists the permits and licenses that SHINE plans to obtain from Federal, State, and local authorities to construct and operate the SHINE facility. Appendix B B-9 Table B-4. Permits and Approvals Required for Construction and Operation Agency Regulatory Authority Permit or Approval Summary of Activities Expected Timeframe of Receipt Status Permits and Approvals from Federal Agencies NRC Atomic Energy Act 10 CFR 50.50 and 10 CFR 50.35 Construction Permit Construction of the SHINE facility 2015-2016 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the construction permit was submitted in 2013. Atomic Energy Act 10 CFR 50.57 Operating License Operation of the SHINE facility 2018 Atomic Energy Act 10 CFR Part 40 Source Material License Possession, use, and transfer of radioactive source material 2018 Atomic Energy Act 10 CFR Part 30 By-Product Material License Possession, use, and transfer of radioactive by-product material 2018 Atomic Energy Act 10 CFR Part 70 Special Nuclear Material License Receipt, possession, use, and transfer of special nuclear material 2018 FAA Federal Aviation Act Construction Notice FAA Form 7460-1 Construction of structures that could affect air navigation 2015 FAA Form 7460-1 was submitted in 2011; Determination of No Hazard was received 11/2011; Determination of No Hazard extension was received 04/2012; Determination of No Hazard expired 11/2014; SHINE plans to resubmit FAA Form 7460-1 in 2015. Construction Notice FAA Form 7460-2 Construction of structures that could affect air navigation 2017 SHINE intends to submit FAA Form 7460-2 within 5 days of when construction reaches its greatest height. Appendix B B-10 Agency Regulatory Authority Permit or Approval Summary of Activities Expected Timeframe of Receipt Status EPA CWA, 40 CFR Part 112, Appendix F Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan for Construction and Operation Storage of oil during construction and operation 2015 SHINE intends to develop the SPCC plan in 2015. DOT Hazardous Material Transportation Act, 49 CFR Part 107 Certificate of Registration Transportation of hazardous materials 2018 SHINE intends to submit DOT Form F-5800.2 Q1 in 2018. Permits and Approvals from State Agencies WDNR Federal CAA; Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 285; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 406 Air Pollution Control Construction Permit; Air Pollution Control Operation Permit Construction of an air pollution emissions source that is not specifically exempted 2015 SHINE intends to submit an application for a Type A Registration Construction Permit and Operation Permit in 2015. Federal CWA; Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 285; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 216 Construction Storm Water Discharge Permit Discharge of stormwater runoff from the construction site 2015 SHINE intends to submit a Water Resource Application for Project Permits to request coverage under a General Permit in 2015 at least 14 working days before construction begins. Federal CWA; Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 285; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 216 Industrial Storm Water Discharge Permit Discharge of stormwater runoff from the site during facility operation 2018 SHINE intends to submit a No Exposure Certification at least 14 working days before initiation of operations in 2017. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapters 280 and 281; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 809 Approval Letters Construction by the City of Janesville of water and sanitary sewer extensions to the SHINE facility 2015 A permit is to be requested by the City of Janesville. Appendix B B-11 Agency Regulatory Authority Permit or Approval Summary of Activities Expected Timeframe of Receipt Status Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 291; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 660, 662, and/or 666 Compliance with hazardous waste notification, record keeping, and reporting requirements Generation of hazardous waste 2018 SHINE intends to notify WDNR of Storage and Treatment Conditional Exemption (NR 666, Subchapter N) in 2018 or within 90 days of low-level mixed waste generation. Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 101; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapters SPS 361 and 362 Building Plan Review Compliance with State building codes required before a local building permit can be issued for a commercial building 2015 The Building Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit the Building Plan in 2015. Wisconsin DOT Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 85; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter Trans 231 Permit for Connection to State Trunk Highway Construction of driveway connection to U.S. Route 51 2015 SHINE intends to request the permit simultaneously or before the submission of the Site Plan in 2015. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 85; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter Trans 231 Right-of-Entry Permit Construction by the City of Janesville of utility extensions across U.S. Route 51 2015 The permit is to be requested by the City of Janesville. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 114; Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter Trans 56 Variance from Height Limitation Zoning Ordinances Construction of structures that exceed height limitations established for Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport 2015 SHINE does not anticipate that this variance will be needed based on the refined building and stack heights developed during the Preliminary Design. Appendix B B-12 Agency Regulatory Authority Permit or Approval Summary of Activities Expected Timeframe of Receipt Status Permits and Approvals from Local Agencies City of Janesville Community Development Department City of Janesville Ordinance 18.24.050.A Site Plan Approval (includes Building Site Permit for the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport Overlay District) Administrative approval of the site layout and plans for parking, lighting, landscaping, and similar local issues 2015 The