ORNL-TM-5927.txt

“fiifimfimfi ORNL/TM-5927

3 445k 0551053 E 6'7., 77

Expansion Potential for Existing
Nuclear Power Station Sites

D. F. Cope
H. F. Bauman

 

 

AK RIDGE NATIONA LABORATORY
CENTRAL RESEARCH LIBRARY
CIRCULATION SECTION
4500N ROOM 175
LIBRARY LOAN COPY

DO NOT TRANSFER TO ANOTHER PERSON

U wish someone else to see this
Eport, s¢énd in name with el 0] il
Yy Wil Irrange a loan

 

 

] OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

OPERATED BY UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION FOR THE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

 
 

 

 

 

 

Printed in the United States of America. Available from
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161
Price: Printed Copy $8.00; Microfiche $3.00

 

 

 

 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States
Government. Neither the United States nor the Energy Research and Development
Administration/United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, nor any of their
employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes
any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

 

 

 
ORNL/TM-5927
Dist. Category UC-80

Contract No. W-7405-eng-26

Engineering Technology Division

EXPANSION POTENTIAL FOR EXISTING
NUCLEAR POWER STATION SITES

D. F. Cope H. F. Bauman ‘

Manuscript Completed — September 26, 1977

Date Published — November 1977

Prepared by the |
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
operated by
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
for the

T A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 4456 0551053 ¢

 
 

114

| ORNL-DWG 77-16441

 

 

 

 

 

- <4 UNITS
B - 4-8 UNITS
C - 8-16 UNITS
0
P

 

-~ >16 UNITS
OTENTIAL NEW NEC SITE

Map of the United States locating the power plant sites evaluated.

 

 

 
 

CONTENTS

Page

L O vii
FOREWORD 44ttt ttsctetocesoseesssasscsesasensossscssssnsnssennssas ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENT S 4 .v ittt ineetoenonesossasnsacssnssonsonssannness Xi
LIST OF TABLES it vt et tetteresnsocanscnosonssessssenensoaonenoenss xiii
1. INTRODUCTION i tittnnotteseeaneeseaceoensneossssoassenennss 1
1.1 General cuiieieioetoeseeeeeneeneannosnssnssssosesanneess 1

1.2 PUTPOSE tittetuntnstuoneonenaoeennsnaseesesosesansnnnas 2

Lo S COPE tt ittt eeetaaeoaneenaeesossnsesueesnnennnneannas 3

1.4 Organization tvuveeieeeeeeeeeeeennsnosooseossoonenness 4

2. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ...... Se st r s s ssessasas e s et e o0 ne 5
3 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND LIMITING FACTORS ‘v vervresnosenenen 6
3.1 Cooling Water touieereeteeneearsseneneanoseesoceennass 6

3.2 Heat Dissipation Systems ........... et ee e, 7

3.3 Population Densities ........v0u... sesserseraeas e 8

3.4 Site ATEaS tiiieieieneneeresseeeseseesesesasonnacennss g

3.5 Seismic and Geological Considerations ......eeeeeeses. ‘ 10

3.6 Electrical Demand Considerations ............ e v 11

3.7 Environmmental and Public Acceptance ISSUES +.evueeenas 12

3.8 Meteorological Influences on Site Capacity ........... 13

4, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSTIONS vt vevrsenseeeesnasnesonsnesnennes 15
5. SITE EVALUATIONS ........ Gt e ae v e s resas s st se s aeesaannnnnone 25
5.1 Analysis of Existing Sites ., . . ... .. .ciiirinnrnnnnn 25

5.2 Analysis of Potential Sites .....cieiervereeneennnnnnns 117

6. INDEX OF POWER STATIONS «veecuuneernnnnneasnnnnneoeennnnnn 126

REFERENCES

 
vii
ABSTRACT

This report is a preliminary analysis of the expansion potential of
the existing nuclear power sites, in particular their potential for devel-
opment into nuclear energy centers (NECs) of 10 GW(e) or greater. The
analysis is based primarily on matching the most important physical
characteristics of a site against the dominating site criteria. Sites
reviewed consist mainly of those in the 1974 through 1976 ERDA Nuclear
Power Stations listings without regard to the present status of reactor
construction plans. Also a small number of potential NEC sites which
are not associated with existing power stations were reviewed. Each
site was categorized in terms of its potential as: A dispersed site of
5 GW(e) or less; a mini-NEC of 5 to 10 GW(e); NECs of 10 to 20 GW(e);
and large NECs of more thah 20 GW(e).

The sites were categorized on their ultimate potential without regard
to political considerations which might restrain their development. The

analysis indicates that nearly 407 of existing sites have potential for

expansion to nuclear energy centers.

 

 
ix

FOREWORD

This study was initiated in the early stages of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission's (NRC) Nuclear Energy Center Site Survey (NECSS). It later
became apparent that the NECSS study should be a general analysis rather
than site-specific. Therefore, work on this report was discontinued.
However, site-specific information is pertinant to NECSS follow-on
studies, and the report has been completed under ERDA sponsorship.

The purpose of the study is to identify and characterize nuclear
power station sites with the potential to accommodate large power genera-
tion capacity.

The analyses reported are intended to assess the maximum potential
of a site and therefore should generally be viewed as approximate upper
limits to site capacity. The capacity currently planned for a site
constitutes a conservative lower limit and the capacity likely to be
ultimately developed at a particular site will undoubtedly lie somewhere
within these two limits.

It must be emphasized that this report carries no implications with
respect to what nuclear electricity generating capacity can or will be

licensed at a site, nor is it to be construed as indicative of what

capacity the utility owners of a site may consider supportable or desir-

able.

 
 

xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the following
members of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the preparation of this
report: Fred Heddleston for his unstinting cooperation in providing infor-
mation on each of the sites analyzed; Garland C. Samuels for his expert
advice on water availability and consumption; Marjorie E. Fish and
George A. Cristy for site location data; and special thanks to Calvin C.

Burwell for his comments and advice in planning and organizing the study.

 

 
 

Table
No.
‘ 1
s 2
3

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Title

 

Data summary on expansion potential of existing
nuclear power station sites

Data summary on several proposed nuclear energy
center sites

Key to Tables 1 and 2

Page
No.

 

16

21

22

 

 
EXPANSION POTENTIAL FOR EXISTING
NUCLEAR POWER STATION SITES

D. F. Cope H. F. Bauman

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General

Currently the question of what the United States' energy needs will
be over the next 15 to 25 years, and longer, is a matter of considerable
controversy. However, most of the predictions are that there will be some
continued growth in the demand for energy, the chief disagreements being
on what the rate of growth should or will be. There seems to be a greater
unanimity of opinion that the future growth for electricity will be at a
greater rate than the overall energy growth rate, but there are wide
variations in the forecasts of future demand for electricity and especially
the portion of this demand to be met with nuclear power. The latest U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission's (USAEC) forecast' had as its low figure of
nuclear electricity generating capacity 230 gigawatts [GW(e)] by 1985 and
850 GW(e) by 2000. The Energy Research and Development Administration's
(ERDA) 1975 update? of the AEC's 1974 forecasts lowered these figures to
160 GW(e) and 625 GW(e) respectively. More recent ERDA estimates®’*
reduced these figures still further to 127 GW(e) and 380 GW(e). The high
estimates from this most recent forecast are 166 GW(e) for 1985 and
620 GW(e) for the year 2000. Based on the most recent figures the nuclear
power capacity now planned is adequate to meet the 1985 projected needs.
However, in order to meet the year 2000 needs, the number of reactors
would have to be increased by 2 to 3 times, or from about 200 to 400
additional reactors over those now planned. Providing suitable sites
for even this number of reactors would require: (1) increasing the number
of acceptable nuclear power plant sites; (2) placing a greater concentra-
tion of reactors on appropriately qualified sites, or probably both.

In view of this potential growth of nuclear capacity and the

increasing competition for a limited number of good sites, it is not too

 
early to initiate planning and analyses on the potential capacity of
existing sites and surveys of new sites that might be needed to accommodate
future demands.

The problem of identifying and characterizing potential new sites is
the more difficult and complex of the two tasks. Such an investigation
if done effectively would require a comprehensive cooperative effort
involving the electric utilities and local, state and federal governments.
The recently completed Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Site Survey
Report (NECSS)® developed the basic information required for such a study
but stops short of identifying the requisite number of potential nuclear
power station sites. Thus the study should be carried further to at least
determine whether there is a potential deficiency of good sites, and if so,
which of the electric reliability regions are affected and to what degree.
NRC's letter forwarding their report to Congress recommended that further
activities would be more appropriately conducted by another agency such
as ERDA or the Federal Energy Administration (FEA). Although this recom-
mendation applied specifically to nuclear energy centers it presumably is
equally valid for the more general problem of surveying the availability
of potential nuclear power station sites. The former problem relating to

the capacity of existing sites is the subject of this report.

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this study was to perform a preliminary analysis on
the expansion potential of existing nuclear power station sites applying
some of the more important and obvious siting criteria. The report also
examines a few sites for which nuclear plants are not now planned but
which have been identified as having a potential for being developed into
nuclear energy centers. Some existing sites also have a potential for
being developed into NECs and these will be identified to the extent
practical within the limitations applying to the study. The term, Nuclear
Energy Center (NEC), is used to describe a concentration of more than
about 10 to 12 GW(e) of nuclear power facilities at a single geographical

location. Nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities, which could be included

in NECs, are not part of the study. The NECSS Report5 considered NECs of

 

 
up to 48 GW(e) of capacity, but concluded that there is no indication of
an appropriate role for NECs of more than twenty 1250 MW(e) units until
after the turn of the century. We agree with that conclusion and even
though some sites may appear to have a potential capacity for more than
about 20 GW(e), such large concentrations of power generation capability

should be viewed as highly unlikely for the foreseeable future.

1.3 Scope

The report includes all sites listed in the U.S. Energy Research and
Development Administration's (ERDA) releases on Nuclear Power Reactors in
the United States®>” and prior AEC listings.? These publications list
all nuclear reactors which are operable, being built, or planned. How-
ever, site identification and information is provided only on those reac-
tors for which licenses are being sought and on which safety analysis
reports and sometimes environmental reports have been issued. In some
cases utilities have changed their plans for proceeding with the construc-
tion and operation of an announced reactors but the site information is
still valid and hence included as part of this report.

In addition, other analyses have been performed and reports issued
on potential nuclear sites other than existing reactor sites. Where such
information has been readily available a small number of these sites also
have been included following the analyses of existing sites and are
designated as potential (P) sites, 3712

A siting study by the Washington Public Power Supply System13
analyzed twelve candidate power plant sites in the Pacific Northwest for
thermal (nuclear or fossil fuel) electric power generating stations
having a nominal capacity of at least 3000 MW(e). The findings of this
study are not included in this report though some of the 12 sites appear
to have a potential capacity of much more than 3000 MW(e). There are
undoubtedly other studies of a similar nature but since the primary
objective of this report is to analyze existing sites, no attempt was

made to comprehensively identify and analyze other potentially large

nuclear power plant sites.

 

 
Site information included in the report has been limited to summary
information and data needed to characterize and analyze the site. This
includes the site name and location, the utilities involved, the source
and amount of cooling water, the type of heat dissipation system used,
the resident populations at various distances from the sites to the
extent available, the seismic zone in which the site is located, signifi-
cant meterological data where it was available, major transportation sys-
tems serving the site, and major electric demand (load) centers which
conceivably could be served from the site.

The analyses of expansion potential were limited to preliminary
screening type of investigations which considered only easily identified
site features. Thus, it is only a miniscule representation of the effort
and sophistication customarily applied by utilities in their analysis of
generating station sites. Since the information on each site is neces-
sarily skeletal, it should be used only for its contribution to the over-
all siting picture and not taken as definitive for a particular site. The
general approach used and some of the limitations involved in this analysis

are discussed in Sect. 3 of this report.

1.4 Organization

The report is organized into a general introduction, descriptive
sections (which includes the information sources, the analytical methods
used, and discussion of limiting factors to the sites), summary tables of
the sites and their characteristics, and a brief discussion of each site.
In the discussion of the individual sites, the site characteristics are
analyzed to determine the potential capacity of the site and the factors

limiting the capacity.

 
2. SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Primary sources of information were various published documents and

 

reports, some of which have been mentioned previously.lhla Much of the
site information was taken from Heddleston's NSIC Reportslu which sum-
marized information contained in the Safety Analysis Reports and the
Environmental Reports. Cooling water data was taken from Heddleston's
reports and Samuels' Assessment of Water Resources for Nuclear Energy

Centers.}?®

General Electric's ''Assessment of Energy Parks vs Dispersed
Electric Power Generating Facilities"'® and The NECSS Study® provided
general sources of information and the AEC reports "Land Use and Nuclear

nl?7

Power Plants and "Nuclear Power Facility Performance Characteristics

nls

for Nuclear Environmental Impact Assessment provided specific case

studies information. The NRC News Releases!?®

provided current information
of licensing and other site related actions. Distances, populations and
transportation networks taken from Heddleston's Reportsll+ were supple-
mented and checked against information taken from The National Atlas??

and The Rand McNally Road Atlas.?! Metropolitan populations were all

22 Note

based on the Rand McNally Metropolitan Area (RMA) populations.
that city populations are quoted where cities are given as location
references, whereas metropolitan area populations are given where the
population in the vicinity of the site is discussed.

In addition, informal evalulations of many sites were obtained from
their owners as a byproduct of a recent survey of siting plans of U.S.

utilities.?3

The utilities generally agreed with our evaluation of the
physical characteristics of the sites, but were very restrained in their
opinions of the ultimate capacity of the sites. The utilities are well
aware, of course, of the political and institutional barriers to developing
large sites. We mention these factors, insofar as they are known, in the

analyses of individual sites, but they were not used as criteria in deter-

mining the ultimate capacity of sites under the ground rules of this study.
3. ANALYTICAL METHODS AND LIMITING FACTORS

The analysis was conducted by examining the significant site features,
measuring these against the criteria which seemed most likely to apply,
trying to determine the limiting factor or factors in each case, and then
making a judgment on the potential capacity of the site applying the
limiting factors. The manner in which these various site parameters were

analyzed with respect to the applicable criteria is discussed below.

3.1 Cooling Water

Sources of cooling water consist of oceans, natural lakes, impounded
bodies of water such as lakes, reservoirs and cooling ponds, and flowing
rivers, streams and canals. Oceans and large lakes were considered to
have sufficient cooling capacity that the available cooling water would
impose no limit on the site capacity. Rivers and flowing streams usually
have a known average and minimum flow rate, there being some variation in
the definitions of what constitutes these flow rates. Where the minimum
flow is given it was assumed that not more than 107 of the flow could be
consumed for the nuclear power station cooling. The site capacity evalua-
tion was based on the water consumption of light water reactors using
evaporative cooling and could be substantially different for other types
of reactors or cooling systems. The cooling capacity of the source was
estimated, based on a consumptive use of 25 cubic feet per sec (cfs) per
1000 MW(e), which is typical of the consumptive use of wet cooling towers.
If information was not available on minimum flows, 2% to 5% of the average
flow was used, the spread representing a judgment factor based on the
stream's characteristics and the extent of water management applied. Im-
pounded reservoirs and cooling ponds posed the most difficult situation,
since an assessment of their cooling capacity requires an extensive amount
of detailed hydrologic data which generally was not readily available.
Thus, the final evaluation of these situations was highly judgemental.

The analysis of the cooling water limitations did not take into

account competing demands for water, the downstream effect on other users,

 
water allocations, or the relative value of use of the water within

competing demands.

3.2 Heat Dissipation Systems

 

The analyses of the potential capacities of the various sites were
based on the use of cooling towers except for ocean and large lake sites
where once-through cooling was assumed. In this context the type of heat
dissipation system could be considered as subsidiary to the cooling water
requirements and hence a secondary issue. However, the regulatory situa-
tion is uncertain and there is a segment of opinion which favors the use
of cooling towers for practically all sites, including ocean and lake
shore. There are different opinions on what effect the use of cooling
towers under these conditions might have on the potential capacity of
the site, but it appears that in some instances they could become the pri-
mary limiting factor. Hence, it seems appropriate to discuss heat dis-
sipation systems as they might relate to either increasing or decreasing
the potential capacity of a site.

In the absence of adequate information to make an analytical deter-
mination of how cooling towers should be spaced to avoid possible atmo-
spheric effects, the NECSS Report5 assumed four-unit clusters, spaced
2-1/2 miles apart. General application of this criterion would raise
serious problems for potential NEC sites where the available land is
limited. The number of cooling towers permitted could become the primary
limiting factor to the potential capacity of a site. In addition, salt
water cooling towers may generate environmental impacts which in themselves
could become significant restraints to developing the full capacity of a
site. Therefore, these two aspects of cooling tower use may strongly
influence the potential capacity of a site.

Conversely, the capacity of a site primarily limited by water avail-
ability could be increased by adopting other types of heat dissipation
systems such as dry or wet/dry cooling.

Thus it appears that establishing the potential capacity of a site

may require greater attention to the type of heat dissipation system used

 
than was necessary for existing sites. Further consideration of these

factors is ‘beyond the scope of this report.

3.3 Population Densities .

 

Population density criteria and guidelines have emanated from various .
sources particularly the regulatory reviews related to the licensing of
nuclear plants. Also most of the sites considered in this study have
received, or are in the process of receiving, a license for the amount of
nuclear capacity planned for the site. Thus, certain population criteria
have been met and the primary function of this analysis is to determine
what limitations may exist to expansion of this capacity.
The criteria applied were the general population density criteria for
nuclear power plant sites as set forth in 10 CFR Part 100 and the criteria
used to screen sites for NECs as set forth in the NECSS Report5 (Para-

graph 2.5.1, Page 2.7, Part V) which are as follows:

Criteria

Areas having a site population factor (SPF) of less than 0.2 for
30 miles (numerically equivalent to having a population density of less
than 200 persons per square mile uniformly distributed over a 30-mile
radius) are generally considered to be most acceptable for the siting of
nuclear energy centers.

Areas having a site population factor of 0.2 to 0.5 for 30 miles are
probably acceptable but are subject to careful assessment of alternative
siting.

Areas having a site population factor of greater than 0.5 for 30 miles
(which includes all U.S. metropolitan areas) are least acceptable.

Population density distributions are a significant factor in evaluat-
ing the capacity potential of a site. However, the wide latitude and

strong site dependence involved in their application means that conclusions

as to the limits imposed involve large judgmental factors.

 

 
3.4 Site Areas

Land area requirements for nuclear power plant sites vary widely
depending upon the topography, the cooling system utilized, the wvalue of
the land, and many other factors. Regulatory requirements on '"Exclusion
Areas" and "Low Population Zones'" must be met as a minimum. The size of
the area in conjunction with the location of the reactors within the area
directly affect the radiation levels at the boundary which provides an
incentive for large land areas if the site is to accommodate a large
generating capacity. Thus, there are many factors involved in determining
how large an area is needed to support a given nuclear capacity.

Site areas for currently licensed nuclear plants vary from a little
more than 0.1 acre/MW(e) to over 100 times this amount. In the latter
cases the additional land often was acquired to provide area for large
cooling lakes or for later expansion. The required land area is smaller
if the site is on the edge of a large body of water or certain categories
of land which can be used as a buffer zone. The NECSS Report (Section
2.2.4, Pages 2—3)° used conservatively for planning purposes 1 acre/MW(e)
as the land area required for an NEC. Geologic, topographic, seismic, or
terrain conditions may increase or decrease the amount of land required.
Thus, there are many factors involved in determing the amount of land need
to support a certain capacity at a given site.

This study looked at the additional land required to support the
estimated potential capacity of the site. Usually the additional land
fequired was not owned by the utility. In these instances a map study
was made of the contiguous areas to determine if there was a reasonable
possibility that the required additional land could be acquired. Factors
considered to be limiting to the acquisition of additional land were block-
ing features such as towns, parks, major highways, etc. One acre/MW(e)
was the criterion used for the desired amount of land required but this was
adjusted to fit local conditions. In most cases where land became the
limiting factor to the capacity of the site about 0.3 acre/MW(e) was

assumed as the minimum requirement. No attempt was made to determine the

highest valued use of the land.

 
10

3.5 Seismic and Geological Considerations

 

Each of the sites studied was assigned to a seismic zone in accord-
ance with the following definitions:

Zone 0, area with no reasonable expectation of earthquake damage;

Zone 1, expected minor damage;

Zone 2, expected moderate damage; and,

Zone 3, major destructive earthquakes may occur.

The assigned risk zone was based on Algermissen's seismic risk map
for the conterminous United States, from "The Earthquake History of the
United States."?"

Since most of the sites have been, or are in the process of being,
approved for the construction of one or more reactors, this indicates
acceptable seismic conditions for some given capacity. The chief seismic
problems in expanding the site for additional capacity are a network of
faults, or seismically associated conditions, such as soil liquefaction,
which may limit the number of locations within the potential site area,
ofi which reactors can be constructed.

To a degree, the above described limitations are correctible by
adequate engineering and construction procedures thus reducing the problem
to an economic one. In extreme cases, this would be considered an infea-
sible and unacceptable solution. The investigations necessary to deter-
mine the extent to which these conditions may apply to a given site require
huge and costly efforts and are beyond the scope of this study. Utilities
have developed some of the required information in proving-up the site for
the reactors now planned but in some instances these investigations would
have to be expanded substantially to demonstrate that additional capacity
could be installed on the site. Thus, the analyses performed as. part of
this study were limited to a qualitative judgment based on the seismic zone
involved and any additional information emanating from the review process
on the current planned reactors. In applying the seismic zone criterion,
it was assumed that the cost and time required for investigation of site

suitability would place severe restrictions on considering Zone 3 for

large concentrations of nuclear power. For the other three zones, it was

 

 
11

considered that these costs would be acceptable and thus would not con-
stitute an inherent limitation to the site.

Since the geologic and foundation conditions of existing sites have
been accepted for the construction of one or more reactors, it was
assumed that these conditions would prevail throughout the potential
site area. A similar assumption was made with respect to topographical
and general terrain conditions. However, there could be exceptions to
this generality, and a more detailed investigation of some sites might
indicate this assumption invalid but in many instances this would be an

additional economic penalty rather than an inherent limitation.