Final Site Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit Site Plan and building elevations in 2015. City of Janesville Ordinance 15.06.070 Stormwater Plan Approval (may be included in Site Plan Approval) Administrative approval of grading and drainage plans 2015 The Final Stormwater Management Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit Stormwater Management Plan with Site Plan in 2015. City of Janesville Ordinance 15.05.080 Erosion Control Permit (may be included in Site Plan Approval) Administrative approval of erosion control plans 2015 The Final Erosion Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit the Erosion Control Plan with the Site Plan in Q2 2015. City of Janesville Ordinance 13.16 Sanitary Sewer and Water Supply Facility Approvals Administrative approval of construction, installation, and operation of connections to the municipal sewer and water supply systems 2015 The final plans are complete; construction and installation were approved in the Plumbing Plan. For operation, SHINE intends to provide baseline monitoring report to wastewater treatment plant at least 90 days before discharge in 2016. City of Janesville Ordinance 15.01.100.A Plumbing Plan Approval Installation of plumbing systems 2015 The Final Plumbing Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit the Plumbing Plan with the Building Plan in 2015. Appendix B B-13 Agency Regulatory Authority Permit or Approval Summary of Activities Expected Timeframe of Receipt Status City of Janesville Ordinance 15.04.010.A HVAC Plan Approval Installation of HVAC systems 2015 The Final HVAC Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit the HVAC Plan with the Building Plan in 2015. City of Janesville Ordinance 8.32.010 Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Permit Installation of sprinkler and alarm systems 2015 The Final Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Plan is complete; SHINE intends to submit the Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Plan with the Building Plan in 2015. City of Janesville Ordinance 15.01.100.A Building Permit Construction of buildings 2015 SHINE intends to submit the Building Plan in 2015. City of Janesville Ordinance 15.01.190.A Occupancy Permit Occupancy of completed buildings 2018 Each building would be inspected after construction to allow occupancy. Rock County Highway Department Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 84; Rock County Utility Accommodation Policy 96.00 Permit to Construct, Maintain, and Operate Utilities within Highway Right-of-Way Construction by the City of Janesville of utility extensions across County Trunk Highway G 2015 Plans and specifications will be submitted by the City of Janesville once the Site Plan is approved, likely in 2015. Source: SHINE 2015 B.3 References 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for protection against radiation." 10 CFR Part 30. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 30, "Rules of general applicability to domestic licensing of byproduct material." 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, "Domestic licensing of source material." 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." 10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, "Domestic licensing of special nuclear material." Appendix B B-14 14 CFR Part 77. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Aeronautics and Space, Part 77, "Safe, efficient use, and preservation of the navigable airspace." 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, "Occupational safety and health standards." 29 CFR Part 1960. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1960, "Basic program elements for federal employee occupational safety and health programs and related matters." 33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 320, "General regulatory policies." 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 800, "Protection of historic properties." 40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, "National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards." 40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112, "Oil pollution prevention." 40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, "EPA administered permit programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System." 40 CFR Part 260. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 260, "Hazardous Waste Management System: General." 49 CFR Part 107. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 107, "Hazardous materials program procedures." 59 FR 7629. Executive Order No. 12898. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." Federal Register 59(32):7629-7633. February 16, 1994. 60 FR 6381. Executive Order No. 12948. "Amendment to Executive Order No. 12898." Federal Register 60(21):6381. February 1, 1995. 62 FR 19885. Executive Order No. 13045. "Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks." Federal Register 62(78):19885-19888. April 21, 1997. 69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register 69(163):52040-52048. August 24, 2004. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §2011 et seq. Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §5801 et seq. [FAA] Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or alteration." February 1, 2012. [FAA] Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-2, "Supplemental Notice." July 1, 1998. Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq. Appendix B B-15 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §661 et seq. Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1975, as amended. 49 U.S.C. §5101 et seq. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq. Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4901 et seq. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. 29 U.S.C. §651. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C. §13101 et seq. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404. [WDHS] Wisconsin Department of Health Services. "Radiation Protection." 2014. Available at <http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/radiation> (accessed 12 August 2014). Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1271 et seq.

CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE

C-1 C. CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE This appendix, along with Appendix D, contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and external parties as part of its environmental review for the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), Medical Radioisotope Production Facility (SHINE facility). Appendix D contains the chronological listing of consultation correspondence associated with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801-1884). Appendix C contains all other correspondence. All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information, are available electronically in the NRC's Library, which is found on the Internet at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain access to the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the agency's public documents. The following list includes the ADAMS number for each document. If you need assistance in accessing or searching in ADAMS, contact the Public Document Room Staff at 1-800-397-4209. C.1 Environmental Review Correspondence Table C-1 lists the environmental review correspondence in date order, beginning with the request by SHINE to construct the SHINE facility. Table C-1. Environmental Review Correspondence Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No. March 26, 2013 Construction Permit Application, Part 1 ML13088A192 May 8, 2013 NRC Federal Register Notice (FRN) of Receipt and Availability of Part 1 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application ML13119A240 May 8, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Receipt and Availability of Part 1 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application ML13119A236 May 31, 2013 Construction Permit Application, Part 2 ML13172A361 June 24, 2014 NRC FRN of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping ML13157A350 June 24, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping ML13157A355 June 25, 2013 NRC FRN of Acceptance for Docketing Part 1 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application ML13150A389 June 25, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Acceptance for Docketing Part 1 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application ML13150A280 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Request for List of Federally Listed Species and Habitats for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13134A385 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Request for Scoping Comments on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13135A304 Appendix C C-2 Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No. July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A011 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Wisconsin Historical Society, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13135A635 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Prairie Island Indian Community, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Iowa Tribe, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Forest County Potawatomi Community, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Hannahville Indian Community, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Sac and Fox Nation, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 Appendix C C-3 Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No. July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Lower Sioux Indian Community, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Santee Sioux Nation, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Spirit Lake Tribe, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Upper Sioux Community, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13136A014 July 3, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Environmental Site Audit Regarding the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13168A562 July 3, 2013 Scoping Meeting Notice for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility ML13178A314 July 17, 2013 Construction Permit Process and Environmental Scoping Public Meeting Slides for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility ML13190A419 July 17, 2013 Transcript from the SHINE Scoping Meeting-Afternoon Session ML13260A280 July 17, 2013 Transcript from the SHINE Scoping Meeting-Evening Session ML13260A281 July 24, 2013 SHINE E-mail to NRC, Tour Route for the Environmental Site Audit ML13210A003 July 31, 2013 Forest County Potawatomi Community letter to NRC, Response to Request for Scoping Comments ML13224A164 August 13, 2013 Scoping Comment from Richard T. Henning ML13233A023 August 13, 2013 Scoping Comment from Al Lembrich ML13233A022 August 14, 2013 Scoping Comment from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ML13238A121 Appendix C C-4 Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No. August 15, 2013 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter to NRC, Response to the Request for a List of Federally Listed Species and Habitats for the SHINE Medical Technologies Environmental Review ML13234A020 August 30, 2013 SHINE to NRC, Draft Responses to Environmental Site Audit Needs ML13242A356, ML13242A367 September 3, 2013 Scoping Comment from Jamie Stout ML13263A012 September 11, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Request for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13231A041 September 23, 2013 Meeting Summary of the Environmental Scoping Public Meeting for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility ML13260A294 October 4, 2013 SHINE letter to NRC, Response to Requests for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML13303A887 