3.6 Electrical Demand Considerations

 

A site with a potentially high generating capacity may be incompletely
utilized if the electricity demand within the region fails to match the
supply capability. Thus, lack of demand within an economically viable
distance of the site could be a limitation to developing the capacity of
the site. Utilities continuously survey the power demands within their
regions and historically, have developed their supply capability accord-
ingly. However, some utilities with good sites may lack the demand which
would justify developing these sites to their full capability while other
utilities may have the demand but lack acceptable sites. Hence it is
becoming increasingly important to look at the electricity supply and
demand situation as a regional problem where each region may involve
several utility systems. The trend is for utilities to move in this
direction through their electrical transmission interconnections and
cooperative planning within the nine regional electric reliability coun-
cils. This is a dynamic and complex planning process which requires a
continuing analysis by the utilities, the reliability regions and the
states involved. Such a procedure is greatly beyond the scope of this
report.

The procedure used for this study was to identify the major metro-
politan population areas within 50 to 200 miles of the sites and draw
qualitative conclusions based on the nearness or remoteness of the sites

with respect to these population, and hence electrical load, centers. It

 
12

can be readily seen that this approach has some serious deficiencies in

failing to consider such significant items as: (1) the possibility of

serving a load center from alternative sites; (2) regional growth pros-

pects; (3) electrical system stability; (4) economics of power trans- .
mission; (5) state regulatory responsibilities; and, (6) the many institu-

tional problems involved. The approach does give some indication of -~
whether the demand is a serious limitation to a site and identifies cer-

tain site-deficient regions. Therefore, notwithstanding its deficiencies,

it is believed that this simplified analysis serves a useful purpose.

3.7 Environmental and Public Acceptance Issues

 

The criteria for what are acceptable environmental impacts from
nuclear power stations are ill-defined in many critical areas and subject
to influence by public attitudes nationally and within local regions.
Also, the actual environmental impacts vary widely with specific sites
and the immediate surroundings. Consequently this report makes no attempt
to define and quantify the limits imposed by these impacts except to the
extent that they are related to other siting criteria, such as cooling
water for example. Some existing or planned nuclear power stations have
been challenged on the basis of environmental issues and, where known,
these have been taken into account in analyzing the potential capacity of
a site. Also, the general environmental and ecological guidelines which
have been established with respect to coastal zones, estuaries, land use,
etc., have been considered in a subjective way.

However, lack of public acceptance can result from environmental
issues as well as from more intangible issues and varies widely in dif-
ferent localities. Changing situations and attitudes could result in
sites having potential capacities now considered acceptable to be later
considered as unacceptable. Conversely, public and regulatory attitudes
could change in the reverse direction such that environmental and public
acceptance limits on existing sites could be relaxed. In this report the
judgments of what constitute potential site capacities were based pri-

marily on the inherent physical characteristics of the sites with little

attempt to predict the limits imposed by environmental issues or lack of

 

 
13

public acceptance. However, these factors, insofar as known, are mentioned
in the analyses of the individual sites, so that the users of this report
can be aware of the intangible factors which may inhibit further develop-

ment of given sites.

3.8 Meteorological Influences on Site Capacity

 

The effect of meteorology on the potential nuclear capacity of sites
is largely dependent upon dispersion conditions of the atmosphere in the
region of the sites. The effluent dilution capabilities of the atmosphere
are primarily functions of wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric
stability. Particulates, fog, and precipitation also can affect atmo-
spheric transport. Therefore, these are important considerations in the
original site selection.

In considering the amount of capacity to be placed at a site, it must
be recognized that large heat-producing facilities, such as concentrations
of electric power generating plants, could cause measurable and perhaps
significant atmospheric perturbations. However, the present state of the
art does not permit a quantitative correlation between the meteorological
effects to be expected versus the amount of generating capacity at a
particular site.

The NECSS® report discusses this potential problem in greater detail
and their report assumes that power generating units are grouped in
clusters of four, with the clusters being about 2.5 miles apart. The
probability of perturbing effects between clusters is reduced by this wide
spacing and thus represents a conservative solution to a potential prob-
lem. Such a dispersed pattern can be achieved by having a sufficiently
large site area and generally is obtained by providing 1 acre of area for
each MW(e) of power.

Other weather conditions which may affect large concentrations of
nuclear power are the probability of occurrence, and the intensity, of
severe storms, hurricanes and tornados. The nuclear installations them-
selves are unlikely to be damaged by even violent storms, hurricanes, or
tornados; but cooling towers and transmission towers may be vulnerable to

them. Knowing that such conditions might occur, mitigating engineering

 
14

 

and construction measures can be taken. Therefore, these phenomena do

not usually constitute a limitation to the site, but rather constitute

an economic penalty which must be weighted against the advantages of the

particular site. .

Thus, this report provides meteorological data that is readily

available from the information sources previously described. It does .
not attempt to place meteorological limits on site capacities but des-

cribes the dispersion conditions which prevail at a given site in general

terms such as good, average, or poor.

 
15

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that, of the 110 existing nuclear sites evalu-
ated, 67 are physically suited for major expansion, and, of these, 44
could be expanded to NEC size [>10 GW(e)]. For 10 of the possible NEC
sites, no significant barriers to unlimited expansion [>20 GW(e)] are
indicated. In addition, of 8 potential NEC sites considered independent
of existing sites, 6 appear suited for NECs, and 3 of these offer no
significant barriers to unlimited expansion.

Thus, it appears that existing and known potential sites could go a
long way toward meeting any presently anticipated need for NEC sites.
However, the map (Frontispiece) shows that many of the favorable sites
are clustered together, and that large areas of the country do not have
known good sites. Since in many cases only one of two or three closely
grouped sites would be required to serve a given region, we estimate that
only about half of the favorable sites should be considered as ultimately
available for development as NECs.

In regard to the individual site evaluations, it must be recognized
that firm guidelines against which the capacity of a site can be specifi-
cally measured do not exist. Rather, one has a set of principles and
general criteria which in application involve a number of site variables.
In addition, there are certain intangibles such as those involved in the
environmental and public acceptance issues. Thus, the final conclusion
on what constitutes the allowable capacity for a given site is highly
subjective and variable with changing attitudes. The final judgment of
course is made by the regulatory authorities but until the final official
decision is made there can be a wide range of estimates by different
experts working with the same body of information. This, combined with the
limited body of information from which this report was developed emphasizes
the uncertainty in the estimates of potential capacity for any given site.

The individual site discussions (Sect. 5) briefly review the site
characteristics, analyze the potential capacity of the site, and identi-
fies the limiting factors to expansion. This information is sumarized in

Tables 1 and 2. See Table 3 for key to abbreviations in Tables 1 and 2.

 
16

Table 1. Data summary on expansion potentiaml of existing nuclear power station sites

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Latitude, N Cooling water Population (thousands) Nuclear generating
NSIC-55 longitude, W Electric ng radius (mile) capacity [GW(e)]} Seismic
Site No. Name anc?l }ocatlon —_— Reliability Present area Limiting factors risk
(utility) Council Flow-cfs/10° Cooling (acres) Potential one
Vol. Page Deg Min Source . e 5 10 50 Planned size
av (min) system
category
AL-1 I 113 Brown's Ferry, Units 13 3k L2 6 Tennessee River L5 MDCT 0.2 3.2 - - 8ko 3.2 D Populaticn and demand 1-2
11 1 Decatur, AL (TVA) 87 7 Wheeler Lake Ve
AlL-2 I1 193 Joseph M., Farley, Units 12 31 13 6 Chattahoochee River 10.6 MDCT 0.5 2.3 - - 800 1.7 C Demand and land 1
Dothan, AL (APC) 85 7 Woodruff Reservoir cS
AL-3 v 106 Alan R. Barton, Units 1—4 32 45 6 Jordan Reservoir 16 MDCT 0.1 1.2 7 - 2,820 L.6 c Water and demand 1
Clanton, AL (APC) 86 2k Coosa River (0.054) cs
AL-L IIT 91 Bellefonte, Units 12 34 43 6 Tennessee River 38.3 NDCT 0.1 2.8 18 - 1,500 2.k D Population and demand 2
Scottsboro, AL (TVA) 85 56 Gunterville Reservoir (2.9) CS
AZ-1 v 114 Palo Verde, Units 1-3 33 23 S Phoenix Sewage Plant 15 MDCT 0.1 0.2 2 - 3,800 3.8 A Water 2
Wintersburg, AZ (APS et al.) 112 52
AR-1 II 61 Arkansas Nuclear, Units 1-2 35 19 7 Arkansas River Lo OT and 0.7 3.7 - - 1,160 1.2 B Land and demand 1
11 235 Russellville, AR (APL) 93 14 Dardanelle Reservoir (1.5-3.0) CSCT
CA-1 I 22 Humboldt Bay, Unit 3 Lo i 9 Humboldt Bay NA OT 1.7 38 Lg - 143 o7 A Coastal zone and public 23
Eureka, CA (PG&E) 124 13 Pacific Ocean acceptance
CA-2 1 36 San Onofre, Units 1-3 33 22 9 Pacific Qcean NA oT C.5 25 Lo - 84 2.7 C Coastal zone and public acceptance 3
II 217 San Clemente, CA (SCE) 117 34
CA-3 I 162 Diablo Canyon, Units 1-2 35 13 9 Pacific Ocean NA 0T 0 0 4,5 - 750 2.2 C Coastal zone and public acceptance 3
II 103 Diablo, CA (PG&E) 120 51
CA-L IIT 15 Mendocino, Units 1-2 38 55 9 Pacific Ocean oT 0.6 1.2 - - 410 0 A Public acceptance and seismic 3
Mendocino, CA (PG&E) 123 43
CA-5 II 55 Rancho Seco 38 21 9 Folsom Canal 3.5 NDCT c.1 0.4 - Loo 2,480 0.9 C Water and Seismic 2-3
Clay Station, CA (SMUD) 121 7 American River NA CS
CA-6 VI NA Sun Desert, Units 1-2 33 27 9 Colorado River 8.9 MDCT 0 0.5 1 28 7,040 2.0 C Demand 2
Blythe, CA (SDGLE) 114 Lo Palo Verde Qutfall Drain regulated
co-1 v 26 Fort St. Vrain Lo i 3 South Platte River 0.55 MDCT 0.2 2 g - 2,238 0.3 A Water 1
Platteville, CO {PSC) 104 52 St. Vrain Creek (0.09) cs
CT-1 1 43 Connecticut Yankee 41 29 5 Connecticut River 16.6 OT 2 9 - - 525 0.6 A Population and land 2
Haddam Neck, CT (NEU) 72 30 (1.0)
CT-2 I 78 Millstone, Units 1-3 41 19 5 Niantic Bay NA OT with 5 L8 100 2,500 500 2.6 A Population and land 2
11 151 New London, CT (NEU) 72 10 Long Island Sound Qry
111 67
DE-1 v 3k Summitt, Units 1-2 39 31 3 Chesapeake-Delaware Canal NA MDCT 0.5 L L2 - 1,800 1.5 C Land and environment 2
Mt. Pleasant, DE {DPSL) 75 41
FL-1 T 92 Turkey Point, Units 34 25 26 6 Biscayne Bay NA oT 0 5 88 - 3,300 1.4 C Environment 0
Florida City, FL 80 20 Cooling Reservoir cc
South Dade, Units 1-2
South Dade, FI, (FP&L)
FL-2 II 19 Crystal River, Unit 3 28 58 6 Gulf of Mexico NA OT 0 0.1 - - 4,738 0.8 C Environment and demand 0
Red Level, FL (FPC) 82 42
FL-3 1T 145 St. Lucie, Units 1-2 27 21 6 Atlantic Ocean NA oT 0.1 1.6 - - 1,132 1.6 A Land and demand 0
Ft. Pierce, FL (FPRL) 80 15
GA-1 11 g1 Edwin I. Hatch, Units 1—2 31 56 6 Altamaha River 13 MDCT 0.1 0.9 - - 2,244 1.6 C Demand and water 1
Baxley, GA (GPC) 82 20 '
GA~2 111 75  Alvin W, Vogtle, Units 12 33 9 6 Savannah River 10 NDCT 0.1 0.k 5 600 3,200 2.2 D Demand 2
(see No. P-1) Waynesboro, GA {GPC) 81 L6 (5.8) CsS
IL-1 I 8 Dresden, Units 1-3 L1 23 2 Illinois River 4 2 OT o 2.6 25 - 953 1.8 B land and water 1
6L Morris, IL (CEC) 88 16 (3) CcL
IL-2 I 218 Zion, 1-2 L2 28 2 Lake Michigan NA 0T 26 106 - 10,000 250 2.1 A land and population 1
II 25 zion, IL (CEC) 87 Lo *
IL-3 I 99 Quad Cities, Units 1-2 41 L 2 Mississippi River L7 OT 0.2 12 27 600 Lol 1.6 B land and population 1
Cordova, IL (CEC) 90 20 (6.6) sC

 

 

 
 

17

Table 1 (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Latitude, N . Population (thousands) Nuclear generating
NSIC-55 longitude, W Blectric Cooling water radius (mile) capacity [GW(e)] Seismi
. _— Name and location —_— ot Present area . e‘s ¢
Site No. Lo Reliability . Limiting factors risk
(utility) Counoil (acres) Potential
Vol. Page Deg Min Source Flow-cfs/10% Cooling 2 5 10 50 Planned size zone
av (min) system category
IL-4 II 247 La Salle Co., Units 1-2 41 14 2 Illinois River 11 CL c.1 1 - - 5,000 2.2 C Land and water 1
Seneca, IL (CEC) 88 Lo (3.6) cs
1L-5 Iv 28 Byron Nuclear Station, Units 1-2 42 5 2 Rock River 4.6 CT 0 6 20 900 1,430 2.2 A Water and land 1
Byron, IL (CEC) 89 17 cs
IL-6 v 35 Braidwood, Units 1-2 4 15 2 Kankakee River and Cooling Lake 0.13 CL 2 g 22 3,900 4,320 2.2 A Water 1
Braidwood, IL (CEC) 88 13 NA CS
IL-7 v Lg Clinton, Units 1-2 Lo 10 2 Salt Creek and Reservoir 0.2 oT 0.1 2 13 - 15,000 1.9 A Water 1
Clinton, IL (IPC) 88 50 (0.02) CL
IN-1 II 229 Bailly 41 38 1 ILake Michigan NA NDCT 1 27 200 - 350 0.7 A Population, land and 0
Westchester, IN (NIPS) 87 7 CSs environment
IN-2 v 1h6 Marble Hill, Units 1-2 38 36 1 Ohio River 112 MDCT 0.3 2.4 19 1,250 987 2.3 C Land 0
Marble Hill, IN (PSI) 85 27 (10) cs
IA-1 II 127 Duane Arnold Energy Center, Unit 1 L2 6 L Cedar River 3 MDCT 0.2 2.7 92 - 480 0.6 A Water 1
Palo, IA {IE&PCO) g1 L6 neg. CSs
KS-1 IV 77 Wolf Creek, Unit 1 38 14 7 Wolf Creek 1 oT . 0.1 2.5 Y 164 1,100 1.2 A Water 1-2
Burlington, KS (KGRE—KCP:iL) 95 L1 CL on Neosho River {0) CSCL
LA-1 II 259 Waterford, Unit 3 38 00 7 Mississippi River 493 OT 1.7 16 - - 3,600 1.1 A Population 1
Taft, LA {LLAP) 98 28 (>12)
LA-2 Iv Lo River Bend, Units 1-2 30 Lsg 7 Mississippi River 450 CT 0.4 3 19 - 3,292 1.9 D Demand 1
St. Francisville, LA (GSU) 91 20 (100) CCCS
ME-1 II 43 Maine Yankee 43 57 5 Back River F. oT 0.4 6.5 - - 740 0.8 B Demand and land 2
Wiscasset, ME (MYAPCOQ) 69 42 Atlantic Ocean, 15 mile
MD-1 II 73 Calvert Cliffs, Units 1-2 38 26 3 Chesapeake Bay NA oT 1.5 L .4 - - 1,135 1.7 C Public acceptance and environment 1
Lusby, MD (BGLE) 76 26
MD-2 111 123 Douglas Point, Units 1-2 38 27 3 Potomac River 14 NDCT 0.2 2 22 - 1,4bo 2.4 C Public acceptance and environment 1
Douglas Point, MD {PEPCO) 77 15 Tidal flow (0.8) Cs
MA-1 I 15 Yankee Nuclear Power Station Lo Ly 5 Sherman Pond 0.9 oT 0.2 2 18 1,400 2,000 0.2 A Water 2
Rowe, MA [YEPCO) 72 55 Deerfield River (0.2) CL ,
MA-2 I 211 Pilgrim, Units 1-2 L1 57 5 Cape Cod Bay NA oT 1.5 9 35 - 517 3.0 A Population and land 2-3
v 63 Pilgrim, MA (BEC) 70 35 Atlantic Ocean
MA-3 Iv 119 Montague, Units 1-2 42 35 5 Connecticut River 13 NDCT 2.6 24 38 - 1,900 2.3 : A Water 2
Montague, MA (NEU) 72 32 (1.3) CSs ‘
MI-1 I 29 Big Rock Point Ls 22 1 Take Michigan NA oT 0 5 9 113 600 0.8 C Land and demand 1
Charlevoix, MI /CPC) 85 12
MI-2 II 169 Enrico Fermi, Units 2-3 41 59 1 lake Erie NA NDCT 5 30 - 2,000 925 2.3 A Polulation and land 1
Lagoona Beacn, MI {DEC) 83 16 CICS
MI-3 I 106 Palisades Lo 19 1 Lake Michigan NA MDCT 0.3 6 - - L87 0.7 A Land 1
South Haven, MI {CPC) 86 19
MI-4 II 67 Donald C. Cock, Units 1-2 Ll 58 1 Lake Michigan NA oT 1 g - - 650 2.1 A Land 1
Bridgeman, MI {IMECO) 86 34
MI-5 II 121 Midland, Units 1—2 L3 35 1 Tittabawassee River 1.4 CL 4.6 20 - - 370 1.6 {equiv.) A Water, land and population 1
Midland, MI (CPC) &b 13 NA Cs
MI-6 v 21 Greenwood, Units 2-3 L3 5 1 Lake Huron NA CLSC 0.3 3 16 2,000 3,260 2.4 C Land 1
St. Clair Co., MI (DEC) 82 L2 11 miles
MI-7 Iv 70 Quanicasse, Units 1-2 L3 36 1 Lake Huron NA NDCT 0.5 3 72 1,000 1,065 2.4 C Land 1
Quanicasse, MI (CPC) 83 43 Saginaw Bay CS
MN-1 I 127 Monticello 4s 20 L Mississippi River 4.6 CT 0.2 5 12 2,000 1,325 0.6 B land and water 1
Monticello, MN {NSP) 93 51 (0.24)
MN-2 I 183 Prairie Island, Units 1-2 Ly 37 b4 Mississippi River 15 OTVC 0.4 L - - 560 1.1 C Land and population 1
II 37  Red Wing, MN 'NSP) 92 38 (4.6) MDCT

 
 

 

(continued)