December 2, 2013 NRC FRN of Acceptance for Docketing Part 2 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application ML13316B349 December 2, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Acceptance for Docketing Part 2 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application ML13316B387 February 7, 2014 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources letter to NRC, Scoping Comments for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review ML14045A298 September 19, 2014 NRC letter to SHINE, Request for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Construction Permit Review ML14195A159 October 15, 2014 SHINE letter to NRC, Response to Requests for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Construction Permit Review ML14296A189 January 6, 2015 NRC letter to SHINE, Request for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Construction Permit Review ML15005A407 February 3, 2015 Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and the NRC on the Environmental Review Related to the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility ML13304B666 February 6, 2015 SHINE letter to NRC, Response to Requests for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Construction Permit Review ML15043A404 March 3, 2015 NRC letter to SHINE, Proposed Review Schedule, Notice of Hearing, Opportunity to Petition for Leave to Intervene, and Order Imposing Procedures Regarding Application for Construction Permit (TAC No. MF2307) ML15037A249 March 4, 2015 NRC FRN for the Notice of Hearing, Opportunity to Intervene, Order Imposing Procedures for the proposed SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility ML15037A108 May 8, 2015 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15105A335 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15107A465 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15107A403 Appendix C C-5 Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No. May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Wisconsin Historical Society, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15107A183 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Prairie Island Indian Community, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Forest County Potawatomi Community, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Hannahville Indian Community, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Sac and Fox Nation, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Lower Sioux Indian Community, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Santee Sioux Nation, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Spirit Lake Tribe, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Upper Sioux Community, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15118A820 May 14, 2015 FRN for Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15105A291 May 18, 2015 Meeting Notice for the Public Meeting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15138A271 June 9, 2015 Comment from Logan Pappenfort, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma ML15175A169 Appendix C C-6 Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No. June 10, 2015 Comment from Bill McCoy ML15188A088 June 16, 2015 Comment from R. Vann Bynum, SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. ML15182A117 June 16, 2015 SHINE letter to NRC, Response to Requests for Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Construction Permit Review ML15175A131 June 17, 2015 Comment by Al Lembrich ML15188A089 June 26, 2015 Comment by Leslie Eisenberg, Wisconsin Historical Society ML15191A323 July 1, 2015 Meeting Summary for the Public Meeting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML15170A262 July 2, 2015 Comment by Kenneth Westlake, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ML15201A575 July 2, 2015 Comment by Laura Bub, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ML15189A069 July 6, 2015 Comment by Lindy Nelson, U.S. Department of Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) ML15191A322 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE

D-1 D. CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE D.1 Section 7 Consultation D.1.1 Federal Agency Obligations Under ESA Section 7 As a Federal agency, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1531 et seq.; herein referred to as ESA), as part of any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency, such as the proposed agency action that this environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluates: whether to issue a construction permit under 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility). Under section 7 of the ESA, the NRC must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (referred to jointly as "the Services" and individually as "Service"), as appropriate, to ensure that the proposed agency action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. The ESA and the regulations that implement ESA section 7, 50 CFR Part 402, "Interagency cooperation-Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended," describe the consultation process that Federal agencies must follow in support of agency actions. As part of this process, the Federal agency shall either request that the Services provide a list of any listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitats that may be present in the action area or request that the Services concur with a list of species and critical habitats that the Federal agency has created (50 CFR 402.12(c)). If it is determined that any such species or critical habitats may be present, the Federal agency is to prepare a biological assessment