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Latitude, N cooling water Population (thousands) Nuclear generating
NSIC-55 longitude, W . & radius {mile) capacity [GW(e)] ¢ ot
. Electric Seismic
. Name and location S s Present area e e .
Site No, R ReliaWi 1ity . Limiting factors risk
(utility) o 1 Fl £5/10° Cool (acres) Potential one
Vol. Page Deg Min wiel Source OW-C(S. ) tlng 2 5 10 50 Planned size
av (min system category
MS-1 111 59  Grand Gulf, Units 1-2 32 00 7 Mississippi River 600 NDCT 0.2 2 7 300 2,200 2.5 C Demand o-1
Port Gibson, MS (MP 1) 9l 3 (73) CS
MS-2 VI 50  Yellow Creek, Units 1-2 3k 57 6 Pickwick Reservoir MDCT 0.3 1 & - 1,160 2.5 D Demand 1
Corinth, MS (TVA) 88 13 Tennessee River
MO-1 IV 84 Callaway, Units 1-2 38 L6 2 Missouri River 78 NDCT 0.1 1 g 305 3,177 2.2 C Demand, land, and water 1
Fulton, MO (UEC) 91 ug {5.5) Cs
NE-1 I 190 Ft. Calhoun, Units 1-2 41 31 4 Missouri River 27 OT 0.2 8 1k 730 1,159 1.6 B Population and land 1
v 154 Ft. Calhoun, NE (OPPD& NPPD) 96 5 (6.5)
NE-2 I 7 Cooper Nuclear Station 4o 22 4 Missouri River >27 oT 0 1 - - 1,090 0.8 C Land and demand 1
Brownsville, NE (NPFD) 95 38 (612}
NH-1 II 163 Seabrook, Units 1-2 42 54 5 Hampton Harbor NA oT 3 22 72 - 715 2.4 A Land and population 2-3
111 loY Seabrook, NH /PSNH) 70 51 Atlantic Ocean
NJ-1 I 50 Oyster Creek, Unit 1 39 4g 3 Barnegat Bay NA oT 2.5 10 4s 3,500 1,425 1.8 D Populaticn and environment 1
II 223 Forked River, Unit 1 Th 13 Atlantic Ocean
Forked River, NJ (JCPAL)
NJ-2 I 155 Salem, Units 12 39 28 3 Delaware River 15-river 0T o 1 - - 700 2.2 C Land and environment 1
II Lg Salem, NJ 75 32 Tidal Flow LOC TF
VI 18 Hope Creek, Salem, NJ {PSE:G)
NJ-3 II 205 Newbolt Island 4o 8 3 Delaware River 12 NDCT 5 92 - - 530 1.0 A Land and population 1
Burlington Co., NJ (PSE&G) T4 L4e ‘TR CS3
NJ-4 v 50 Atlantic Generating Station 39 28 3 Atlantic Ocean NA OT 0 0. 13 - 186 4.6 A Off-shore site 1
Little Egg Tnlet, NJ [PSFRG) Th 15 Offshore floating plant ocean
NY-1 I 1 Indian Point, Units 1-3 41 16 5 Hudson River 20 oT 9 53 218 17,000 239 2.1 A Population and land 1
I 85 Indian Point, NY /Con Ed & PASNY) 73 56 Tidal flow 3.5 with Qry
I 197
II 175
NY -2 I 57 Nine Mile Point, Units 12 43 31 5 Lake Ontario NA aT 0.3 1 30 - 1,500 1.7 C Seismic and demand 3
II 133 James A. Fitzpatrick {PASNY) 76 24
111 43 Scriba, NY (NMPC) 0.8
NY-3 II 97 Shoreham Lo 58 5 Long Island Sound NA QT 3 12 - 18,000 450 0.8 B Land and populaticn 2
Brookhaven, NY (LILCO) 72 52 ’
NY-L I 71 R, E. Ginna, Unit 1 43 17 5 Lake Ontario NA OT 1 8 34 - 338 0.5 B Seismic and population 3
Ontaric, NY {RG&E: 77 19
NY-5 v o162 Green County Plant 4o 9 5 Hudson River IS NDCT 1.4 8 ) 1,400 282 1.2 A land and public acceptance 1
Cementon, NY {PASNY) 73 55 (TF) cs
NY-6 v 82 Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1-2 Lo 59 5 Long Island Sound NA oT 0.6 9 35 3,000 525 2.3 B Iand and populatiocn 2
Jamesport , NY /LILCO} 72 36
NY-7 IV g€ Sterling Nuclear Station, Unit 1 43 23 5 ILake Ontario NA oT 0.2 3 36 1,200 2,800 1.2 C Seismic and demand 3
Oswego, NY /RG&E} 76 39
NY-8 11 79 Bell Nuclear Station 42 28 5 lake Cayuga NA oT 0.5 6 - 900 300 0.9 A Public acceptance 3
Cayagulake, NY (NYSEG) 76 30
NC-1 IT 109 Brunswick, Units 12 33 58 6 Cape Fear River g oT 1 L - - 1,200 1.6 C Demand 1
Southport, NC {CP4L) 78 1 Atlantic Ocean (5 miles) 'TF)
NC-2 II 241 um. B. McGuire, Units 1-2 35 26 6 Catawba River 2.6 oT 0.4 2 - - 30,000 e B Water 2
Cowans Ford Dam, NC /Duke) 80 57 Lake Norman NA CL
NC-3 I1I 21 Shearon Harris, Units 1-4 35 38 6 Cape Fear River 0,08 oT 0.2 2 - - 18,000 3.6 B Water 1
Bonsal, NC 'CPsL)} 78 57 Reservoir ney CL .
NC-4 v 105 Perkins, Units 1-3 35 51 6 Yadkin River 2.8 MDCT 0.6 b4 3k 1,500 1,200 3.8 B Water 2
Davie County, NC {Duke) 80 27 0,31 C5
. OH-1 II 187  Davis-Besse, Units 1-3 41 36 1 Lake Erie NDCT 0.5 2 18 2,200 90¢ 2.7 C Iand and population i
IV 133 Oak Harbor, OH /TEC et al.) 83 5 €S

 
 

 

19

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1 (continued)
Reference Latitude, N . Population (thousands) Nuclear generating
NSIC-55 longitude, W Electric Cooling water radius (mile) capacity [Gw(e)] Seismic
Site No. Name and location Reliability Present area : Limiting factors risk
(utility) Council Flow-cfs/10% Coolin (acres) Fotential zone
Vol. Page Deg Min Source . & 2 5 10 50 Planned size
av (min) system
category
OH-2 111 99 Perry, Units 1-2 41 48 1 lake Erie NA OT 1 8 68 2,500 1,065 2.4 B Land and population 1
Perry, OH (CEI et al.) 81 9
OH-3 II 211 Wm, H. Zimmer, Units 1-2 38 52 1 Ohio River 97 NDCT 2 5 - - Lol 2.2 A Land and population 1
Moscow, OH (CG&E et al.) 84 14 (6-12) cs
OH-4 VI n.a. Erie, Units 1-2 41 21 1 lake Erie NA NDCT 1.5 9 Lo 2,500 1,740 2.7 C Land and population 1
Berlin Height, OH (OEC) 8e 29 CS
0K-1 VI L2 Black Fox, Units 1-2 36 7 7 Verdigris 3.9 MDCT 0.1 2 7 700 2,206 2.3 A Water and demand 1
Inola, OK (PSO) 95 33 (0.4) cs
OR-1 II 181 Trojan, Units 1-3 46 2 9 Columbia River 430 NDCT 0.6 8 - - 625 3.7 B Terrain 2
Prescott, OR (Port GE) 122 52 Reverse tidal flow (TF) cs
OR-2 v 74 Pebble Springs, Units 1-2 L5 L2 9 Columbia River 188 OT 0.1 0.5 0.6 - 8,400 2.5 D Demand 2
Arlington, WA (Port GE) 120 8 1900 acre reservoir (75) CICS
PA-1 I 169 Peach Bottom, Units 2—3 39 e 3 Conowingo reservoir 36 oT 0.7 15 - - 620 2.1 C Water and land 1
v 18 Peach Bottom, PA (PE) 76 16 Susquahanna River (1.4) Ve
MDCT
PA-2 II 199 Limerick, Units 1-2 4o 13 3 Schuykill River 1.8 NDCT 5 66 - - 587 2.l A Water 1
Pottstown, PA {PE) 75 35 (water from Delaware in low flow) CS
PA-3 IT 139 Beaver Valley, Units 1-2 Lo 37 1 Ohio River 16 0T and MD 8 18 - - 50 1.8 C Land and population 1
III 1 Shippingport, PA /DIC & OEC) 80 26 (7.5) Ve
PA-4 I 204 Three Mile Island, Units 1-2 Lo 8 3 Susquehanna River 3k MD and NDCT 3 30 - - 625 1.7 A land 1
II 85 Goldsboro, PA {JCPLL) 76 Ly (1.7) cs
PA-5 II 265 Susquehanna, Units 1-2 41 5 3 Susquehanna River 13 NDCT 1 11 - - 1,522 2.1 B Water and populatiocn 1
Berwick, PA (PP&L) 76 9 (<1.5) cs
PA-6 v L2 Fulton Nuclear Station 39 Lé 3 Susquehanna River 35 NDCT 1 6 28 - 360 2.3 C Population and water 1
Fuller, PA (PE) 76 14 (1.4) Cs
RI-1 VI 58 New England Power, Units 1-2 41 22 5 Atlantic Ocean NA oT 1.0 5 43 2,000 549 2.3 A Land and population 1-2
Charlestown, RI [NEPC, 71 4o
SC-1 I 120 H. B. Robinson, Unit 2 34 3k 6 Lake Robinson 0.17 0T 1.4 13 - 700 5,000 0.7 A Water 1-2
Hartsville, SC (CP&L) 80 10 neg CL
sSC-2 I 14 Oconee, Units 1-3 34 47 6 lake Keowee 1.1 oT 1 6 - - 500 2.7 A Water and demand 2
Seneca, SC (Duke) 82 5k Little River neg CL
8C=-3 II 277 Virgil C. Summer, Unit 1 34 18 6 Iake Monticello NA oT 0.2 1 - - 11,000 0.9 A Water 2
Broad River, SC (SCE:G) 81 19 11 mile® CL (incl, res,)
sc-k III 51 Catawba, Units 1-2 35 3 6 Lake Wylie L4 OT 0.5 6 65 - 23,600 2.3 B Water and population 1
Lake Wylie, SC [Duke) 81 L Catawba River {0.5) CL
5C-5 Iv 112 Cherokee, Units 1—3 35 2 6 Broad River 2.5 MDCT 0.6 4 32 1,300 1,500 3.8 A Water 2
Cherckee County, SC fDuke! 81 31 99 Island Reservoir (0.24) CS
TN-1 I1I 115 Sequoyah, Units 1-2 35 13 6 Chickamauga Iake 36.5 oT 1 6 - - 525 2.4 D Population and public acceptance 2
Daisy, TN (TVA) 85 5 Tennessee River >(12) (with lagoon)
TN-2 II 271 Watts Bar, Units 1-2 35 36 6 Chickamauga Lake 26 .4 NDCT 0.2 2 - - 1,770 2.5 D Demand 2
Spring City, TN {TVA) 84 L7 Tennessee River (6—12) HP-CS
TN-3 v 122 CRBR — ERDA 35 54 6 Melton Hill Lake L.8 MDCT 0.3 2.8 50 750 1,36k 0.4 B Population and demand 2
Oak Ridge, TN (PMC! 8L 23 Clinch River NA CS
TN-4 v 30 Hartsville, TN, Units 1-%& 36 21 6 Cumberland River 17 NDCT 0.3 3 12 900 1,940 4.9 C Public acceptance 1
Hartsville, TN ’TVA, 86 5 (3-6) Cs
TN-5 VI 34 Phipps Bend, Units 1-2 36 28 6 Holston River 3.6 NDCT 0.6 5.3 18 8Lo 1,270 2.4 B Water and demand 2
Surgoinsville, TN {TVA) 82 Lg {0.8) CS
TX-1 III 115 Commanche Peak, Units 1-2 32 18 8 Squaw Creek Reservoir NA oT 0.1 2 7 - 5,000 2.3 A Water o-1
Glen Rose, TX (TUS) 97 47 (143,200 acre/ft proposed) CL
TX-2 V. 66  Blue Hills, Units 1-2 31 9 8 Toledc Bend Reservoir 8.4 MDCT 0.1 0.2 1.5 56 3,016 1.9 B Water and demand o1
Jasper, TX (GSU) 93 L2 Sabine River (0.7) CS=CL

 

 
Table 1

(continued)

20

 

 

 

 

Reference Latitude, N . Population (thousands) Nuclear generating
1 at
NSIC-55 longitude, W oo . . Cooling water radius (mile) capacity [GW(e)] o
. Name and location —_— e ys1s Present area < as Seismlic
Site No, e q s Reliability . Limiting factors risk
(utility) Council Fl £s/10° Cooli {acres) Potential
Vol, Page Deg Min Source ow-ers/ 0o ing 2 5 10 50 Planned size zone
: av {min) system
category
TX-3 Iv 56 Allens Creek, Units 1-2 29 41 8 Brazos River 7.3 Cs 0.1 2 8 1,500 11,000 2.3 C Water and demand 0
Wallis, TX (HL&P) 96 6 7600 ac, CL NA CL
-4 IV 126 South Texas Project, Units 1-2 28 L8 8 Colorado River 3.2 CS 0.1 0.3 3.2 177 12,350 2.5 B Water and demand 0
Matagorda, TX (HL&P et al.) g6 3 7000 ac. CL (0] CL
Gulf of Mexico 1k miles
VT-1 I 148 Vermont Yankee L2 L7 5 Connecticut River 10.2 MDCT 2 6.6 - - 125 0.5 A Land and population 2
Vernon, VT (VYP) 72 31 Vernon Pond (1.2} vC
VA-1 I 176 Surry, Units 14 37 10 6 James River g OTSC 0.1 1 108 - 840 3.4 B Land and population 1
III 83 Gravel Neck, VA {VEPCO) 76 L2 Tidal Flow (TF) cs
VA-2 IT 157 North Anna, Units 1% 38 L 6 North Anna River 0.4 OT 0.2 1.1 - - 1,075 3.6 A Water 1
I1I 27 Mineral, VA (VEPCO) 71 L7 Reservoir neg CLCS
WA-1 III 9 Hanford, Units 1, 2, 4 and N L6 28 9 Columbia River 115 CT 0 C.05 - 50 380,000 L 4 D Demand 2
VI 26 ERDA Res., Hanford, WA (WPPSS & ERDA) 119 19 >12) cs
WA-2 v 58 WPPSS Units 3 and 5 L6 58 9 Chehalis River 6.6 NDCT 0.1 L 11 400 2,540 2.6 B Water and seismic 3
Elma, WA [WPPSS et al.) 123 28 (O.4) CS
WA-3 v g8 Skagit, Units 1-2 L8 32 9 Skagit River 16.2 NDCT 0.2 2 16 500 1,500 2.6 G Seismic and demand 3
Sedro Woolley, WA (PSP&L et al.) 122 5 (3.1) CS
WI-1 III 35 lacrosse L3 34 L Mississippi River 28 OT 0.5 1.1 8 115 100 0.06 A Land 1
Genoa, WI (DPC) 91 1 8)
WI-2 I 13k Point Beach, Units 1-2 Ly 17 2 lake Michigan NA 0T 0.3 2 - - 1,260 1 B land and population 1
II 13 Two Creeks, WI (WEP & WMP) 87 32
WI-3 II 31 Kewaunee Ly 20 2 lake Michigan NA oT 0.2 3 - - 307 0.5 C Demand 1
Carlton, WI (WPSC) 87 32
WI-4 v 1ko Koshkonong, Units 1-2 h2 52 2 Rock River 0.85 NDCT 0.8 5 46 2,200 1,410 1.8 A Water 1
Ft. Atkinson, WI (WEP, WPRL & WPSC) 88 53 lake Koshkonong neg CS
WI-5 v 9 Tyrone Energy Park hi he L Chippewa River 5.6 CT 0.1 1.2 9 - 4,600 1.2 A Water 1
Durand, WI (NSP) g1 50 (0.5) cs

 

 
21

Table 2, Data summary on several proposed nuclear energy center sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Nuclear generating
latitude, N . Population {thousands) - 2 o
longitude, W Flectric Cooling water radius ‘mile; capacity [GW\EH Se?sElc
) i ris
site No Referen Name and location """ Reliability Present area Fotential Limiting factors ne
. elerence {utility) . - 3 : facres, :
Mi Council : Source Flow-cfs/10 Cooling 5 5 10 50 . ) Planned size
Deg n : av ‘min) system category
. . Demand 2
Pl 9 ERDA Savanneh River Reservoir 33 15 6 Savannah River (Discussed under site GA-2 200,000 P
Augusta, GA 81 = 43 Geol d demand 1
eolo an
P2 9 Savanna Ordnance Depot L2 11 2 Mississippi River 47 ‘ NA Sparse 20,000 © P Poten%{al NEC
Galena, IL 90 17 (6.6, Population and environment 1
» v . atl
P3 9 Aberdeen Prov, Grounds 39 22 3 Chesapeake Bay NA NA Low nigh 29,000 ° ’ Pgigntial NEC
Averdeen, MD &4 12 Population and environment 2
P4 9 Wwestport River 41 30 5 Atlantic Ocean NA NA low high 16,000 ° ¢ Pgiential NEC
Westport, MA T 0 Water and environment 1
A ater
PS5 9 Central New Jersey 39 50 3 Atlantic Ocean NA NA Low nigh 650,000 ° ’
Toms River, NJ Th 26 D a 1
. . : eman
P6 10 Camp Gruber ‘ 35 67 7 Arkansas River 15 NA low medium 70,000 0 C ‘
Mascokee, OK 95 7 . *.52, . ) ] ,
D eman
P7 12 Roosevelt Energy Center Site 45 Ly 9 Columbia River 188 NA 0.1 0.5 0.6 5,000 © Potential NEC
West Roosevelt, WA (PacP&L) 12¢ 14 (75" 4 and lation ]
and popu
P8 9 Sheboygan, WI 43 33 2 Lake Michigan NA NA low medium 19,000 © ¢ peman pop

a7 45

 

 

aNot suitable for NEC,

 

 

 

 
22

Table 3. Key to Tables 1 and 2

 

A, Legend
OT Once through
CT Cooling tower
MD Mechanical draft
ND Natural draft
VC Variable cycle
CS Closed system
CC Cooling canal
CL Cooling lake, or cooling pond
SC Spray canal
NA Not applicable
Lag Lagoon
HP Holding pond

Qry Quarry
n.a. Not available
TF Tidal flow

B. Potential for expansion categories

Category Capacity, GW(e)

 

A <5
B 5-10
C 10-20
D >20

C. Electric Reliability Council regions

1 ECAR East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement
(OH, WV, IN, parts of KY, VA, PA, and most of MI)

2 MAIN Mid-American Interpool Network (IL, parts of MO, WI, and
MI)

3 MAAC Mid-Atlantic Area Council (NJ, DE, most of PA, part of MD)

4 MARCA Mid-Continent Area Reliability Coordination Agreement
(ND, MN, IA, most of SD, parts of NE, MT and Manitoba)

5 NPCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NY, New England,
New Brunswick and Ontario)

6 SERC Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (TN, NC, SC, AL,
GA, FL, parts of MS, VA, KY)

7 SPP Southwest Power Pool (KS, OK, AR, LA, parts of TX, NM, MS,
MO)

8 ERCOT Electric Reliability Council of Texas (most of TX)

9 WSCC Western Systems Coordinating Council (WA, OR, CA, AZ, NV,

T, ID, WY, CO, parts of MT, SD, NE, NM)

D. Utility names and abbreviations

APC Alabama Power Company
APL Arkansas Power and Light
APS Arizona Public Service

 
 

23

Table 3 (continued)

 

Utility names and abbreviations (continued)

BEC
BG&E
CEC
CEI
CG&E
CL&P
ConEd
CPC
CP&L
DEC
DLC
DPC
DP&L
Duke
ERDA
FPC
FP&L
GPC
GSU
HEL
HL&P
IE&PCO
IGEC
IMECO
IPC
JCP&L
KCP&L
KG&E
LILCO
LL&P
MP&L
MYAPCO
NEPC
NEU
NIPS
NMPC
NPPD
NSP
NYSE&G
OEC
OPPD
PacP&L
PASNY
PE
PEPCO
PG&E
PMC
Port GE

Boston Edison Company

Baltimore Gas & Electric Company
Commonwealth Edison Company
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company
Connecticut Light & Power Company
Consolidated Edison Company
Consumers Power Company

Carolina Power & Light Company
Detroit Edison Company

Dugnesne Light Company

Dairyland Power Cooperative
Delaware Power & Light Company
Duke Power Company

Energy Research and Development Administration

Florida Power Corporation

Florida Power & Light Company
Georgia Power Company

Gulf States Utilities Company
Hartford Electric Light Company
Houston Lighting & Power Company
Iowa Electric & Power Company
Il1linois Gas & Electric Company
Indiana & Michigan-Electric Company
Illinois Power Company

Jersey Central Power & Light Company
Kansas City Power & Light Company
Kansas Gas & Electric Company

Long Island Lighting Company
Louisiana Light & Power Company
Mississippi Power & Light Company
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company
New England Power Company

Northeast Utilities

Northern Indiana Public Service Company
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
Nebraska Public Power District
Northern States Power Company

New York State Electric & Gas Corporation
Ohio Edison Company

Omaha Public Power District

Pacific Power & Light Company

Power Authority of the State of New York
Philadelphia Electric Company
Potomac Electric Power Company
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Project Management Corporation
Portland General Electric Company
24

Table 3 (continued)

 

D. Utility names and abbreviations (continued)

PP&L Pennsylvania Power & Light Company
PSC Public Service Company of Colorado
PSE&G Public Service Electric & Gas Company
PSI Public Service Company of Indiana
PSNH Public Service Company of New Hampshire
PSO Public Service Company of Oklahoma
PSP&L Puget Sound Power and Light Company
RG&E Rochester Gas and Electric Company
SCE Southern California Edison

SCE&G South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric Company

SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District
TEC Toledo Edison Company

TUS Texas Utilities Services Incorporated
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

UEC Union Electric Company

VEPCO Virginia Electric Power Company

VYP Vermont Yankee Power Corporation

WEP Wisconsin Electric Power Company

WMP Wisconsin-Michigan Power Company

WP&L Wisconsin Power & Light Company
WPPSS Washington Public Power Supply System
WPSC Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
YEPCO Yankee Electric Power Company

 

The expansion potential of each site is given in terms of the following

four categories:

 

 

Category Number of units® Capacity GW(e) Size class
A <4 <5 Dispersed
B 4—8 5-10 Mini-NEC
C 816 1020 NEC
D >16 >20 Large NEC

 

aUnits of current unit size, 12001300 MwW(e).

Each site is indicated by a symbol indicating its estimated capacity
on the map of the United States (Frontispiece). The potential capacity
category 1is also given in the heading of each site description, as well

as in Tables 1 and 2.
25

5. SITE EVALUATIONS

5.1 Analysis of Existing Sites

 

Sites are listed alphabetically by States, and numbered chronologi-
cally within each State. The site number for each station is also given

in the "Index of Power Stations'" in Sect. 6 of this report. |

Site AL-1: Brown's Ferry Nuclear Station,
Units 1--3, Decatur, Alabama (D) |

This 840 acre site is located on the north shore of Lake Wheeler, an
impoundment of the Tennessee River, at river mile 294 (RM 294). Athens,
Alabama (14,000) is 10 miles NE and Decatur, Alabama (38,000) is 10 miles |
SE. Redstone Arsenal is 25 miles E, and Huntsville, Alabama (150,000) is
30 miles E. The population in the area is sparse, being about 200 within
2 miles, and 3200 within 5 miles. Land use within 5 miles is 757 agri-
culture and the remainder mostly woods.

The foundation geology of the site is good. The site is on the
border of seismic zones 1-2.

The transportation network is good. The site is on the Tennessee
River, U.S. 72 is about 6 miles N, U.S. 31 about 6 miles E, and state
highways connect the site with the two. The L&N RR is 6 miles E of the
site.

The site is on the TVA system with all of its power interties and
transmission interconnections and is within 100—150 miles of large metro-
politan load centers such as Huntsville (194,000) 30 miles, Florence-

Sheffield (94,000) 35 miles, Chattanooga (335,000) 110 miles, Nashville
(560,000) 100 miles, Birmingham (680,000) 90 miles, and Atlanta (1.8 mil-
lion) 165 miles. Consequently, transmission of large amounts of power
from the site should not impose unreasonable economic penalties.

Ample water is available to support a large NEC, it should not be
difficult to acquire additional land, and the site has many favorable
characteristics for and could support a large nuclear energy center.

Other potential NEC sites on the TVA system are Bellefonte Nuclear Sta-

tion, 90 miles upstream, Sequoyah 190 miles upstream and Watts Bar

 

 
 

26

Nuclear Station 245 miles upstream on the Tennessee River. The chief

limitations to the site are the proximity of Huntsville and electrical

demand in context of other electricity generating centers of the TVA system,

In view of other potential NEC sites on the TVA system, there is little .

incentive for concentrating very large blocks of power at any one site.

Site AL-2: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Station, Dothan, Alabama (C)

 

This 800 acre site is located near the Chattahoochee River about }

16 miles E of Dothan, Alabama (37,000). Columbia (850) is about 8 miles N.

Albany, Georgia (73,000) is 60 miles ENE and Columbus, Georgia (167,000)

is 87 miles N. The area is sparsely populated, the nearest house being
nearly a mile from the plant, and there are approximately 2500 residents
within 5 miles. Land use within 5 miles is 50-50 farming and forests.
Acquisition of additional land to enlarge the site would not be a serious
limitation. The transportation network is fair. State highway 95 which
goes close by the site connects with U.S. 84 five miles S and state route
52, a principal through highway, is 5 miles N. River transportation is
available via the Chattahoochee River. The Central of Georgia railroad
goes through Columbia, and the SCL RR through Gordon, about 3 miles S.

The area is in seismic zone 1. There is a high incidence of torna-
does. Large metropolitan load centers within 100 miles of the site are
Montgomery, Alabama (201,000), Columbus, Georgia (220,000), and Talla-
hassee, Florida (125,000). The area within 200 miles includes, in addi-
tion, Atlanta, Georgia (1.8 million), Birmingham, Alabama (680,000) and
Mobile, Alabama (315,000).

In summary, adequate water is available to support an NEC, but pro-
viding emergency cooling water may pose an economic problem. Additional
land would have to be acquired but this doesn't appear to pose any great
difficulty. However, soil liquefaction conditions exist in the region
and large land areas may be needed to find the number of good construction
sites needed for an NEC. Also, the remoteness of load centers will re-
quire transmission of the power over distances up to about 200 miles. The

tornado threat needs to be taken into account in designing and constructing

the center particularly the transmission network. Not withstanding these

 

 
27

disadvantages and based on the cooling water limitation, it appears that

this site with additional land acquisition could support an NEC.

Site AL-3: Alan R. Barton Nuclear Station, Clanton, Alabama (C)

 

This 2800 acre site is located in east central Alabama on the west
bank of the Coosa River at RM 32.6. It is about 6 miles E of Verbena
(400), 15 miles SE of Clanton (6000), 27 miles N of Montgomery (200,000),
and 60 miles SE of Birmingham (680,000). Population density is low in
the immediate area, there being about 1200 people within 5 miles. Land
use within 5 miles is primarily agriculture and forests.

The site is about 13 miles upstream from the Jordan and Walter
Bouldin Hydroelectric Dams and 5 miles downstream from the Mitchell Hydro-
electric Dam. The average flow of 16,000 cfs is the daily average measured
below Jordan Dam, unadjusted for upstream control. The recorded minimum
average discharge below Jordan Dam is 54 cfs. The well developed system
of reservoirs and lakes plus the natural flow of the Coosa River provides
a water source which appears capable of supporting a small NEC.

The transportation network is good, consisting of the Coosa River, the
L&N Railroad at Verbena, and a good highway system in all directions within
5 to 10 miles of the site.

The site is in seismic zone 1 and has a high incidence of tornadoes.

Metropolitan load éenters within 100 miles are Montgomery (200,000),
and Birmingham (680,000). Extending this to 200 miles adds Atlanta
(1.8 million), Huntsville, Alabama (200,000), Chattanooga (335,000),

Mobile (315,000), Tallahassee (125,000), and Columbus, Georgia (220,000).

In summary, available water is probably sufficient to support a small
NEC. Additional land would have to be acquired but this doesn't appear to
present a difficult problem. Much of the generated power would have to be
transmitted over relatively long distances (approximately 200 miles) to

major load centers.

Site AL-4: Bellefonte Nuclear Station, Scottsboro, Alabama (D)

This 1500 acre site is on a peninsula in the Gunterville Reservoir of

the Tennessee River at RM 392. It is on the west shore of the lake about

 
28

7 miles ESE of Scottsboro, Alabama (9400). The small towns of Pisgah
(500) and Hollywood (900) are 5 miles ESE, and 3 1/2 miles WNW, respec-
tively. Huntsville (150,000) is 38 miles W. The population within
2 miles is about 115, within 5 miles 2800, and within 10 miles 18,400.
Land use within 5 miles is agricultural and woods. The Widows Creek coal
fired plant is 15 miles NE. .
The transportation network is good. In addition to the Tennessee
River, the Southern RR is 3 miles NW, and U.S. Highway 72 is 2 miles NW.
The site is in seismic zone 2. The prevailing wind direction is
NE/SW at an average speed of 2 mph.
Load centers within 100 miles are the metropolitan area of Atlanta
(1.8 million), Huntsville (194,000), Chattanooga (335,000) and Birmingham
(680,000). Extending this to 200 miles adds Knoxville (446,000), Nashville
(560,000), Montgomery (200,000), and Columbus, Georgia (220,000).
Generally, the site has many favorable characteristics for an NEC.
Available cooling water is sufficient to support a large NEC. Additional
land would need to be acquired but should not pose a difficult problem.
Major load centers are close enough that transmission should not impose a
major economic penalty. Other potential nuclear energy centers in this
region of the Tennessee River are Browns Ferry 98 river miles downstream.
Plans for any one of these would affect each of the others and must be
taken into account. Limitations to the site are the proximity of Hunts-
ville and the electricity demand in context of other TVA electricity
generating centers. The site is estimated to support a large NEC, but
various factors may limit the size of the NEC. Also in view of the
other potential NEC sites discussed above it is unlikely that large

centers will be developed for a long time.

Site AZ-1: Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Wintersburg, Arizona (A)

This 3800 acre site is in SW Arizona, 15 miles W of Buckeye (2600),
and 36 miles W of Phoenix (600,000). Wintersburg, a small community, is
about 3 miles N. The nearby area is relatively flat desert traversed by
numerous intermittant streams typical of the region and is sparsely

populated.
29

The source of makeup water is waste water effluent from the City of
Phoenix 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant and is the limiting factor to
the generating capacity of the site. The site is in seismic zone 2.

The transportation network consists of railroads 34 miles S and
45 miles N; Interstate 80, 16 miles SE, Interstate 10, 10 miles N, and a
good network of local connecting highways and streets.

The major load center for this station up to 100 miles is Phoenix
with a metropolitan population of 1.2 million. Extending the distance to
200 miles would add Tucson (400,000) and the sparsely populated area of the
southern 2/3 of Arizona and the tip of SE California.

This is a favorable site and may be expanded to a large dispersed

site, but there is not sufficient cooling water to support an NEC.

Site AR-1: Arkansas Nuclear Station, Russellville, Arkansas (B)

 

This 1100 acre site is on a peninsula jutting into the Dardanelle
Reservoir of the Arkansas River about 7 miles upstream from the dam. The
37,000 acre reservoir is owned by the U.S. Government. London (550) is
adjacent to the site, Delaware (150) is across the river about 4 miles
away, and Russellville (12,000) is about 8 miles SE. Hot Springs (38,000)
is about 55 miles S and Little Rock (133,000) about 60 miles SE. The
population within 2 miles of the site is about 800 and within 5 miles
about 8500. Forests cover nearly all the land within a 5-mile radius.

The site is in seismic zomne 1.

Transportation access is via the Arkansas River, U.S. 60 which goes
close-by, and I-40 which is about 1 1/2 miles away. The Missouri Pacific
Railroad runs along the N side of the reservoir and goes through London
and Russellville.

Metropolitan centers within 100 miles are Little Rock (350,000),

Hot Springs (50,000), and Fort Smith (93,000). Extending this to 200
miles adds Memphis (800,000), Springfield (170,000), Shreveport (280,000),
and Greenville (51,000).

Based on mean annual flow sufficient water is available to support the

largest NEC but during low flows the available water is limited. The

Dardanelle Reservoir will greatly reduce these wide variations and it is
 

30

estimated that cooling water could be made available to support an NEC.
Additional land would have to be acquired and the proximity of London
could be an inhibiting factor in this regard. The interstate highway
by the Dardanelle Reservoir and rugged terrain to the north also would
make expansion difficult. Furthermore, load centers which could absorb

the capacity from an NEC are long distances away.

Site CA-1: Humboldt Bay Nuclear Station, Eureka, California (A)

 

This 143 acre site is located on the east shore of Humboldt Bay just
off the Pacific Ocean in Northern California. There are several small
communities with populations of 200 to 650 within 1 1/2 miles. Eureka
(25,000) is 4 miles N. The King Salmon resort is adjacent to the site.
Redding-Enterprise (30,000) is about 120 miles ESE and Santa Rose (50,000)
is 180 miles SSW. Population within 5 miles is about 38,000. Land use
within 5 miles is 45% ocean, residential and commercial around Eureka and
lumbering and farming elsewhere. Two 50 MW(e) fossil units are on the
site with the nuclear unit.

Ocean transportation is available, and U.S. highway 101 is close-by.
The SPRR goes along the east shore of the bay through Eureka and Arcata.
The site is near the boundary of seismic zones 2 and 3. Stability condi-
tions are poor.

The site is distant from load centers and long transmission distances
would be involved in distributing large amounts of excess power.

Water is no limitation but this site would raise environmental issues.
If capacity is to be increased, additional land must be acquired which
may be difficult, particularly in view of the coastal zoning restrictions.
Although the site would otherwise accommodate additional capacity in view
of above limitations it has been assumed that the potential additional

capacity is low.

Site CA-2: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
San Clemente, California (C)

 

 

The 84-acre San Onofre Site is surrounded on the land side by the
Camp Pendleton Marine Base which has been considered as being a favorable

site for a nuclear energy center.
31

Camp Pendleton, itself, encompasses an area of about 150 square miles
but the potential nuclear energy center site is a strip which extends along
the Pacific coast for about 15 miles and encompasses an area of 12 to
15 square miles. The effective area is much larger since it is bounded by
the remainder of Camp Pendleton on the NE and by the Pacific Ocean on
the SW.

The site is about 51 miles NW of San Diego (700,000), and 62 miles
SE of Los Angeles (2.8 million). Oceanside (40,000) is 17 miles SE, San
Clemente (18,000) is about 4 miles NW and several military camps are 2 to
4 miles away within the Camp Pendleton reservation. The population within
2 miles is 0, within 5 miles 25,000, and within 10 miles, 40,000. Land
use within 5 miles is the military reservation and San Clemente.

The Atchison, Topeka and Sante Fe Railroad traverses the site along
its length, paralleling the eight-lane Interstate 5.

The site does not appear to be susceptible to hurricanes or tornadoes,
but it has poor dispersion conditions part of the time and there is some
potential for fogging. It is in seismic zone 3 where major destructive
earthquakes may occur. This is a major restriction imposing a need for
a detailed geologic and engineering analysis, and for plant design and
construction to withstand any earthquakes which might occur.

Major load centers of San Diego (V1.4 million) and Los Angeles
(9 million) are within 50 to 60 miles and should have a demand for all
the power that can be generated from an NEC at this site.

The site has access to the Pacific Ocean water at temperatures from
57°F to 73°F and is one of the most studied coastal areas in the world.
However, the marine environment is highly sensitive and adequate protective
measures would need to be taken.

The site has many features favorable to an NEC, including ample cool-
ing water, lots of potentially available land, and proximity to large
demand areas. The major limitations are the coastal zoning restrictions,
public acceptance, environmental issues and seismic risk. The coastal
zoning restriction creates a major difficulty to increasing the capacity
at the site but considering its many advantages it has been estimated

that the site will accommodate an NEC.
32

Any action to make this site a nuclear energy center would need to
be coordinated with the appropriate military authorities. Under the cur-
rent agreement with the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
further oceanfront expansion is not permitted. Future expansion set back

some distance from the oceanfront could be a possibility.

Site CA-3: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Station, Diablo, California (C)

 

This 750 acre site is remote, located on a bluff overlooking the
Pacific Ocean about 12 miles WSW of San Luis Obispo (28,000). Population
within 5 miles is less than 100, and within 10 miles less than 5000, Pub-
lic beaches and parks within 10 to 15 miles have a large influx of summer
visitors. Land use within 5 miles is undeveloped and wooded.

Ocean transportation to the site is limited by the rugged coast line
and high bluffs. U.S. Highway 101 runs N—S about 9 miles E of the site.
The SP Railroad is close by and goes through Pismo Beach and San Luis
Obispo. The site is in seismic zone 3.

Metropolitan centers are distant: Los Angeles (9 million) 150 miles,
Bakersfield (200,000) 100 miles, Fresno (340,000) 120 miles, Santa Cruz
(110,000) 140 miles, and Santa Barbara (162,000) 80 miles.

Water is no limitation, but additions to this ocean site may raise
public acceptance and environmental issues related to the coastal zoning
restrictions. Although the site is remote and additional land appears to
be available, opposition may develop to the acquisition of the land for
this purpose. Seismic risk is also a major uncertainty. These will be
difficult limitations to overcome but the site is capable of accommodating

an NEC.

Site CA-4: Mendocino Nuclear Station, Mendocino, California (A)

 

This 410 acre site overlooks the Pacific Ocean about 1 1/2 miles NW
of Point Arena (500), 5 miles SSW of Manchester (v150), 25 miles S of
Mendocino (1000) and 130 miles NW of San Francisco metropolitan area

(4.4 million). The area is sparsely populated, there being as of 1970,

600 people within 2 miles, and 1300 within 5 miles. Land use within

 

 
33

5 miles is primarily agriculture and forests. A U.S. Coast Guard LORAN
transmitter is just north of the site.

Ocean transportation to the site is limited by the rugged coast and
steep bluffs. U.S. Highway 101 runs within a mile of the site. There is
no railroad close to the site.

The site is in seismic zone 3. Tornadoes have not been recorded in
the area.

The major metropolitan load centers are distant: San Francisco
(4.5 million) being 130 miles, Santa Rosa (140,000) 60 miles, Sacramento
(750,000) 120 miles. Redding-Enterprise (68,000) 135 miles, and Eureka
(69,000) 120 miles.

The site has many good features for a small nuclear energy center —
unlimited water, available land and low population density. The limita-
tions are public acceptance due to the coastal zoning restrictions, the
seismic uncertainties and the remoteness from load centers. Otherwise,
the site is potentially capable of supporting a mini NEC by acquiring
additional land. However, in view of the problems that have been encoun-
tered in developing the site it is questionable whether it will be devel-

oped to its potential capacity.

Site CA-5: Rancho Seco Nuclear Station,
Clay Station, California (C)

 

 

This 2480 acre site is about 26 miles SE of Sacramento (260,000).
The surrounding area is sparsely populated, there being less than 400
people within 5 miles. Land usage is agricultural and grazing.

The transportation network consists of a number of nearby state
highways. The SP Railroad goes through Sacramento and there is a branch
line close to the site.

The site is in seismic zone 3.

The major load centers are the San Francisco Metropolitan Area (4.5
million) approximately 80 miles, and Sacramento (750,000) 26 miles. The
cooling water source is the Folsom South Canal (5 miles east of the site)
which is under construction. Less than 10% of the 3450 cfs flow of the
Folsom South Canal should provide adequate makeup water for a small nuclear

center but reliability of the flow and whether this amount of water would

 
34

be allocated for power generation needs to be determined. An alternate
source of water is the American River 20 miles away. Since the canal
water is for irrigation, the temperature rise should not be a serious
constraint but the amount of water consumed would be. The surrounding
land is used for cattle grazing, therefore the acquisition of additional
land should not be a serious constraint. Transmission distances are
relatively short and environmental issues should be a minimum for this
site. The site is in a high risk seismic zone which could impose a

serious restraint.

Site CA-6: Sundesert Nuclear Plant, Blythe, California (C)

 

This is a flat to rolling 7040 acre site on Palo Verde mesa
(elev V400 ft msl) 5.5 miles west of the Colorado River and about 14 miles
SSW of Blythe (9000). Nearby communities are Palo Verde (200), 3 miles E,
and Ripley (200), 0.5 miles NE. The area is desert, with foothills to the
N and W, and is very sparsely populated, 0 within 2 miles, 500 with 5
miles, 1000 within 10 miles, and 28,000 within 50 miles. The population
is concentrated in irrigated valleys along the Colorado River, the near-
est being the Palo Verde district.

The site is in seismic zone 2, and the prevailing wind is SSE in
summer, NNW in winter, at an average speed of 7.7 mph. The annual rain-
fall is 4.0 in.

State Highway 78 runs 3 miles E of the site, and I-10 passes through
Blythe. The Colorado River is unfortunately not a route for barge trans-
portation. A branch line of the Santa Fe RR serves Blythe and Ripley.

Major load centers are San Diego (1.4 million) 150 miles, Los
Angeles (9 million) 200 miles, Phoenix (1.2 million) 150 miles, Las Vegas
(340,000) 180 miles, and Yuma (44,000) 50 miles.

The main source of water for this area is the Colorado River, which
is completely regulated by control of flow from upstream reservoirs, with
a mean flow of 8900 cfs at Cibola Valley (RM 620) just below the site.
However, the power plants will use irrigation drainage water taken from

the Palo Verde outfall drain, which returns irrigation drainage to the

river, with a mean flow of 570 cfs and a 10-year monthly minimim flow of

 
35

435 cfs. Since each unit has an average makeup water requirement for
cooling towers of about 24 cfs, there is physically sufficient water
available for many more units. However, obtaining rights to water is

very difficult in this region. The 17,000 acre-ft annually required

for Unit 1 will be obtained by reducing, by the same amount, the diversion
of water from the Colorado River by the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California via the Colorado River Aqueduct. The similar require-
ment for Unit 2 will be met by reducing the water used for irrigation on
land purchased by the utility for its water rights. A further complication
to water use is that the cooling tower blowdown, because of its salinity,
cannot be returned to the river but will instead be evaporated to dryness
in a 500 acre (for 2 units) solar pond.

This site is capable of supporting an NEC. It has several serious
disadvantages, however; the consumptive use of water in a water-short
region; the requirement for evaporation of the cooling tower blowdown;
the inaccessibility to barge transportation for reactor vessels and other
large components; and the long transmission distance to major load centers
(about 200 miles to San Diego). San Onofre, a coastal site, could serve
the same loads and has none of the above disadvantages. Expansion of the
San Onofre site at present is politically not acceptable based mainly on
considerations of coastal land use and seismic risk. If these matters
are resolved in the future so that coastal sites become acceptable,
Sundesert and other inland sites will not likely be considered for large

concentrations of power.

Site CO-1l: Fort St. Vrain, Platteville, Colorado (A)

This 2240 acre site is located on a flat plain between South Platte
River and St. Vrain Creek. It is 2 1/2 miles NW of Platteville (700) and
35 miles N of Denver (515,000). Greeley (39,000) is about 14 miles NW.
Population density in the area is low, being about 200 within 2 miles, less
than 2000 within 5 miles and less than 9000 within 10 miles. Most of the
land within 20 miles is agricultural. The site is located in seismic zone l.
The present reactor is about 2 miles south of the confluence of the

St. Vrain Creek and the South Platte River. The flow of these streams
36

varies widely through the year and uncertainty on the amounts of water
available results from drawoff and returns for irrigation. Due to the
extensive use of water for irrigation during the summer — the season of
greatest natural flow — the flow of the streams may be inadequate. Con- .
sequently, the station has a battery of wells to supplement the river flow
when required. Thus, water availability is the limiting factor to putting ’
any additional capacity at the site.
Other conditions such as transportation, population density, close-
ness to load centers, seismic zone and land availability are good, but

are not discussed further in view of the water limitation,

Site CT-1: Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Station,
Haddam, Connecticut (A)

 

This 525 acre site is between the Connecticut and Salmon River at
their junction, about 18 miles NW of where the Connecticut flows into
the ocean. River water at the site is fresh but a salt water wedge just
reaches the site. The site is about 1 mile across the Connecticut River
from Haddam (400). Several small communities are close to the site and
the Haddam Meadows State Park is less than 1 mile away. The proximity
of these communities are limiting factors to expansion of the site area.
Meridian (56,000) is 16 miles WNW and Hartford (400,000) is about 25 miles
NNW. Land use within 5 miles is 80% wooded plus the small communities
described above.

Access to the site is from State Route 151. State Highway 9 and the
New York, New Haven, and Hartford RR are on the SW side of the river
across from the site.

The site is in seismic zone 2. The area has occasional high winds
and tornadoes.

There are several major metropolitan load centers within 50 to 100
miles of the site; Providence (900,000) 60 miles, Springfield, Massachu-
setts (500,000) 50 miles, Hartford (vl million) 25 miles, Waterbury
(210,000) 30 miles, New Haven-Meridian-Bridgeport-Westport (V1 million)
25 to 50 miles.

The site has adequate water for more plants but is likely to be

capacity limited by population density and land availability. Metropolitan

 
37

Hartford is about 25 miles northwest and there are several small com-
munities close to the site. It has been assumed that a small amount of
additional capacity can be put at the site but this needs to be confirmed
by a more detailed population analysis. The Millstone station is 20 miles

SE, on the Long Island Sound.

Site CT-2: Millstone Nuclear Station, New London, Connecticut (A)

 

This 500 acre site is 3 miles WSW of New London, Connecticut (32,000)
and 40 miles SE of Hartford (400,000) on a peninsula where the Niantic
River flows into the Niantic Bay. Long Island Sound is just south of the
site. The village of Niantic (4000) is 1.5 miles NW and there is a
residential area 1/2 mile NE of the site. New London (32,000) is about
3 miles ENE. Population within a 2 mile radius including summer-beach
people is less than 5000, but within a 5 mile radius there could be up
to 60,000. Much of the area within 5 miles is water, the land is 73%
agriculture, 11% recreational, and 9% residential. The residential areas
and small communities are limiting factors to expansion of the site. The
Connecticut-Yankee Nuclear Station is 20 miles NW on the Connecticut River.
The site is in seismic zone 2.