to evaluate the potential effects of the action and determine whether the species or critical habitat are likely to be adversely affected by the action (50 CFR 402.12(a); 16 U.S.C. 1536(c)). Furthermore, biological assessments are required for any agency action that is a "major construction activity" (50 CFR 402.12(b)), which the ESA regulations define to include major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; herein referred to as NEPA) (50 CFR 402.02). Federal agencies may fulfill their obligations to consult with the Services under ESA section 7 and to prepare a biological assessment in conjunction with the interagency cooperation procedures required by other statutes, including NEPA (50 CFR 402.06(a)). In such cases, the Federal agency should include the results of the ESA section 7 consultation in the NEPA document (50 CFR 402.06(b)). Accordingly, Section D.1.2 describes the biological assessment prepared for the proposed agency action evaluated in this EIS, and Section D.1.3 describes the chronology and results of the ESA section 7 consultation. D.1.2 Biological Assessment The NRC considers this EIS to fulfill its obligation to prepare a biological assessment under ESA section 7. Accordingly, the NRC did not prepare a separate biological assessment for the proposed SHINE facility construction permit. Although the contents of a biological assessment are at the discretion of the Federal agency (50 CFR 402.12(f)), the ESA regulations suggest information that agencies may consider for inclusion. The NRC has considered this information in the following EIS sections. Appendix D D-2 Section 3.5 describes the action area and the Federally listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that have the potential to be present in the action area. This section includes information pursuant to 50 CFR 402.12(f)(1), (2), and (3). Section 4.5 provides an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility on the species and critical habitat present and the NRC's effect determinations, which are consistent with those identified in Section 3.5 of the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1998). The NRC also addresses cumulative effects and alternatives to the proposed action. This section includes information under 50 CFR 402.12(f)(4) and (5). D.1.3 Chronology of ESA Section 7 Consultation Upon receipt of SHINE's construction permit application, the NRC staff considered whether any Federally listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitats may be present in the action area (as defined at 50 CFR 402.02) for the proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning. No species under the NMFS's jurisdiction occur within the action area. Therefore, the NRC staff did not consult with the NMFS. With respect to species under the FWS's jurisdiction, the NRC staff requested information from FWS on Federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of the SHINE site and the two alternative sites, in accordance with the ESA section 7 regulations at 50 CFR 402.12(c) in a letter dated July 1, 2013. The FWS responded to the NRC staff's request in a letter dated August 15, 2013, and stated that "no Federally-listed, proposed, or candidate species would be expected within the project area. No critical habitat is present. If any construction is to take place within these two sites, there is no need for further action as required by the 1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended." In Section 3.5, the NRC staff concludes that no ESA-protected species or critical habitats occur in the action area, and Section 4.5 concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on any ESA-protected species or critical habitats. The FWS (2013) does not typically provide its concurrence with "no effect" determinations by Federal agencies. Thus, the ESA does not require further informal consultation or the initiation of formal consultation with the FWS for the proposed SHINE construction permit. Nonetheless, because this EIS constitutes the NRC's biological assessment, the NRC staff submitted a copy of the draft EIS to the FWS for its review in accordance with 50 CFR 402.12(j) in a letter dated May 13, 2015. In response, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance stated that the DOI has no comments on the draft EIS. Accordingly, the NRC has fulfilled its obligations under ESA section 7 for the review of SHINE's construction permit. Table D-1. lists the letters, e-mails, and other correspondence related to the NRC's ESA obligations with respect to its review of the SHINE construction permit application. Appendix D D-3 Table D-1. Section 7 Consultation Correspondence Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS No.(a) July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to P. Fasbender (FWS) Request for a list of Federally listed species and habitats for the SHINE Medical Technologies Environmental Review ML13134A385 August 15, 2013 P. Fasbender (FWS) to M. Wong (NRC) Response to the request for a list of Federally listed species and habitats for the SHINE Medical Technologies Environmental Review ML13234A020 May 13, 2015 D. Wrona (NRC) to P. Fasbender (FWS) and T. Melius (FWS) Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Determination that the Proposed Action Would Have No Effect on Federally Listed or Proposed Species or Critical Habitats ML15107A465 July 6, 2015 L. Nelson (DOI) to C. Bladey (NRC) DOI Comments of the Draft EIS ML15191A322 (a) These documents can be accessed through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at the following URL: http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/. D.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation The NRC must comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., herein referred to as MSA), for any actions authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under the MSA. In Section 3.5 of this EIS, the NRC staff concludes that NMFS has not designated essential fish habitat under the MSA in the Rock River and that the proposed SHINE construction permit would have no effect on essential fish habitat. Thus, the MSA does not require the NRC to consult with NMFS for the proposed SHINE construction permit. D.3 Section 106 Consultation D.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., herein referred to as NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and consult with applicable State and Federal agencies, tribal groups, and individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking before taking action. Historic properties are defined as resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The historic preservation review process (NHPA, Section 106) is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 36 CFR Part 800. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC has elected to use the NEPA process to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. Appendix D D-4 Table D-2. lists the chronology of consultations and consultation documents related to the NRC Section 106 review. The NRC staff is required to consult with the noted agencies and organizations in accordance with the statutes listed above. Table D-2. NHPA Correspondence Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS No.(a) July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to E. Brown, Wisconsin Historical Society Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13135A635 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. Nelson (ACHP) Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A011 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. Barrett, Citizen Potawatomi Nation Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to M. Wiggins, Jr., Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to S. Bearheart, St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to C. Corn, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to A. Reider, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. Rowe-Kurak, Iowa Tribe Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to H. Frank, Forest County Potawatomi Community Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to K. Meshigaud, Hannahville Indian Community Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. Greendeer, Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to G. Thurman, Sac and Fox Nation Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to D. Prescott, Lower Sioux Indian Community Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to S. Ortiz, Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 Appendix D D-5 Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS No.(a) July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. Johnson, Prairie Island Indian Community Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. Trudell, Santee Sioux Nation Response to request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. Shepherd, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. Yankton, Sr., Spirit Lake Tribe Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to K. Jensvold, Upper Sioux Community Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. Froman, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. Blackhawk, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13136A014 July 31, 2013 M. Cook, Forest County Potawatomi Community, to M. Wong (NRC) Response to request for scoping comments ML13224A164 May 13, 2015 D. Wrona (NRC) to Tribal Nations recipients of request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review letter Request for DSEIS comments ML15118A820 May 13, 2015 D. Wrona (NRC) to R. Nelson (ACHP) Request for DSEIS comments ML15107A403 May 13, 2015 D. Wrona (NRC) to E. Brown, Wisconsin Historical Society Request for DSEIS comments ML15107A183 June 9, 2015 L. Pappenfort, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma to C. Bladey (NRC) Letter indicating no known linkage or association with the proposed project location. ML15175A169 June 26, 2015 L. Eisenberg, Wisconsin Historical Society to C. Bladey (NRC) Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office documentation of No Historic Properties determination ML15191A323 (a) These documents can be accessed through ADAMS at http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/. D.4 References 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities." Appendix D D-6 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 800, "Protection of historic properties." 50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, "Interagency cooperation-Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended." [ESA] Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. [FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. "Endangered Species Program: What We Do: Consultations: Frequently Asked Questions." July 15, 2013. Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/faq.html#8> (accessed 5 June 2014). [FWS and NMFS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. March 1998. 315 p. Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf> (accessed 8 July 2013). [MSA] Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq. [NEPA] National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. [NHPA] National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.

NUREG-2183 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility October 2015}}