The Penn Central RR runs E-W across the northern boundary. State
highways give road access to the site which also has access by water.

The site is well situated with respect to serving major load centers
(see Site CT-1).

The limitations to the site are population density and land avail-
ability due to the proximity of small residential areas. It has been
estimated that the site will support a large dispersed nuclear station but

not an NEC.

Site DE-1: Summitt Nuclear Station, Mt. Pleasant, Delaware (C)

 

This 1800 acre site is about 1 mile S of the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal, 3 miles N of Mount Pleasant (500) and 5.5 miles E of Chesapeake
City, Maryland (1100). The mean tidal range in the canal at the site is

3.8 ft. The immediate site area is not densely populated but there are

 

 
38

several towns and a population of 42,000 within 10 miles. Wilmington,
Delaware (81,000) is about 15 miles NNE and Philadelphia ("2 million)

about 45 miles NE. Water availability does not appear to be a limiting
factor but this needs to be checked further. Environmental impacts on the
canal need to be taken into account, and may constitute a limiting factor
on further additions. The land on either side of the canal is owned by the
U.S. Government and is designated the Canal Wildlife Area.

Transportation access is by the canal; U.S. Highway 13-301 which is
2 miles E, and State Highway 896 1.5 miles SW. The Penn Central Railroad
runs within a few miles of the site. The site is in seismic zone 2.

The site is within 50 miles of major metropolitan load centers;
Wilmington (81,000) about 5 miles, Philadelphia (%v5 million) 45 miles,
Baltimore (V2 million) 50 miles, and Washington (V3 million) 90 miles.

The site has many good features for a nuclear energy center. It is
close to large demand centers, the canal provides a large supply of cool-
ing water, and nearby population densities are low. It appears that
additional land might be available south of and parallel to the canal;
however, the Canal Wildlife Area probably would have to be excluded.
Also, Mount Pleasant limits expansion to the S. An uncertain limiting
factor would be the environmental impacts on the canal and adjoining land
areas. For the purpose of this report it has been assumed that the site

can support a small NEC.

Site FL-1: Turkey Point Nuclear Station, Florida City, Florida (C)
(South Dade Nuclear Station, South Dade, Florida)

 

 

This 3300 acre site is on the west shore of Biscayne Bay about

25 miles S of Miami (V.5 million). About 5 to 8 miles across Biscayne
Bay a chain of off-shore islands separates the bay from the ocean. The
site is located in low swampy land typical of the coasts of south Florida.
Urban developments in the region begin about 7 miles N and W of the site,
with population patterns becoming dense along the coast going N toward
Miami. Florida City (5200) and Homestead (14,000) are WNW about 10 miles.
Otherwise, the area is sparsely populated, there being less than 100

people within 5 miles and around 90,000 within 10 miles. The land within
 

39

5 miles is mostly swampy and undeveloped with some agriculture in the NW
portion. Two coal fired units are on the site adjacent to the nuclear
units. Hawk Missile Base is 1 1/2 miles NW.

Water transportation access is available via Biscayne Bay. U.S.
Highway 1 is about 9 miles from the site, and the Florida East Coast RR
runs nearby U.S. 1.

The site is in seismic zone 0 but is subject to strong winds.

The site is 25 to 100 miles from the densely populated region along
the coast extending from Miami north to West Palm Beach. The permanent
population is about 2.5 million people with seasonal populations much
higher.

The site has many advantages for a nuclear energy center including
ample water, close to a high demand area, low seismic risk zone, remote-
ness, and low population density in the nearby area. The present land
area is inadequate for a nuclear energy center but the Florida Power and
Light Company owns thousands of acres of additional land adjacent to its
cooling canals for the Turkey Point Station and even more land could be
acquired if needed.

The chief limitation to the site is disposal of the effluent water in
a way to meet the regulatory requirements on temperature rise and not
create unacceptable envirommental problems in so doing (see Wash. 1319).17
For the present units this has been done by constructing an extensive sys-
tem of cooling channels and canals but this resulted in some impacts on
the flora and fauna of the region. The extent to which this can be
extended to meet the cooling water requirements for a larger generating
capacity can only be determined through a more detailed analysis of the
problems and trade-offs involved. No attempt has been made to do such an
analysis and for this report it is estimated that an extended site will

support an NEC.

Site FL-2: Crystal River Nuclear Station,
Crystal River, Florida (C)

 

 

This 4738 acre site is on the Gulf of Mexico, 7 1/2 miles NW of
Crystal River, 52 miles SW of Gainesville (65,000) and 70 miles N of Tampa

(310,000). Nearby population density is low, there being no people within

 
40

2 miles and less than 100 within 5 miles. The small village of Red Level
adjoins the site on the N and Crystal River (1700) is about 6 to 7 miles
SE. The nearby land is flat mangrove swamps and marshland. Land use
within 5 miles is 80% wooded and swamp and 207% pasture. Two oil fired .
plants are located on the site.

Transportation access is by water and U.S. Highway 19 which runs v
nearby east of the site. A branch of the SCL RR runs into Crystal City.

The site is in seismic zone 0 but high winds, tornadoes and hurri-
canes are frequent.

Load centers which could be served from the site are the metropolitan
areas of: Tampa-St. Petersbury-Clearwater (1.2 million) 75-80 miles,
Sarasota-Bradenton (244,000) 115 miles, Lakeland (104,000) 75 miles,
Orlando (500,000) 90 miles, Daytona Beach (125,000) 95 miles, Gainesville
(97,000) 52 miles, and Jacksonville (600,000) 110 miles.

The site has ample water, available land for acquisition, low nearby
population density and is reasonably close to major load centers. The
chief limitation appears to be possible environmental impacts which are
difficult to assess without a comprehensive detailed analysis. Long
transmission distances to demand centers will become a limiting factor
for large capacity centers. For this report it is estimated that with

the acquisition of additional land the site can support an NEC.

Site FL-3: St. Lucie Nuclear Station, Fort Pierce, Florida (A)

 

This 1132 acre site is on a narrow strip of land just off the coast
of Florida. The Indian River which is the intercoastal waterway, lies
between the island and the mainland. The Atlantic Ocean is on the other
side of the island.

The population is sparse being less than 2000 within 5 miles, but
several small communities are located along the mainland side of the
Waterway. Fort Pierce (30,000) is 8 miles NNE and White City (600),
Ankona, Watson, and Jenson Beach (900), are within 5 to 6 miles. Melbourne
(41,000) is 55 miles NNE and West Palm Beach (61,000) is 45 miles SSE.

Most of the land within 5 miles of the site is undeveloped or recreational

with limited residences as noted.

 

 
41

Transportation access is by the Intercoastal Waterway, U.S. Highway 1
which is a few miles west and a state highway which runs through the site.
The main line of the FEC RR runs along the beach across Indian River from
the site.

The site is in seismic zone O but is subjected to high winds and
hurricanes.

Major metropolitan load centers are the West Palm Beach-Miami strip
("“v2.5 million) 45 to 120 miles, Tampa-Clearwater-St. Petersburg (1.5 mil-
lion) 150 miles, Orlando (500,000) 110 miles, and Daytona Beach (125,000)
150 miles.

The two limiting factors to the site are the lack of capability for
land expansion and the need to protect the enviromment. The effectiveness
of the site is enhanced, however, by it being bounded on all sides by
water, and by the narrow strip of land on which the site is located run-
ning for many miles parallel to the mainland. Thus, it may be feasible
to spread sites out along this strip. Even the present site with its
water boundaries conceivably can accommodate a large dispersed nuclear
station. However, the site is presently considered not expandable be-
cause of land-use restrictions. Beyond some capacity, the long distances
to major load centers would become a limitation. Also, the Turkey Point

Nuclear Station would serve some of the same load centers.

Site GA-1: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Station, Baxley, Georgia (C)

 

This 2244 acre site is on the south side of the Altamaha River about
1 mile E of U.S. Highway 1. Baxley (3500) is about 11 miles S and Savannah
(120,000) is about 75 miles ENE. The area is sparsely populated with less
than 1000 people within 5 miles. The land is primarily wooded (70%) with
a small amount of agriculture.
U.S. Highway 1 is about a mile east of the plant. The nearest rail-
road is 10 miles but a spur has been constructed to the site. The site
is in seismic zone 1. There is a potential for-hurricanes and tornadoes.
Metropolitan load centers which can be accommodated from the site

are: Savannah (185,000) 65 miles, Augusta (215,000) 95 miles, Macon
42

(220,000) 90 miles, and Jacksonville (595,000) 100 miles. Atlanta
(1.7 million) is about 170 miles.

This site is a potential nuclear energy center with many favorable
characteristics. Ample cooling water is adequate for 12 to 24 GW(e),
additional land appears available for acquisition, population density
poses no problem, and envirommental problems appear routine. Providing
for the necessary emergency cooling water could‘be a major engineering
and economic problem and might constitute the primary restriction to the
site's capacity. Also, for a large center transmission distances might
go up to 200 miles and this cost would need to be weighed against the
advantages. It is estimated that an expanded site could accommodate an

NEC.

Site GA-2: Allen W. Vogtle, Waynesboro, Georgia
(and the ERDA Savannah River Reservation) (D)

 

This approximately 3200 acre site is on a bluff overlooking the
Savannah River at about RM 151, across the river from the ERDA Savannah
River Reservation. The site is approximately 15 miles ENE of Waynesboro
(v5600) and 26 miles SE and downstream of Augusta (60,000). The region
is sparsely populated, the population being less than 5000 within 10 miles,
and less than 600,000 within 50 miles.

The land usage within a 5-mile radius is 50% ERDA Savannah River
Reservation, 30% farming, and the rest wooded.

Transportation is good with access to river traffic, the Central of
Georgia Railroad about 12 miles away, and Georgia Highway 23 about
5 miles SW.

The foundation geology of the site is good but the soil may be sub-
ject to liquefaction under seismic conditions. The site is in seismic
zone 2. The prevailing wind direction is NW with an average speed of
6.5 mph. Meteorological conditions are fair, the dispersion conditions
being poor, with a potential for fogging. There is a possibility of
hurricanes or tornadoes.

The site is reasonably well located with respect to the major load

centers of the southeast. Metropolitan population areas within 50 miles

 
43 |

are: Augusta (220,000), Columbia (330,000), and Savannah (185,000).
Extending the distance to 100 miles does not add any large population
centers but extending it to 150 miles brings in: Macon (220,000),
Charleston (300,000), Greenville (300,000), Charlotte (450,000). and
Atlanta (1.8 million).

The 200,000 acre ERDA (formerly AEC) Savannah River Reservation east
of the site on the South Carolina side of the river, provides an alternate
location for a nuclear energy center. It has the additional advantages
of being under governmental control with a number of nuclear facilities
already located on the site. Also, the Gulf-Allied Nuclear Fuel Repro-
cessing Facility is a few miles east near Barnwell, South Carolina.

Both the Vogtle Nuclear Station Site and the ERDA Savannah River
Reservation Site have many favorable features for a nuclear energy center.
The Savannah River provides adequate cooling water for a large NEC. Ample
land is available to enlarge the site area (the Savannah River Reservation
has sufficient land). Population density is low for a large region
around the site, foundation conditions are good with the exception of a
potential soil liquefaction problem and no unusual environmental problems
seem evident. The seismic zone is 2 which is acceptable with proper
engineering and construction of facilities. The major limitations are the
long distances to load centers, the tendency of the soil to liquify under
certain conditions may pose severe economic penalties which for a large
capacity center must be weighed against other advantages of the site.

It is estimated that either site will support a large NEC. The
ERDA Savannah River facility has some operating reactors and these will
have to be taken into account should an NEC be contemplated for either

site.

Site IL-1: Dresden Nuclear Station, Morris, Illinois (B)

 

This 953 acre site is located on the WSW side of the junction of the
Des Plaines and Kankakee rivers to form the Illinois River. The site is
about 10 miles ENE of Morris, Illinois (8200). Joliet (80,000) is
14 miles NE and Chicago (4 million) is 47 miles NE. Population within

2 miles is less than 100, and within 5 miles about 2600, and within

 
bt

10 miles about 25,000. Land use within 5 miles is primarily agri-

culture and a few industrial activities. The industrial activities in-

clude the General Electric Company's Nuclear Plant Training Center and

Midwest Fuel Recovery Facility which is south of the site. A large ‘
abandoned strip mine is also located in the area.

Transportation access is by the Illinois River, a state highway just .
south of the site, and I-66 about 3 miles south. A railroad line also is
within about 3 miles of the site.

The site is in seismic zone 1. The prevailing wind is NE with an
average speed of 10 mph.

The site is well located to serve the major load center of metropoli-
tan Chicago (7 million) 47 miles north. However, there are other sites
which can serve the same purpose. Other nearby load centers are the
metropolitan areas of Rockford (240,000) 70 miles, Quad-Cities (310,000)
115 miles, Peoria (300,000) 85 miles, Bloomington (83,000) 75 miles,
Champaign-Urbana (125,000) 90 miles, Lafayette, Indiana (105,000) about
100 miles, and Joliet (80,000) 14 miles.

Water availability will support a small nuclear energy center.

Other favorable features are low close-by population density and reasonable
proximity to load centers sufficient to absorb the generated power.
Additional land would need to be acquired which may be difficult due to

its high agricultural value. Overall the site is marginal for an NEC.

The LaSalle County site, potential nuclear energy center, is about
24 miles downstream on the Illinois River. The Zion Nuclear Station (of

limited capacity) is on Lake Michigan 40 miles N of Chicago.

Site IL-2: Zion Nuclear Station, Zion, Illinois (A)

 

This 250 acre site is on the west shore of Lake Michigan and adjacent
to Zion (18,000). The population density near the site is high, the
estimated population by 1985 being 26,000 people within 2 miles. Metro-
politan Chicago (7 million) is 40 miles south. The site is bounded by
the Illinois Beach State Park on the south, a city park on the north,

the city of Zion on the west, and Lake Michigan on the east. Thus, it

 
S

45

is unlikely that the land area of the site can be expanded. This, with the

population density problem, places limiting restrictions on the site,

Site IL-3: Quad-Cities Nuclear Statiomn, Cordova, Illinois (B)

 

This 404 acre site is located on the east side of the Mississippi
River about 3 miles north of Cordova, Illinois (600), and opposite
the confluence of the Wapsipinican River with the Mississippi. Clinton,
Iowa (57,000) is about 8 miles N and the Quad Cities, Davenport-

Rock Island-Moline-East Moline (220,000) about 18 miles SSW. Population
density is low within 2 miles and is about 12,000 within 5 miles. Land
use within 5 miles is primarily agriculture but there is a small indus-
trial park to the north and a wildlife refuge across the river from the
site.

Transportation access is via the Mississippi River, State Highway 64
which goes close by the site, and the CB&Q Railroad which goes through
Cordova.

The site is in seismic zone 1. It has strong winds.

Load centers available to the site are: Clinton (57,000) 8 miles,
Dubuque (75,000) 65 miles, Cedar Rapids (110,000) 75 miles, Quad Cities
(310,000) 18 miles, Burlington, Iowa (55,000) 75 miles, Galesburg (40,000)
60 miles, Peoria (300,000) 80 miles, and Rockford (240,000) 70 miles.
Chicago (7 million) is about 140 miles.

Water availability is no limitation. Additional land to enlarge the
site could be obtained but is limited by the surrounding communities of
Cordova, Erie, Fenton, and Albany. Also, population density at 15 to 20
miles becomes a limiting factor. Thus, the site is limited by land and
population and probably will not accommodate a nuclear energy center.

For a large capacity NEC demand might also become a limiting factor.

The closest other planned nuclear stations on the Mississippi River
are Lacrosse, Genoa, Wisconsin, and Prairie Island, Red Wing, Minnesota
about 200 and 300 river miles north respectively; and River Bend, St.

Francisville, which is more than 500 river miles to the south.

 

 
46

Site TL-4: LaSalle County Nuclear Station, Seneca, Illinois (C)

This 500 acre site is about 3-1/2 miles south of the Illincis River
and about 5 miles south of Seneca (1800). Joliet (80,000) is about 30
miles NE, and Chicago (7 million) about 60 miles NE. Population density
in the immediate area is low, there being only slightly more than 1000
people within 5 miles. Land use is predominantly agriculture farmland of
high productivity. Several small communities are within 5 to 6 miles.

The site will contain a large (2400 acre) cooling lake, the cooling water
coming from the Illinois River.

Transportation access is by local highways which cross the site,
the Illinois River 3-1/2 miles north and U.S. Highway 6 which goes through
Seneca. A branch line RR will connect the site with the Atchinson,

Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad 4 miles north. The site is in seismic zone 1.

The site is 24 miles SW of the Dresden Nuclear Station and could
serve approximately the same load centers. It is about 90 miles SE of the
Quad-Cities Nuclear Station, and about 70 miles NNW of Byron Nuclear
Station.

Water from the Illinois River is sufficient to support a nuclear '
energy center of 12 to 18 GW(e). Other favorable factors are low popula-
tion density, low seismic risk zone, and proximity to large load centers.
However, these same load centers can be served from the alternate sites
listed above as well as others not listed. The chief limiting factor is
probably the availability of sufficient land. The nearby land is high
quality agricultural land and its use for an NEC will generate questions
as to whether this is the highest value use of the land (see Wash. 1319).17

It is estimated that the site can support an NEC, but land avail-

ability is marginal.

Site IL-5: Byron Nuclear Station, Byron, Illinois (A)

This 1430 acre site is about 1-1/2 miles east of Rock River and .
about 3-1/2 miles SSW of of Byron, Illinois (1800). Rockford (150, 000)
is 17 miles NE. Population within 5 miles is about 6100, and within .

10 miles about 20,000. . Land use within 5 miles is agriculture, with

 
47

2 small communities: Byron 3-1/2 miles NNE, and Oregon (3600) 5 miles
SSW. The Rockford Drag Strip with a yearly attendance of about 70,000 is
3 miles NNE.

County Highway 2 runs along the east boundary of the site, State
Highway 2 is 1-1/2 miles on the other side of Rock River, and State High-
way /2 is about 2 miles N. The Chicago-Milwaukee Railroad is about
3 miles N.

The prevailing wind direction is NW in winter and S in summer.
Average wind speed is 10 mph. The site is in seismic zone 1.

The Quad-Cities Nuclear Station is about 60 miles SW, the LaSalle
County Nuclear Station about 70 miles SSE, and the Dresden Nuclear Station
about 70 miles SE.

Major load centers within 100 miles are: the metropolitan areas of
Chicago (7 million) 100 miles, Rockford (240,000) 17 miles, Milwaukee
(1.3 million) 85 miles, Madison (265,000) 65 miles, Dubuque (76,000)

70 miles, Quad Cities (310,000) 75 miles, Galesburg (42,000) 95 miles,
Peoria (300,000) 95 miles, and Joliet (80,000) 75 miles.

The site is well situated with respect to serving major load centers
though some of these same load centers could be served from other sites.
Water based on 10% of the 1 day low flow of Rock River will support only
about 1.6 GW(e), but an assessment based on 10% of the annual 20-year low
flow indicates that the site would support 6 to 12 GW(e) of capacity.
Therefore, water is the limiting factor. Land is a mild limiting factor
but additional land probably could be acquired up to the size required
to meet the water limitations.

It is estimated that the site has insufficient water for an NEC.

Site IL-6: Braidwood Nuclear Station, Braidwood, Illinois (A)

This 4320 acre site is 20 miles SSW of Joliet (80,000) near the com-
munity of Godley (about 250) and three miles W of the Kankakee River. It
is located on a coal strip mine area which will be used for a 2640 acre
cooling lake. The makeup water will be drawn from the Kankakee River.
Population within 2 miles is 2000 and within 5 miles about 9000.

Land use within 5 miles is predominately agriculture, but there are
48

four state parks within a 10 miles radius. Joliet Arsenal is about 8
miles NNE.

State Highway 129 and 53 run adjacent to the site on the NW corner.
The GMO Railroad runs between the two highways, within about 1/4 mile of
the nearest reactor.

The site is in seismic zone 1. Atmospheric diffusion conditions are
fairly good.

The site is 10 miles SSE of the Dresden Nuclear Station, 20 miles
E of the LaSalle County Nuclear Station, and could serve the same load
centers. It is only 45 miles SW of the center of Metropolitan Chicago
(7 million).

Availability of cooling water is the limiting factor on the generating
capacity which can be accommodated at the site and is insufficient to sup-

port more than a large dispersed site.

Site IL-7: Clinton Nuclear Station, Clinton, Illinois (A)

 

This 15,000 acre site is six miles E of Clinton, Illinois (7600) on
a peninsula in the proposed reservoir made by damming Salt Creek and
North Fork Salt Creek. Dewitt (200) is 3 miles ENE. Champaign-
Urbana (90,000) is about 40 miles E. The area is sparsely populated,
there being about 1200 people within 5 miles. Land use within 5
miles is predominantly agriculture. Weldon Springs State Park is 6 miles
SW.

U.S. Highway 54 and State Highways 10 and 48 pass through the site.
The Illinois Central Railroad crosses the site.

Indications are that water availability will not support additional

capacity at the site, thus, other site features are not discussed further.

Site IN-1: Bailly Nuclear Station, Westchester, Indiana (A)

 

This 350 acre site is on the southeastern shore of Lake Michigan
about 10 miles NE of Gary, Indiana (182,000) and about 25 miles E of the
center of Chicago (7 million). Dune Acres (300) is 2 miles E and Porter

(3100 is 3.2 miles SSW. Population within 2 miles is about 1000, and

o
49

within 5 miles about 27,000. Land use surrounding the site is mixed
industrial, recreational, and agricultural. To the S and SW of the site
is a large Bethlehem Steel Corporation plant. Further heavy industry

is found to the W including the Port of Indiana 4 miles along the lake.
The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore lies immediately to the E of the
site. Industrial, urban and other built-up areas lie to the S together
with various types of agricultural land. The site contains two coal-
fired units [194 MW(e) and 422 MW(e)] and a gas turbine peaking unit
[33MW(e)]. A NIKE Missile Site (C-32) is 2-1/2 miles SE of the site.

U.S. Highway 12 runs along the SE border and U.S. Highway 20 passes
within 2 miles. Water access is available via Lake Michigan.

Expansion of the site is restricted by the surrounding recreational,
industrial, and residential areas making it unsuitable for more than a
dispersed site. Other limiting factors are the high population densities
beyond about 10 miles and the environmental issues involved in the con-
struction for nuclear power stations.

Recently a court ruling banned construction of the 650 MW(e) station
planned for the site by the Northern Indiana Public Service Co. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has successfully appealed this ruling,
but the addition of other units would again raise environmental and
public acceptance issues. The Dunes form a relatively rare and complex
ecosystem and have played a significant role in the development of ecology.
This and other ecological aspects of the area indicate that environmental
issues could be a limiting factor to further development of this site. 1In
this connection see Wash. 1319'7 for a more detailed discussion of this

problem.

Site IN-2: Marble Hill Nuclear Station, Marble Hill, Indiana (C)

This 987 acre site is located on a bluff 2400 ft W of the Ohio River
6 miles ENE of New Washington (500). Other nearby towns are Bedford,
Kentucky (780) 7 miles E, Hanover, Indiana (3018) 7.8 miles N, and Madison
(13,081) 10.7 miles NNE. Several unincorporated communities of less than

500 people and within 5 miles of the site are: Paynesville 3 miles WNW,
50

Saluda 4.5 miles NW, Bethlehem 4.5 miles SSE, and Wise Landing 3.7 miles
SE. Louisville (360,000) is 30 miles SSW.

The population within 2 miles is about 300, within 5 miles about
2400 and within 10 miles about 19,000. Land use is farming in valleys
and wooded (25%) on steep slopes. Clifty Falls State Park is 11 miles
NNE and attracts about 50,000 visitors annually.

The site is in seismic zone 0. The prevailing wind direction is SSW
at an average speed of 7 mph.

Indiana State Route 62 is the closest major highway, 4 miles W of the
site. Local roads lead to the site. U.S. 421 is across the river in
Kentucky 7 miles E. A spur railroad will be built to the site from the
C&C System 10 miles W. Water access is available via the Ohio River.

Metropolitan load centers within 59 miles are: Louisville (870,000);
within 100 miles adds: Indianapolis ("1 million), Cincinnati (1.4 million),
Lexington (235,000), Bloomington (80,000), and Anderson (145,000).

This site has ample cooling water for a large NEC, is reasonably
close to major load centers, is located in a low population density area
and is in a low seismic zone. The chief limiting factor appears to be land
availability because of the several small towns in the area. However, a
map analysis indicates that sufficient land might be made available to
support an NEC. Since much of the land involved is high value agri-
cultural land, the economic feasibility of its use for an NEC would need
to be studied in greater detail.

It is estimated that the site with the acquisition of additional

land could support an NEC.

Site TA-1: Duane Arnold Nuclear Station, Palo, Iowa (A)

This 480 acre site is located on the Cedar River near Palo, Iowa
(“400) and about 10 miles NNW of Cedar Rapids (110,000). The area is
sparsely populated, about 300 people within 2 miles and less than 3000
within 5 miles. Land use within 5 miles is agriculture 80% and wooded 20%.

State Highway 94 runs near the site and Interstate 380 is across the
river about 3 miles E. The CRI&P Railroad runs through Palo near the

site, The site is in seismic zone 1.
51

Load centers within 100 miles are the metropolitan areas of: Burling-
ton, Iowa (39,000) 90 miles, Cedar Rapids (150,000) 10 miles, Quad Cities
(310,000) 70 miles, Clinton, Iowa (40,000) 80 miles, Dubuque (76,000)
. 65 miles, Waterloo (127,000) 45 miles, and Des Moines (310,000) 100 miles.

Assuming that 5% of -the average flow of Cedar River can be used for

? makeup water, the available water would support 6 GW(e) of electric gener-
ating capacity. However, low flow conditions would be determining and a
more detailed analysis is needed to establish the limit set by these
conditions. Additional land would need to be acquired to support this
capacity but this appears to not pose an insurmountable problem. The ‘
proximity of Cedar Rapids might pose a population problem but the site |
could be expanded in a direction away from Cedar Rapids.
In summary, the site has insufficient water to support more than the
capacity of a dispersed site.
\
Site KS-1: Wolf Creek Nuclear Station, Burlington, Kansas (A) |
This 1100 acre site is about 3-1/2 miles NE of Burlington (2100)
and 28 miles ESE of Emporia, Kansas (24,000). It is 75 miles SW of
Kansas City, Kansas and 55 miles S of Topeka, Kansas. It is on the east
side of a proposed 6000 acre man-made lake formed by impounding Wolf
1 Creek which drains into the Neosho River. Makeup water to help fill the
cooling lake will come from the Neosho River John Redmond Reservoir 3.6
miles W of the site. The reservoir has recreational use and is the site
of a wildlife refuge. Other land use within a 5 mile radius is 46Y%
rangeland and 367 agriculture. The population is sparse being less than
100 within 2 miles and 2500 within 5 miles.
U.S5. Highway 75 runs between the site and the John Redmond Reservoir.
A county road runs just north of the site. The nearest railroad is 9.5
miles SE.
The site is near the boundary of seismic zone 1 and 2. The pre-
vailing wind direction is SSE in summer and NNW in winter at an average

speed of 11 mph.

 
52

Load centers within 100 miles are the metropolitan areas of: Joplifi,
Missouri (67,000) 100 miles, Kansas City (1.2 million) 90 miles, Topeka
(150,000) 55 miles, Manhattan-Junction City (50,000) 80 miles, and
Wichita (345,000) 95 miles.

Water is the limiting factor for this site and it is questionable
whether the available amount is sufficient to support more than the pres-

ently planned capacity.

Site LA-1: Waterford Nuclear Station, Taft, Louisiana (A)

This 3600 acre site is on the SW side of the Mississippi River about
22 miles W of New Orleans (665,000) and just W of Hahnville (2500). In a
2 mile radius from the plant there are about 1700 people and in 5 miles,
16,000. Land use within 5 miles is industrial along the river, agri-
cultural and residential back from the river. Two coal fired plants will
be located on the same site.

Transportation access is via the Mississippi River, State Highway 18
and the T&P Railroad.

The site is in seismic zone 1.

Major load centers which can be served from the site are the metro-
politan areas of: New Orleans (1.3 million) 22 miles, Baton Rouge
(370,000) 50 miles, Lafayette (134,000) 96 miles, Hattiesburg (58,000)
110 miles, and Gulf Port-Biloxi (175,000) 100 miles.

The River Bend Site is more than 100 river miles up the Mississippi
River N of Baton Rouge.

This site is land and population limited. It is hemmed in on three
sides by industrial areas, the Mississippi River, and small communities.
It possibly could expand SW from the river into the agricultural area.
Population probably is the primary limiting factor due to the proximity
of New Orleans and small nearby communities. Based on the present site

it is estimated that the capacity is limited to that of a dispersed site.

 
53

Site LLA-2: River Bend Nuclear Station,
St. Francisville, Louisiana (D)

This 3292 acre site is located on the E bank of the Mississippi River
near RM 262 and is "3 miles SE of St. Francisville (2000). Baton Rouge
(166,000) is 24 miles SSE. The population within 5 miles is less than
4000, and within 10 miles less than about 20,000. The nearest town over
2500 population is Port Gibson (2600), 5 miles away. Land usage within
5 miles is agricultural and commercial forests. The Audubon State Park
is about 5 miles NE.

The transportation network is good. The Mississippi River flows by
the site, the Illinois Central Railroad and State Highway 965 runs through
the site and U.S. Highway 61 is within 1 mile of the site.

The site is susceptible to hurricanes and tornadoes, probably has
poor dispersion conditions, and has the potential for fogging. The
seismic zone is 1. Six natural gas pipelines run within 5 miles of the
site.

The site is distant from major load centers except New Orleans. The
metropolitan areas within 100 miles are: Baton Rouge (370,000), Natchez
(42,000), Alexandria (100,000) and New Orleans (1.2 million). Extending
to 200 miles would include the metropolitan areas of Mobile, Jackson,
Greenville, Gulf Port-Biloxi, Shreveport, Monroe, Lake Charles, Hatties-
burg, and Beaumont with a total population of about 1.5 million.

The site has potential as a nuclear energy center and was one of two
sites discussed in detail in WASH-1288.!'! It was also one of the potential
nuclear energy sites identified by the AEC's Office of Planning and
Analysis.9 Additional land would be needed but can be acquired. Water
capacity is sufficient for a large NEC. The chief limiting factor is
the distance from load centers. New Orleans is only about 100 miles away
but is served by other generating statioms.

It is estimated that the site will support a large NEC but the demand

may not support a large capacity for a long time,
54

Site ME-1: Main Yankee Nuclear Station, Wiscasset, Maine (B)

 

This 740 acre site a few miles SSW of Wiscasset (Vv1800) is surrounded
on the E and S by Back River and Montsweog Bay — all tidal estuary waters.,
The Atlantic Ocean is about 15 miles S. Within a 2-mile radius there are
about 400 permanent residents and within 5 miles about 6500, including .
those living in Wiscasset. Portland (70,000) is 34 miles SSW. Land use
within 5 miles is residential, wooded and idle farmland.

Transportation access is by water, and nearby state highways. Rail-
road access is also available.

The site is in seismic zone 2.

The site is near the metropolitan load centers of the N New England
coast and nearby inland areas, and includes Bangor (80,000) 70 miles,

Augusta (22,000) 25 miles, Waterville (19,000) 40 miles, Auburn-Lewiston
(75,000) 25 miles, Portland (200,000) 34 miles, and Portsmouth (75,000)
80 miles. The metropolitan area of Boston (3.8 million) is about 140
miles away.

The site has a low population density and is in a moderate seismic
risk zone. Cooling water is ample for salt-water cooling towers but
limited for fresh water, which could be 'piped from the Kennebec River.

The land area needs to be enlarged in order to accommodate much larger
capacity and this appears feasible but needs a more detailed analysis
to assure that this is the case. Load demand within 100 miles of the
site is limited but going to 150 miles includes the high population area
of Boston. Environmental impacts will have to be considered in going to

larger capacities.

Site MD-1: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Station, Lusby, Maryland (C)

 

This 1135 acre site is on the W side of the Chesapeake Bay along
the Calvert Cliffs about 3 miles E of Lusby. Washington, D.C. (760,000)
is 45 miles NNW. Within a 2-mile radius there are about 1500 inhabitants
and in a 5-mile radius there are about 4500. Land use within 5 miles is
wooded and agricultural. Calvert Cliffs State Park is about 2-1/2 miles

S of the site. The site is in seismic zone 1.
i 55 !

State Highways 2 and 4 which terminate at Chesapeake Bay about 8 miles
S of the site run within several miles of the site. Water access is
available via the Chesapeake Bay.
Major nearby metropolitan load centers are: Baltimore (1.9 million)
60 miles, Washington (3.1 million) 45 miles, Richmond (525,000) 90 miles,
. and Wilmington (80,C00)_100 miles. The Douglas Point Nuclear Station 45
i miles E on the other side of the peninsula could serve these same load

centers.

 

The site has many favorable features for a nuclear energy center,
including ample cooling water, proximity to major load centers, low seismic
risk zone, and low population density in nearby areas. The site area
would need to be enlarged but this doesn't seem to present a major problem.
The capacity may well be limited by the ability to provide additional
transmission corridors. Other limiting factors appear to be public i

acceptance and the closely related environmental issues. The extent to

which they will limit the electric generating capacity which the site |
can otherwise support is difficult to assess. The favorable features of I
the site indicate ability to support an NEC. Plans for a center at this %
site would need to be coordinated with plans for the Douglas Point Nuclear

Station site.

Site MD-2: Douglas Point Nuclear Station,
Douglas Point, Maryland (C)

 

This 1440 acre site is on the E bank of the Potomac River about 3
miles W of the small community of Nanjemoy and about 25 miles SSW of
Alexandria, Virginia (110,000). Population within 2 miles is about 200,
and within 5 miles about 2300. The area generally is marshy and swampy.
Land use within 5 miles is undeveloped and wooded. Aqua Po Beach, a
county park, is 4 miles SW. Quantico Marine Station is 5-1/2 miles NNW.

State Highway 224 passes through the site, and State Highway 6 runs
generally N-S about 3 miles E. Water access is available via the Potomac
River.

The seismic zone is 1. The area has a high air pollution potential.

Major metropolitan load centers which can be served from the site are:

Washington (3.1 million) 35 miles, Richmond (525,000) 60 miles, and
56

Baltimore (1.9 million) 70 miles. These same load centers can be served
from the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Station Site which is about 45 miles W
on the Chesapeake Bay side of the peninsula.

The site is a potential nuclear energy site with many favorable
features. These include ample cooling water, low nearby population
density, low seismic risk zone and closeness to demand centers. Addi-
tional land needs to be acquired but appears to be available. However,
the foundation conditions and general suitability of the available land
needs to be better analyzed. The chief limiting factors appear to be
public acceptance and the related environmental issues. The aquatic
environment is sensitive and would become a major consideration in expand-
ing the site. The favorable features of the site indicate ability to
support an NEC on an enlarged site. Plans for this site and the Calvert

Cliffs Site would need to be coordinated.

Site MA-1: Yankee Atomic Power Station, Rowe, Massachusetts (A)

 

This 2000 acre site is near the town of Rowe, Massachusetts on the
E bank of the Deerfield River at a point approximately 3/4 of a mile
S of the Massachusetts-Vermont border. Pittsfield (57,000) is 24 miles
SW. Population within 2 miles is about 250 and within 5 miles about
1700. Land use within 5 miles is 10% crops, mostly maple syrup, and
wooded. The site is adjacent to the Sherman Hydro-electric Station of
N.E.P. Co. and on Sherman Pond. The Vermont-Yankee Nuclear Station is
about 20 miles ENE.

The site has access to state highways and a railroad. It is in
seismic zone 2.

The site is located to serve load centers at the metropolitan areas
of: Pittsfield (100,000) 24 miles, Springfield (500,000) 45 miles, Hart-
ford (v400,000) 70 miles, Boston (3.8 million) 95 miles, Albany-
Schenectady, New York (750,000) 60 miles, and New York City (11 million)
about 110 miles. Therefore, there is no limitation on potential demand.

This site is limited by available water which can only support a

dispersed site.
 

57

Site MA-2: Pilgrim Nuclear Station, Plymouth, Massachusetts (A)

 

This 517 acre site is located on a bluff 20 feet above Cape Cod Bay
about 5 miles SE of Plymouth, Massachusetts (19,000). Brockton (90,000)
is 22 miles NW and Boston (650,000) 38 miles NW. The site is in a sparsely
populated area except for beach properties which are 1/2 mile to 2 1/2
miles away. About 7000 seasonal summer residents live along the beach
within 5 miles. Population within 2 miles is about 2200 and within
5 miles about 15,000. A group of contiguous communities consisting of
Plymouth Center, West and North Plymouth, and Kingston Center, some
located as near as 2.2 miles from the site, is designated as the nearest
population center with a 1970 population of 20,000 and the projected
1990 population of 25,000. Land use within 5 miles is 757% undeveloped, the
remainder being agricultural, residential, and recreational. Two beach
parks within 2 1/2 miles of the site have about 75,000 visitors per year
and Plymouth Plantation 2 1/2 miles W has 250,000 visitors a year.

State Highway 3 runs along the S border of the site with an access
road into the plant. A branch line railroad goes into Plymouth.

The site is near the boundary between seismic zones 2 and 3. It is
typical of an ocean site with persistent winds, periodic serious hurricanes,
and other ocean side effects. The area has good dispersion conditions.

The site is within 30 to 50 miles of the Boston Metropolitan Area
with about 3 million people and about the same distance from Metropolitan
Providence with another 600,000 people, so it is well located to serve
large demand areas.

Population density and land are the limiting factors with the former
probably being the more restrictive. It is estimated that the site will

accommodate only the capacity of a dispersed site.

Site MA-3: Montague Nuclear Station, Montague, Massachusetts (A)

 

This 1900 acre site is 3.5 miles ESE of Greenfield (15,000) about
1.5 miles E of and 230 feet above the Connecticut River. Within 2 miles
there are several small towns and about 2600 people, and within 5 miles

about 24,000. Northampton (30,000) is about 18 miles SSW and the
58

Springfield-Holyoke metropolis (500,000) is about 30 miles SSW. Land use
within 5 miles is mostly wooded with small amounts of farming and pastur-
ing. Numerous recreational sites are within 5 miles of the site.

The site is in seismic zone 2. There is a high potential for air
pollution about twice a year.

Lake Pleasant road runs through the site. 1I-91 is 5 miles W, and two
railroad lines are within 1-1/2 miles.

The site is well located to serve the metropolitan areas of Spring-
field (500,000) 30 miles, Hartford (V1 million) 55 miles, Worcester
(380,000) 50 miles, and the greater Boston area (3.8 million) 80 miles.

The chief limiting factor appears to be the adequacy of cooling water.
Based on using 107 of the water from the Connecticut River during periods
of minimum flow the site would be marginal for a mini-NEC but could be
improved by administrative control measures and supplementing the river
with storage reservoirs. In view of this restriction, it is doubtful

that the site can support a mini NEC.

Site MI-1: Big Rock Point Nuclear Station,
Charlevoix, Michigan (C)

 

This 600 acre site is on the northeastern shore of Lake Michigan
about 4 miles WNW of Charlevoix (3600). Lake Charlevoix is 3 miles S.,
Petoskey (6400) is 13 miles E, and Sault St. Marie, Canada (81,000) is
93 miles NNE. Population density is relatively low, there being about
100 people within 2 miles, 5000 within 5 miles, and less than 10,000
within 10 miles. Land use within 5 miles is agricultural and wooded with
some commercial and industrial usage about 4 miles S. The site is in
seismic zone 1. The prevailing wind direction is SSW at an average speed
of 8 mph.

U.S. Highway 31 runs SE of the site about 1/2 mile away. The C&O
Railroad is about 1 mile SE. Water transportation is available via Lake
Michigan.

There are few large metropolitan load centers in the area: Sault
St. Marie (81,000) is 93 miles, Saginaw (190,000) 160 miles, Grand Rapids
(450,000) 170 miles, and Metropolitan Detroit (4.5 million) 225 miles.

 
59

Although population density is relatively low in the nearby region,
extension of the site area is limited by nearby communities. Mt., McSauba
is within 3 miles to the W, Charlevoix 4 miles SSE, and Bayshore about !
5 miles E. However, it appears that the site could be expanded to the |
SE and with Lake Michigan to the N, sufficient area might be obtained
to support a small NEC. The transmission distances to load centers will
be relatively long imposing an economic penalty which must be considered
in determining the capacity to be put at this site and may be the most

important limiting factor.

Site MI-2: Enrico Fermi Nuclear Station,
Lagoona Beach, Michigan (A)

 

 

This 925 acre site is on Lake Erie just N of Stoney Point (500). It
is about 25 miles SSW of the center of Metropolitan Detroit (V4.5 million)
and about 30 miles from Toledo, Ohio (525,000). Population density is a
problem the 1980 estimates being 5000 people within 2 miles, and about
30,000 people within 5 miles., Land use within 5 miles is agricultural
(70%), residential and recreational. The site is in seismic zone 1.

Transportation access is good, there being access by highway, rail-
road, and water.

The site is well situated with respect to the load centers of
Detroit, Toledo, and Lansing (320,000).

In view of the high population density and the possible difficulty of
obtaining more land, it is estimated that the site has little potential for

other than a dispersed site.

Site MI-3: Palisades Nuclear Station, South Haven, Michigan (A)

 

This 487 acre site is on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan about
5-1/2 miles south of New Haven (6500). Kalamazoo (210,000) is 35 miles E.
Van Buren State Park joins the utility property on the N. Many tourists
visit the beaches during the summer, but permanent population density is
low, being about 300 within 2 miles and 5400 within 5 miles. East of
the sand dunes the land is rolling with many open fields, berry farms,

and orchards which constitutes the main land usage.within 5 miles.
60

Transportation access is by the lake, I-196 about 1 mile E, and the
C&0 Railroad about 2 miles E.

The site is in seismic zone 1. Stability data is neutral to unstable
about 70% of the time. The prevailing wind direction is westerly with
an average speed of 12 mph.

' The site is well located with respect to metropolitan load centers
being within 100 miles of Chicago (7 million), South Bend (325,000),
Kalamazoo (220,000), and Grand Rapids (455,000) and Lansing (320,000).
Detroit and Toledo are about 150 miles.

The chief limiting factor is land availability due to Van Buren
State Park to the N, small communities to the S, and I-196 and the C&O
Railroad to the E. The open agricultural land to the E and Lake Michigan
to the W offer good exclusion areas but I-196 would have to pass through
a site which includes these areas. The acceptance of this arrangement
cannot be predicted. Thus, it is estimated that the site can be enlarged
only as a dispersed site. The capacity could be greatly increased if

the site could be extended E of I-196.

Site MI-4: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Station,
Bridgeman, Michigan (A)

 

This 650 acre site is located on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan
11 miles SSW of Benton Harbor (16,500), about 3 miles N of Bridgeman
(1700), and 25 miles NW of South Bend, Indiana (134,000). Stevensville
(1100) is 4 miles N and Baroda (400) is about 4 miles E. Metropolitan
Chicago (V7 million) is about 60 air miles SW. Population density is
relatively low, there being about 1000 people within 2 miles, and about
8000 within 5 miles by 1980. Land use within 5 miles is mostly agricul-
ture, but some wooded, residential and recreational land. The site is
rolling sand dunes. The Warren Dunes State Park is SSW about 4 miles.

Transportation access is via water, I-94 which runs through the
site, and the C&0 Railroad which is E of I-94. The site is in seismic
zone 1,

The site is close enough to Chicago and the industrial areas of
northern Indiana that transmission distances should be less than 100

miles.
61

The chief limiting factor to the site is the feasibility of acquiring
additional land and obtaining the desired exclusion distances. Small
communities limit expansion N and S of the site along the shore of Lake
Michigan. Expansion to the SE may be feasible but would have to cross
I-94 and the C&0 Railroad. Lake Michigan adds to the exclusion area to
the W and N. If the site could extend across I-94 it appears possible
to acquire sufficient land to support an NEC. Otherwise, the capacity of
the site must be severly limited. For this report it has been assumed

that land is insufficient to support more than a dispersed site.

Site MI-5: Midland Nuclear Station, Midland, Michigan (A)

 

This 370 acre site is on the SW bank of the Tittabawassee River
across from the Dow Chemical Plant in the city of Midland (35,000). Popu-
lation density is high, there being about 5000 people within 2 miles and
20,000 within 5 miles. The low population zone distance is about 1 mile.
Bay City (54,000) is 19 miles E, Saginaw (v100,000) is 22 miles SSE.

Land use within 5 miles is industrial and residential to the N and E,
and wooded and agricultural to the S and W.

The site has good highway and rail transportation access. It is
located in seismic zone 1.

The site is land and population limited and probably cannot support

more than the presently planned capacity.

Site MI-6: Greenwood Energy Center, St. Clair County, Michigan (C)

 

This 3260 acre site (about 2 x 3 miles) is about 2 miles from each
Fargo (147) and Avaco (236) and 11 miles W of Lake Huron. Sarnia, Ontario,
Canada (59,000) is 18 miles SE and the center of metropolitan Detroit
(V4.5 million) is 55 miles SSW. The Black River is 4 miles E. Makeup
water will come from Lake Huron through a 15-mile pipeline. The popula-
tion density is low, being about 300 within 2 miles and 3000 within
5 miles. Land usage within a 5-mile radius is agriculture and small
communities. An oil fired unit [800 MW(e)] is being built on the N end

of the property.

 

 
62

The site is well served with county roads and the C&0 Railroad.

U.S. Highway 25 is 10 miles E and I-94 terminates in Port Hudson approxi-
mately 15 miles ESE. Water transportation via Lake Huron is within
11 miles.

The site is in seismic zone 1. Low level (below 500 ft) weather
inversions occur 30% of the time. The prevailing wind direction is SW .
at an average speed of 10 mph.

The site is well located with respect to the load centers of the
metropolitan areas of: Detroit (4.5 million), Sarnia (59,000), Port
Huron (70,000), Flint (540,000), Saginaw (188,000) and Bay City-Midland
(150,000).

The site has many favorable features for an NEC. Ample water can be
obtained from Lake Huron at some pumping cost. The site is in a low
density area close to major load centers and is in a low seismic risk zone.
The limiting factor appears to be land since there are four small towns,
Fargo, Avaco, Brockway and Yale which would confine the site size to 15
to 20 square miles. On this basis it is estimated that the site could

be enlarged to support a small NEC.

Site MI-7: Quanicasse Nuclear Station, Quanicasse, Michigan (C)

This 1065 acre site is located on the southern shore of Saginaw Bay
about 1 mile E of Quanicassee (Vv116). Bay City (v50,000) is 10 miles W,
Saginaw (92,000) about 16 miles SW, and Detroit (V1.6 million) about
90 miles SSE. The 1970 population within 2 miles was ~500, within 5
miles 3200, within 10 miles 72,000 and within 50 miles about 1 million.
Land use within 5 miles is highly productive agriculture land and part
of the site itself is used for agriculture with the northern portion
along the Bay being marsh land. A wildlife refuge of 217 acres borders
the site on the E and recreational areas are located along the Bay.

The site is located in seismic zone 1. The prevailing wind direction
is WSW and an average speed of 9 mph.

State Highway 25 forms the southern border of the site and Nebobish

Road cuts across the northern edge. The nearest railroad is the Penn

O

 
63

Central about 6 miles SW. A railroad spur will be extended to the site.
Water transportation is available wvia Lake Huron.

The site is well located to serve the metropolitan load center of
Detroit (4.5 million) which is 90 to 100 miles distant. Other major
metropolitan areas within 100 miles are: Port Huron (70,000), Flint
(540,000), Saginaw (190,000), Bay City-Midland (180,000), and Lansing
(320,000).

This site has many advantages for a nuclear energy center: ample

 

cooling water, low seismic risk zone, relatively low population density
and reasonably close to major load centers. The present site would need
to be expanded to support large capacities, but land appears to be avail~-
able if justified for this purpose. The chief limitation to this expan-
sion is the high agricultural value of the land. Thus, there may be
other sites which would be equally suitable but involving lower value
land. Recognizing this limitation it is estimated that the site will

support an NEC.

Site MN-1: Monticello Nuclear Station, Monticello, Minnesota (B)

 

This 1325 acre site is 3 miles NW of Monticello (v1700) on the W bank
of the Mississippi River. Minneapolis-St. Paul (750,000) is 33 miles SE.
Population is about 200 within 2 miles of the site and 5000 within 5 miles.
Land use within 5 miles is dairy farming, vegetable crops, small com-—
munities, and recreational. Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge is about
9 miles NE, Lake Maria State Park about 6 miles WSW, and Sand Dunes State
Park about 9 miles NE of the site.

The site has access to I-94 and U.S. Highway 52. The Great Northern
Railroad runs between the site and I-94. River access is available but
is impeded by the bluffs at the site.

The site is in seismic zone 1. Weather conditions are scanty winter
precipitation but ample summer rainfall, a tendency to extremes, with
wide variations in temperature. The prevailing wind direction is NW at

an average speed of 7 mph.
64

The load centers within 100 miles are the metropolitan areas of:
Minneapolis-St. Paul (1.9 million), Mankato (46,000), St. Cloud (70,000),
and Eau Claire, Wisconsin (82,000).

The limiting factors to the site are land and water. Expansion of
the site to the SW is blocked by I-94 which confines it to the narrow
strip between I-94 and the Mississippi River to the NE. If the site were
permitted to include I-94, land would cease to be the limitation. The
water limitation is based on the minimum flow of the river of 240 cfs.

On the assumption that 10% of this flow can be used for cooling, this
will support a mini NEC.

The Prairie Island Nuclear Station (Site MN-2) is on the Mississippi

River about 90 land miles S.

Site MN-2: Prairie Island Nuclear Station,
Red Wing, Minnesota (C)

This 560 acre site is located on the W bank of the Mississippi River
on a level flood plain about 1-1/2 miles wide between the Vermillion and
Mississippi Rivers. Steep bluffs rise from the flood plain. A dam about
1-1/2 miles below the plant forms a stable pool of water from which cool-
ing water is taken. The population within a 2-mile radius is 400, and in
5 miles 3300. Red Wing (10,200) is 6 miles SE. Minneapolis-St. Paul
(750,000) is 30 miles SE. Land use in a 5-mile radius is dairy farming
and vegetable canning.

The site has access to the Mississippi River, U.S. Highway 61 runs
about 3 miles away, and the Chicago and St. Paul Railroad which runs along
the NW boundary.

Load centers within 100 miles are the metropolitan areas of:
Minneapolis-St. Paul (V1.9 million) 30 miles, Mankato (46,000) 85 miles,
Rochester (77,000) 35 miles, La Crosse, Wisconsin (75,000) 90 miles, and
Eau Claire, Wisconsin (82,000) 50 miles,

This site has ample water, is located in a low density population area,
is in a low seismic risk zone area, and is well located to serve the
large demand center of Minneapolis-St. Paul.

The chief limiting factor is land availability. Part of the nearby

land is indian reservation which may not be available. The proximity of
 

65

Minneapolis-St. Paul (30 miles) is the major population limitation. It

is estimated that the site can support an NEC if the land is available.
The Monticello Nuclear Station is about 90 land miles to the N and

the La Crosse Nuclear Station both on the Mississippi River, about 90

land miles to the S.

Site MS-1: Grand Gulf Nuclear Station,
Port Gibson, Mississippi (C)

This 2200 acre site is on the high ground 1-1/2 miles E of the
Mississippi River and overlooking the river and its flood plains. There
are two lakes on the western portion of the site. Population density in
2 miles is 200; in 5 miles 2100; in 10 miles 7300; and in 50 miles
270,000. Port Gibson (2600) is 6 miles SE. Vicksburg (26,000) is
25 miles NNE and Natchez (20,000) is 27 miles SSW. Land use within
5 miles is commercial forestry, agriculture and recreation. The Grand
Gulf Military Park borders a portion of the N side of the site. The
Warner YMCA camp is 3-1/2 miles NE and there are numerous hunting lodges
near the site.

The site has access to several local roads and U.S. Highway 61 is
about 5 miles E. The nearest railroad is the IC which goes through Port
Gibson. Water access is available via the Mississippi River.

The site is near the boundary of seismic zones O and 1. Dispersion
conditions are often poor.

Nearby load centers are the metropolitan areas of: Alexandria,
Louisiana (98,000) 95 miles, Natchez (42,000) 27 miles, Baton Rouge
(370,000) 110 miles, Hattiesburg (58,000) 110 miles, Greenville (51,000)
100 miles, and Monroe (115,000) 70 miles. Metropolitan New Orleans
(vl.1l million) is about 150 miles SSE, and Memphis (810,000) 220 miles
NNE.

The site has many favorable features for an NEC including ample
water, low population density, and low seismic risk zone. Additional
land needs to be acquired but appears to be available. See Wash. 13197
for a more detailed discussion on land use.

The limiting factor is remoteness from load centers. It is estimated

that the site can support an NEC.

 
66

Site MS-2: Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Corinth, Mississippi (D)

This 1160 acre site is on a peninsula in the Pickwick Reservoir
with the Tennessee River (RM 216) on the E and Yellow Creek embayment on
the W. Corinth (11,000) is 15 miles W. Population density is low, about
250 within 2 miles, 1000 within 5 miles, and about 6000 within 10 miles. .
The land is rolling and predominantly rural.
Water transportation is excellent; besides the Tennessee River,
Yellow Creek is the route of the proposed Tennessee-Tombighee Waterway.
State Highway 25 is 2 miles W, U.S. 45 passes through Corinth, U.S. 72
is about 10 miles S, and the main line of the Southern RR is about
10 miles SSW.
The site is in seismic zone 1. The prevailing winds are southerly
averaging 4.5 mph.
The nearest load center is Huntsville, Alabama (200,000) 93 miles,
but the site is near the center of a triangle formed by Memphis (800,000),
Nashville (560,000), and Birmingham (680,000), all within 100 to 125 miles.
The site has ample water, land for aquisition, low population density
and is reasonably close to major load centers. The site could support
a large NEC. However, some of the same loads could be supplied from
other potential NEC sites such as Browns Ferry and Belefonte, and therefore

this site will be limited by demand for some time into the future.

Site MO-1: Callaway Nuclear Station, Fulton, Missouri (C)

 

This 3200 acre site is on an 8 square mile plateau 300 feet above
the Missouri River flood plain and about 5 miles N of the river. The
utility owns an additional 1760 acres which forms a corridor from the
site to the river and will be uséd for an access road, railroad spur, and
water pipe line. Population in a 2-mile radius is about 100, in 5 miles
900, and in 10 miles 10,000. Fulton (12,500) is 10 miles N. Columbia
(68,000) is 40 miles NW and Jefferson City (40,000) is 24 miles WSW.

Land use in a 5-mile radius is 60% forests, 20% farming, and 20% pasture.

The access road will connect with Missouri Highway 94 which runs
along the river. 1I-70 is 12 miles N. The closest railroad is 3.5 miles

with a spur line running to the site.
67

The site is in seismic zone 1. Dispersion conditions are good. The
prevailing wind is SSE with an average speed of 10 mph.

Metropolitan load center areas within 100 miles are: Columbia
(68,000) 40 miles, Jefferson City (40,000) 24 miles, and St. Louis
(v2.3 million) 80 miles E. Kansas City (V1.2 million) is 150 miles NNW.

Water availability based on using 10% of the minimum flow of the
Missouri River will support an NEC. The site area would need to be
enlarged. Distances to major load centers for this amount of capacity
would impose an economic penalty which would have to be weighted against
the advantages of this site,

The Cooper Nuclear Station (Site NE-2) is more than 200 land miles

up the Missouri River.

Site NE-1: Ft. Calhoun Nuclear Station
Ft. Calhoun, Nebraska (B)

 

This 380 acre site is on the W bank of the Missouri River near the
village of Ft. Calhoun and about 20 miles NNW of Omaha (352,000). The
site is relatively flat about 10 feet above the normal river pool. The
river level is relatively constant because of a system of dams. The
projected 1980 population in a radius of 2 miles is about 1000, in
5 miles 13,000, and in 10 miles 25,000. The city limits of Omaha is
about 12 miles S. DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge of 8100 acres and
with 400,000 visitors annually is 1-1/2 miles E. Wilson Island State
Park is 4 miles SE, Blair (6200) is 3 miles NW. Land use within 5 miles
is agricultural.

U.S. Highway 73 runs NE-SW about 3000 feet from the present plant.
The C&NW Railroad has an E-W line through Blair and a NE-SW line along the
SW border of the site. The Missouri River provides access by water.

The seismic zone for the site is 1. The prevailing wind direction
is NW-SE at an average speed of 11 mph.

Metropolitan load center areas within 100 miles are: = Omaha-Council
Bluffs (v560,000) 20 miles, Lincoln (170,000) 55 miles, and Sioux City
(v86,000) 70 miles. Extending the distance to 200 miles picks up:

Sioux Falls (75,000), Grand Island (37,000), Kansas City (1.2 million),
and Des Moines (310,000).
68

Water is available to support a large NEC. The limiting factor to
the site probably is the proximity of Omaha and the population density
within a 10-mile radius. The site would need to be enlarged to support
additional capacity and the additional land would have to be along the
river and E of Highway 73 since the communities of Blair, DeSoto and
Ft. Calhoun limit expansion to the W. Alternatively, the site could be .
expanded on the E side of the river but this might not be practical. Load
centers for a large generating capacity are remote. It is estimated that
the site can support a mini NEC.
The Cooper Nuclear Station (Site NE-2) is about 80 land miles down

the Missouri River.

Site NE-2: Cooper Nuclear Station, Brownsville, Nebraska (C)

 

This 1090 acre site is on the W bank of the Missouri River about
60 miles SE of Lincoln (150,000). Brownsville (250) is about 3 miles N,
and Nemaha (250) is about 3 miles S. The land is flat and sparsely
populated. Population in the area in a radius of 2 miles is about 50,
and within 5 miles about 1100. Land use within 5 miles is agricultural.
The site is in seismic zone 1.

The site has access to river transportation, State Highway 67 runs
by the site, U.S. 136 runs E-W 3 miles N, U.S. 73 and 75 run N-S§ 9 miles
W, and the CB&0 Railroad also runs by the site.

Metropolitan load center areas within 100 miles are: Lincoln
(170,000), Omaha-Council Bluffs (560,000), and St. Joseph (87,000).
Extending the distance to 200 miles picks up Kansas City (1.2 milliom),
Des Moines (310,000), Sioux Falls (75,000), and Grand Island (38,000).

Water is available based on minimum flows to support a large NEC.
The limiting factors on the site is the need to extend the land and
remoteness of large load centers. Expanding the site area to the N and
S is limited by the communities of Brownsville and Nemaha but there
appears to be available land from the river to the W. It is estimated
that the site can support an NEC.

The Ft. Calhoun site which is about 80 land miles up the river could
serve many of the same load centers as the Cooper Nuclear Station. The

Callaway Nuclear Station is more than 200 land miles down the river.
69
Site NH-1: Seabrook Nuclear Station, Seabrook, New Hampshire (A)

This 650 acre site is 2 miles W of the Atlantic Ocean at the western
edge of Hampton Harbor tidal marsh on the S bank of the Brown River. It
is 11 miles S of Portsmouth (26,000) and about 8 miles SF of Exeter (6500).
The small communities of Seabrook (700) and Hampton (6000) are about
2 miles to the S and N, respectively. Lawrence, Massachusetts (75,000)
is 20 miles SW. Population within a radius of 2 miles is 3000, and in
5 miles 25,000. Daytime summer population could reach 120,000 within
5 miles because of beach traffic. Land use within 5 miles is mostly
undeveloped marshland and recreational beaches.

U.S. Highway 1 passes 1 mile W of the site and I-95 is 1.6 miles
W. The Boston and Maine Railroad passes within 1/2 mile. Water trans-
portation is available through Hampton Harbor.

The site is near the boundary of seismic zones 2 and 3.

This site is well situated to serve the metropolitan load centers
of Boston (V3.8 million) 40 miles SW, Portsmouth (77,000), Lawrence
(75,000), and the densely populated areas within 150 miles to the N, S,
and W. |

The limiting factors are the high population density beyond about
5 miles. Additional land possibly could be obtained though the nearby
residential areas are limiting.

It is estimated that the site can accommodate only the capacity of

a dispersed site.

Site NJ-1: Oyster Creek Nuclear Station, Forked River
Nuclear Station, Forked River, New Jersey (D)

 

These two stations are on the same site and will be discussed to-
gether.

The 1425 acre site is on the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey between
the two small streams, Oyster Creek and Crooked River, 2 miles inland from
the shore of Barnegat Bay. It is about 2 miles S of Forked River (1500).
Atlantic City (55,000) is 35 miles SSW. The permanent population in a
radius of 2 miles is about 2500, in 5 miles about 10,000, and in 10 miles

about 46,000. Land use within 5 miles is 70% forest, vacant, or farm land.
70

The remainder is limited recreation and residential areas. A large influx
of visitors occurs each summer.

Present plants are located between State Highway 9 and the Garden
State Parkway. The nearest railroad is the CNJ which runs NE-SW about
15 miles W.

The site is in seismic zone 1. The area is subjected to many severe
storms with an average of one hurricane or tornado per year. A steady
breeze from the coast blows inland. The prevailing wind direction is WNW
at an average speed of 7 mph.

The site is well located to serve major load centers, being about
50 miles from Philadelphia, 65 miles from the center of New York, and
about 35 miles from Atlantic City.

This site has many features favorable to an NEC. These include
ample water, an excellent location with respect to demand centers, low
population density, low seismic risk, and apparently available land to
enlarge the site if needed. Proximity to large population centers and
environmental considerations may be the ultimate limiting factors.

A requirement for cooling towers could reduce the capacity which
the site can support because of atmospheric effects. Notwithstanding,
it is estimated that the site can support a large NEC. Development

would be subject to coastal land-use restrictions.

Site NJ-2: Salem Nuclear Station, Salem, New Jersey (C)
Hope Creek Nuclear Station, Salem, New Jersey

 

 

This 700 acre site is an artificial island near the E bank of the
Delaware River estuary, which is 2 miles wide at this point. Tidal flow
water is adequate to support a large nuclear energy center. The site is
quite remote. The Hope Creek Nuclear Station will be located adjacent to
the nearly completed Salem Nuclear Station on the same site. The popu-
lation within a radius of 2 miles is 0, and in 5 miles 1200. Port Penn,
Delaware (270) is 4-1/2 miles NW, Hancock Bridge 4 miles NE, and Salem,

New Jersey (9000) 7-1/2 miles NE. Wilmington (95,000) is 17 miles N and
Philadelphia (2 million) is about 40 miles. The land use in a 5-mile
radius is tidal marshes and grasslands. The Summitt Nuclear Power Station,

Mt. Pleasant, Delaware is about 11 miles NNW.
 

71

The site is at the NW end of a site identified by the AEC® as a
potential nuclear park site. Their proposed site extends along the shore-
line of the Delaware Bay for about 16 miles and encompasses an area of
about 16 square miles. It is a generally marshy area, traversed by
numerous channels, lakes, and streams. The elevation is generally less
than 35 feet above sea level. Currently much of the land is owned by
three utility systems in the region and their plans are to construct
about 6000 MW(e) of capacity at the site by 1985.

Hurricanes may be expected in the area. The dispersion conditions
should be good with some potential for fogging. The site is in seismic
zone 1.

Transportation access is by water along the Intercoastal Waterway.

The load centers of Philadelphia, Wilmington, Camden, Vineland, and
Atlantic City with a combined metropolitan population of nearly 4 million
are within 50 miles and could be served from the site. New York City
with a population of nearly 16 million is within 150 miles.

In summary, there is adequate cooling water, the site is in a low
population density area, it is close to major load centers, and, if
extended in size could support a large nuclear energy center. There is
a sensitive marine environment and a problem in developing the site is
to avoid creating unacceptable environmental changes. Land might become
a limiting factor as the site is on an island of 2 to 3 square miles in
area. However, both the Jersey and Delaware side of the river appears to
have land which could be used to extend the site boundaries. The site
appears to have high potential as an NEC and it is estimated that it

could support an NEC.

Site NJ-3: Newbold Island Nuclear Station,
Bordertown, New Jersey (A)

This 530 acre site is on Newbold Island in the Delaware River about
2-1/2 miles NE of Bordertown (4800). Roebling (3600) is 1 mile SW,
Kinhora (<1000) is 1/2 mile S and Hedding (<1000) is 1-1/2 miles S.
Trenton (98,000) is 7 miles N. The 1960 population within 2 miles was
5000, and within 5 miles was 92,000. The projected 1980 population within

5 miles is 162,000. Land use within 5 miles is residential and industrial.
72

The site is located in seismic zone 1. Wind directions are variable.

The site has water transportation via the Delaware River and the
Penn-Central RR and U.S. Route 130 run along the E bank of the Delaware
River just across from the site.

The site is well located to serve the metropolitan areas of Phila-
delphia (V5 million) which is 26 miles SW and New York (V17 million) which .
is about 80 miles.

The site has adequate water, is well located to serve major load
centers and is in a low seismic risk zone. The limiting factors is the
site size which is confined to the island and the high population density.

The AEC on the basis of balancing all the various factors, including
particularly the population distribution, concluded that an alternate
location near the two Salem Units, was a more desirable alternative from
an environmental standpoint. The AEC's regulatory staff did not view
either site as posing an unacceptable risk to the public from a safety
point of view. Due to the land and population density restrictions it is
estimated that the site is limited to a small dispersed nuclear power

station.

Site NJ-4: Atlantic Generating Station, Little Egg
Inlet, New Jersey (A)

 

 

The site, approximately 186 acres of ocean, is located slightly SE
of Little Egg Inlet and opposite Atlantic and Ocean Counties on shore.
Beach Haven Heights (1500) is about 4 miles N. Atlantic City (50,000) is
about 16 miles SSE. Population densities in the nearby area are quite
low since there are few towns within 10 miles. The permanent population
within 2 miles is zero.
The site will consist of a breakwater-protected basin capable of
accommodating two floating nuclear power plants. The water depth is
about 40 feet. Access to the site is by water, and if necessary, by
helicopter. .

The site is close enough to serve the load centers of New York,

Philadelphia, Trenton, Wilmington, and Atlantic City. *

 
73

The maximum generating capacity of an off shore site is an economic
trade-off on breakwater construction for small clusters of 2 to 4 plants
versus larger clusters of up to 8 to 12 plants. Experience is not avail-
able on which to make a judgment at this time. Physical factors do not
seem to be limiting.

There seems to be no physical reason why off shore floating nuclear
stations can't be developed into Nuclear Energy Centers of varying sizes.
However, the possibility has not been analyzed carefully and there is a
lack of experience to guide such an analysis. Some experts think that
economic considerations will favor concentrating 4 to 6 plants within a
single breakwater with this pattern being repeated where additional

plants are needed.

Site NY-1: Indian Point Nuclear Station, Peekskill, New York (A)

 

This 239 acre site is on the E bank of the Hudson River about 24 miles
N of the north boundary of New York City (V17 million). The site is in
a densely populated area with Peekskill (19,000) two miles NE, and
Buchanan (Vv2500) 1 mile SE. Camp Smith military reservation is about
1 mile N and West Point is about 8 miles N. Land use within a 5-mile
radius is mostly residential with some parks and military reservations.
An industrial area joins the site on the S.

Water transportation is available via the Hudson River. The Penn-
Central Railroad runs by the site less than 1 mile E with U.S. Highway
9W running near the railroad.

The site is in seismic zone 1. Prevailing wind direction is NNE/SSW
at an average speed of 7 mph.

The site is close to the load center of New York, so there is no
question of being able to dispose of all the generated power.

Limiting factors to the site are ability to expand the land area
and the high population density. In view of these limitations it is
estimated that the site cannot accommodate any additional capacity over

what is now planned.
74

Site NY-2: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Scriba, New York (C)
The Fitzpatrick Nuclear Station, Scriba, New York

This 1500 acre site includes the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station and
the adjoining James A, Fitzpatrick Nuclear Station and is located on the
SE shore of Lake Ontario about 7 miles NE of Oswego (24,000). The small
community of Lakeview is about 1 mile SW. Scriba is about 3 miles §.
Syracuse (Vv200,000) is 36 miles S. Population in a radius of 2 miles is
approximately 300, in 5 miles 1200, and in 10 miles, about 30,000.

Land use in a 5-mile radius is residential, agricultural, and recre-
ational. The James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Station is about 1/2 mile E of
the Nine Mile Point Station.

There is good highway access to the site, and a branch line of the
Pennsylvania Railroad goes to each nuclear station. Water transportation
is available via Lake Ontario.

The site is in seismic zone 3. The prevailing wind direction is N
with an average speed of 10 mph.

The site is well located to serve much of North-Central New York.
Load centers within 100 miles of the site include the metropolitan areas .
of: Kingston (89,000), Watertown (39,000), Utica-Rome (281,000), Syracuse
(550,000), Binghamton (243,000), Auburn (49,000), Ithaca (69,000), ¢
Elmire-Corning (135,000), and Rochester (840,000). Buffalo (1.3 million)
is about 129 miles and Albany-Schenectady-Troy (v800,000) is about
150 miles.

This combined site has several features favorable to its development
into a nuclear energy center; ample cooling water, low nearby population
density, and relatively close load centers. However, these load centers
could be provided with electric power from alternative sites and the
demand is not yet large enough to support a large NEC. Therefore, demand
could be a limitation. Also, the site being in seismic zone 3 is an
unfavorable factor. Additional land would need to be procured but appears
to be available. The site is suited for once-through cooling; if cooling .
towers were required, this would increase the land requirement or reduce
the capacity of the site. For this study, it is estimated that the site

could support an NEC.
75

The Ginna Nuclear Station is about 50 miles SW on the southern shore
of Lake Ontario. The Sterling Nuclear Power Station site is about 15 miles

SW.

Site NY-3: Shoreham Nuclear Station, Brookhaven, New York (B)

This 450 acre site, about 1000 feet back from the Long Island north
shore line, is about 5 miles N of the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL).
Rocky Point (v3000) is 2 to 3 miles SW and there are several other small
communities within 2 to 3 miles of the site. The site is about 22 miles §
of New Haven, Connecticut (160,000) and about 50 miles NNE of New York
City. The permanent population in the immediate area is sparse. Estimates
for 1980 are populations of about 3300 within 2 miles, and about 12,000
within 5 miles. Land use within 5 miles is residential and recreational
along the ocean, but otherwise undeveloped except for the BNL. The Brook-
haven State Park is about 2-1/2 miles S. The site is in seismic zone 2.

State Highway 25A runs E~-W a few miles S of the site. Water trans-
portation access is available via the Long Island Sound. The Long Island
Railroad is about 6 miles S of the site.

Due to the proximity of New York City (about 50 miles SSW) and the
heavily populated Long Island Sound coastline, nearby load centers can
absorb any reasonable amount of generated electricity,

The site has many favorable features for a nuclear energy center:
ample cooling water, proximity to load centers, and low nearby population
density. Limitations are the ability to acquire additional land because
of the recreational value of the land and the nearby communities. The
proximity of New York City is also a limitation. It is estimated that
an expanded site could possibly support a mini nuclear energy center.

The Jamesport Nuclear Station site is about 20 miles E on the

southern shore of Long Island Sound.

Site NY-4: Ginna Nuclear Station, Ontario, New York (B)

 

This 338 acre site is on the southern shore of Lake Ontario, about
20 miles ENE of Rochester (V300,000). Williamson (v2000) is about 4 miles

SSE. The small communities of Palneyville and Furnaceville are

 
76

approximately 2 miles E and 3 miles SW respectively. Syracuse (200,000)
is about 55 miles SE. The nearby area is sparsely populated, the popula-
tion being within 2 miles about 900, within 5 miles, about 8000, and
within 10 miles about 35,000. Land usage within 5 miles is generally
agricultural and fruitland. The site is located in seismic zone 3.

The Lake Road (State Highway 18) runs E-W approximately 1/2 miles §
of the site, and U.S. 104 runs E-W 3-1/2 miles S. The New York Central
Railroad runs alongside of U.S. 104. Water access is available via Lake
Ontario.

The site is well located with respect to serving NW New York. Load
centers within 100 miles include the metropolitan areas of: Rochester
(840,000), Buffalo-Niagara Falls (1,250,000), Elmira-Corning (135,000),
Binghamton (235,000), Ithaca (69,000), Auburn (49,000), Syracuse (550,000),
Utica—~Rome area (280,000), and Watertown (39,000). Buffalo (V1.3 million)
is about 90 miles SW and Albany-Schenectady-Troy (%v800,000) about 175 miles
ESE. It appears that any reasonable amount of electricity generated at
the site can be absorbed by nearby load centers, but the Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station 50 miles NE and the Sterling Nuclear Station 30 miles ENE
can serve the same load centers.

The main limitations to the site are the nearness of the large popu-
lation center of Rochester and its location in seismic zone 3. The popu-
lation density is low in nearby areas and additional land appears to be
available for acquisition to enlarge the site. It is estimated that the

site can support a mini nuclear energy center.

Site NY-5: Green County Nuclear Power Plant,
Cementon, New York (A)

 

This 282 acre site is located on the west bank of the Hudson River
at River Mile 108 about 1 mile N of the hamlet of Cementon (Vv600), and
13 miles N of Kingston (%v26,000). Albany (V116,000) is 35 miles NNE.
Population within 2 miles is V1400, within 5 miles V7600, and within
10 miles "46,000. Population around the site is sparse with less than
100 people per square mile. Land usage within 5 miles is primarily
rural vacant land (Vv50%), with about 1/2 of the remainder devoted to

agriculture. There is a small amount of residential and industrial
77

usage, there being 3 major cement plants within about 1 mile of the site.
A 10 in. gas pipeline parallels I-87 and is about 1.5 miles W of the
site. The Catskill State Forest Preserve is about 6 miles W of the site
and Clermont State Park is 4 miles S.

The site is located in seismic zone 1. The prevailing wind direction
is WNW in winter and S in the summer at an average speed of 6 mph. Calms
occur about 9% of the time. The site is infrequently affected by strong
winds and hurricanes. Fog frequency is low.

The site is bounded on the W by the Penn~Central Railroad and U.S.
Highway 9W. I-87 runs N-S about 2 miles W of the site. Transportation
by water is available via the Hudson River.

Metropolitan population areas within 50 miles are: Pittsfield
(~100,000), Albany-Troy-Schenectady (v750,000), Newberg (v110,000), and
Poughkeepsie (v220,000). Extending this distance to 100 miles brings in
Utica (~280,000), Binghamton (v235,000), Scranton (Vv470,000) and New York
City (V17 million). Hence, the site is reasonably well located to serve
major load centers.

This site has access to ample cooling water, is in a low seismic
risk zone, and is well located to serve major load centers. The expan-
sion capability of the site is limited by the Hudson River to the E, I-87
to the W, the towns of Cementon and Saugerties to the S and the village
of Catskill to the N. The site presumably could be expanded within these
boundaries along the Hudson River if public acceptance permitted. However,
land acquisition appears to be the primary limitation to the site. Popu-
lation densities could be a restriction but do not appear to be a severely
limiting one. It is estimated that the site could only be expanded to

accommodate a large dispersed station.

Site NY-6: Jamesport Nuclear Power Station
Jamesport, New York (B)

 

This 555 acre site is "6 miles NE of Riverhead (7600) on the northern
shore of Long Island Sound, 65 miles E of New York City. The population
within a radius of 2 miles is 600, in 5 miles 9000, in 10 miles 35,000,
and within 50 miles about 3 million. The nearest community of appreciable

size is Northville (2500) about 1-1/2 miles SW. Jamesport (v300) is about
 

78

3 miles SSE. The area surrounding the site is mostly farmland with some
residential area and woodlands. The site is in seismic zone 2.

State Highway 25 runs about 2 miles S of the site. Sound Avenue, a
paved 2-lane road, bounds the site on the S. The nearest railroad
faciltiy is at Jamesport, about 3 miles S of the site. A barge unloading
platform will be constructed to handle equipment transported by water.

The main load center would be New York City (65 miles WSW) and
interties to the heavily populated NE.

The site has many favorable features for a nuclear energy center:
ample cooling water, but the use of salt water for cooling which generates
environmental problems, proximity to load centers, and low nearby popu-
lation density. Additional land would have to be acquired which may pose
a limitation, particularly in view of the land use patterns. The instal-
lation of additional overhead transmission lines will be costly and will
undoubtedly meet with public opposition. From a physical point of view
the site can be expanded and has the other requisites to support a mini
NEC, but public acceptance may prove to be a major obstacle.

The Shoreham Nuclear Station is about 20 miles W on the southern

shore of Long Island Sound.

Site NY-7: Sterling Nuclear Power Station, Oswego, New York (C)

 

This 2800 acre site is on the southern shore of Lake Ontario,
30 miles NW of Syracuse (200,000) and 8 miles SW of Oswego (24,000). The
1970 population in a radius of 2 miles is 200, in 5 miles 2800, in
10 miles 36,000, and in 50 miles 1,200,000. Land use in a 5-mile radius
is agricultural (1/3) and forests. Fairhaven State Park is 2.5 miles
SW from the site. An existing fossil fuel plant is about 1 mile SSW.
The site is in seismic zone 3.
The transportation network to the site is excellent. U.S. Highway 104
is along the SE border, the Penn Central Railroad is 4 miles S, and water
transportation is available via Lake Ontario. *
Major load centers within 100 miles include the metropolitan areas
of: Rochester-Greece-Irondequoit (v840,000), Elmire-Corning (135,000), *
Syracuse (550,000), Auburn (49,000), Binghamton (235,000), Utica-Rome
79

(280,000), Waterton (39,000), and Kingston (280,000). Another 50 miles
includes the Albany-Schenectady-Troy area (v800,000) and the Buffalo-
Niagra Falls area (1.3 million).

The site has many favorable features for a nuclear energy center:
ample cooling water, proximity to load centers, and low nearby population
density. Additional land would have to be acquired but there does not
appear to be strong limitation to its availability if the need justifies
the cost. The location in seismic zone 3 may be a limiting factor.

The Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station site is about 15 miles NE, and
the Ginna Nuclear Station site about 30 miles WSW, both on the southern
shore of Lake Ontario. These sites located as they are dilute somewhat
the need of a nuclear energy center for the area. However, each of the

| sites has the characteristics needed to develop it into a center.

Site NY-8: Bell Nuclear Station, Cayuga Lake, New York (A)

 

This 900 acre site is on the E bank of Cayuga Lake about 15 miles
from the lower tip of the lake. The small community of Lakeridge is a
. few miles NNE. Aurora (n1100) is about 13 miles NNW. Syracuse (v200,000)
is about 40 miles NE and Rochester (300,000) about 60 miles NW. The
~ 1960 population within 2 miles was about 500, and within 5 miles about
5500. Land use within 5 miles is primarily agricultural. The site is
in seismic zone 3.
U.S. Highway 348 runs about 1 mile E of the site with connecting roads
to the site. A main line RR runs through Aurora.
Metropolitan load centers within 100 miles are: Scranton, Pennsyl-
vania (470,000), Binghamton ("v250,000), Ithaca (v50,000), Utica-Rome
(v280,000), Syracuse (Vv550,000), Auburn (v50,000), Rochester-Irondequoit
(v850,000), and Elmira-Corning (Vv140,000).
This site has many favorable features but met with strong public
opposition and plans for its development into a nuclear station site
v were postponed, perhaps indefinitely. It is estimated that its potential

capacity is limited to a small dispersed station.

 
80

Site NC-1: Brunswick Nuclear Power Station, Southport,
North Carolina (C)

 

This 1200 acre site is approximately 5 miles from the Atlantic Ocean
and about 1-3/4 miles W of Cape Fear River. The 1966 population within a
radius of 2 miles was about 650, and in 5 miles approximately 3500. The
small community of Southport (2200) is about 3 miles SSW and Wilmington,
North Carolina (55,000) is 20 miles NNE. The area is sparsely populated
with local land either undeveloped swamps and woods, or used for limited
farming. The site is in seismic zone 1.

Transportation access is by State Highway 133 which runs N-S about
a mile from the site and by Cape Fear River about 1-3/4 miles distant.
The SCL Railroad goes through Wilmington.

Major load centers are remote. Within 100 miles of the site there
are no major load centers. Small cities with this radius include:
Georgetown (10,000), Myrtle Beach (8600), Florence (26,000), Fayetteville
(54,000), Goldsboro RMA (64,000), Kingston (23,000), and Jacksonville
(73,000). The metropolitan areas within 150 miles are: Raleigh (250,000),
Charleston (300,000), and Durham-Chapel Hill (200,000). Columbia
(330,000), Charlotte (450,000), Winston-Salem (245,000) and Greensboro-
High Point RMA (362,000) are within 200 miles.

Cooling water for this site is sufficient to support a nuclear
energy center. Additional land would need to be acquired but this appears
to be feasible in view of the low population density and the current use
being made of the land. The chief disadvantage is the long distances to
load centers which would impose a relatively large economic penalty for
electricity transmission. General environmental issues could also be a
limitation and the Coastal Zone Act could impact capacity. Notwith-
standing these limitations it is estimated that the site could support
an NEC.

The Shearon Harris Station is located on the Cape Fear River N of
Raleigh. However, due to the long distance between the two stations they

will not affect one another as far as cooling water is concerned.
 

 

81

Site NC-2: McGuire Nuclear Power Station, Cowan's Ford,
North Carolina (B)

 

 

This 30,000 acre site is on Lake Norman near Cowan's Ford Dam.
Cornelius (1300) is about 3 miles N and Charlotte (250,000) is about
17 miles SSE. The 1970 population within 2 miles was about 350, and
within 5 miles about 1500. Land use within 5 miles is about 1/2 agri-
culture and 1/2 forests.

The site is in seismic zone 2. High wind, hail and lightning can
accompany summer thundershowers and hurricanes can affect the site.

State Highway 73 runs by the site and Interstate 77 is routed to
run by the site. The Southern Railroad runs through Charlotte (about
20 miles S) and the SCL runs through Mount Holly (about 15 miles to the
S).

Metropolitan area load centers within 100 miles include Fayetteville
(210,000), Kannapolis-Concord (89,000), Greensboro-High Point (360,000),
Winston-Salem (245,000), Johnson City-Elizabethton (100,000), Asheville
(130,000), Spartanburg (40,000), Gastonia (120,000), Columbia (330,000),
and Charlotte (250,000).

The site has many favorable features including low population density,
ample land and proximity to load centers. The main limitation seems to
be the availability of cooling water. Since Lake Norman provides storage
capacity to even out the low flow periods of the Catawba River, it has
been assumed that up to 10% of the average flow can be used for cooling.

This would support a mini NEC.

Site NC-3: Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station,
Bonsal, North Carolina (B)

 

This 18,000 acre site will include a 10,000 acre reservoir made by
impounding Buckhorn Creek. The site is mostly wooded and agricultural
being in a sparsely populated area. The 1970 population in a radius of
2 miles was 119 and in 5 miles 1400. Raleigh (120,000) is 20 miles
away. The site is in seismic zone 1.

Transportation access is via U.S. Highway 1 (1-1/2 miles NE) and the

Seaboard Coastline Railroad.

 
82

Major metropolitan load centers (within 100 miles) include:

Raleigh (250,000), Greenville (29,000), Goldsboro (64,000), Kingston
(23,000), Fayetteville (212,000), Winston-Salem RMA (235,000), Greensboro-
High Point (360,000), and Durham-Chapel Hill (200,000).

Water is the limiting factor to this site. During the crucial summer
period it is estimated that the maximum reservoir temperatures could rise
to approximately 98°F. However, with cooling towers the site could
accommodate additional capacity. Therefore, it appears that the site will
be able to accommodate more capacity than the 3600 MW(e) now planned for
it, perhaps up to a mini-NEC.

The Brunswick Nuclear Station is also located on the Cape Fear River
but since it draws water from the tidewater zone, the two sites will not

affect one another as far as cooling water is concerned.

Site NC-4: Perkins Nuclear Station,
Davie County, North Carolina (B)

This site estimated to be about 1200 acres is on the Yadkin River
/7 miles SE of Mocksville (2400), 11 miles W of Lexington (16,000), and
12 miles N of Salisburg (22,000). Winston-Salem (150,000) is 20 miles NNE.
The 1970 population in a radius of 2 miles was about 550, in 5 miles about
3800, in 10 miles about 34,000, and in 50 miles about 1,500,000. Land
usage within 5 miles is agriculture. The site is in seismic zone 2.

The site is bounded on the N by State Highway 801. U.S. Highway 62
is 2-1/2 miles NE and U.S. 601 is 5 miles to the W. The nearest railroad
is the Southern, 5 miles N.

Metropolitan area load centers within 100 miles include: Raleigh
(250,000) , Durham-Chapel Hill (200,000), Burlington (93,000), Greensboro-
High Point (360,000), Winston-Salem (245,000), Gastonia (1,200,000),
Charlotte (450,000), Kannapolis-Concord (90,000), and Fayetteville
(212,000). The McGuire Nuclear Power Station is 40 miles SW.

Cooling water availability is a limitation. Since storage capacity
is available to even out low flow periods it might be permissible to use
up to 5% of the average flow for cooling, however downstream usage of the
water may result in some opposition if flows are reduced too much. This

would support a mini NEC. Additional land would be needed, but it is

 

 
83

possible that additional land could be acquired. Overall, it is estimated

that the site could support a mini NEC.

Site OH-1: Davis-Besse Nuclear Station, Oak Harbor, Ohio (C)

This 900 acre site is on the southern shore of Lake Erie with the
Toussaint River along its southern boundary. The small summer community
of Locus Point is on the SW corner of the site and Toledo ("v400,000) is
2] miles WNW. Port Clinton (V7200) is about 9 miles SE of the site. The
projected 1980 population within 2 miles is about 500, 5 miles about 1600,
10 miles about 18,000, and 50 miles 2.2 million. Land use within 5 miles
is primarily agricultural and marshland. About 2/3 of the site area is
marshland. Two wildlife refuges and Crane Creek State Park border the
site. Erie Industrial Park is about 4 miles SE and employs about 1100
people. Camp Perry on the E side of the Industrial Park is a National
Guard Training Camp with a varying population.

State Highway 2 forms the western site boundary. The nearest rail-
road is the Penn Central 6 miles S. The site is served by a spur from the
Norfolk and Western 6 miles SW of the site. Water transportation is
available via Lake Erie.

The site is in seismic zone 1. Stability conditions are generally
neutral but the site is considered susceptible to tornadoes and may have
poor dispersion conditions and potential fogging.

There are major load centers within 50 to 70 miles of the site,
including the metropolitan areas of: Detroit (V4.5 million), Toledo
(v525,000), Sandusky (60,000), and Cleveland (v2.4 million).

There is ample cooling water for the site from Lake Erie and the main
limiting factors appear to be population density and land. Nearby popu-
lation densities are relatively low but there are about 2 million people
within 50 miles. Land availability may be limited through the site being
bounded by wildlife refuges and parks even though the land utilized for
an energy center 1is not incompatible with these other uses.

It is estimated that the site can support a nuclear energy center.

This site is along the southern edge of an area identified in an

earlier AEC study as a potential power park site. The AEC site extended
84

along the shore of Lake Erie for a distance of approximately 10 miles and
encompassed an area of about 25 square miles of flat, marshy land. About
1/2 of the area is in the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge. The area is

sparsely populated. The Erie site, 35 miles SE, is also a potential NEC.

Site OH-2: Perry Nuclear Station, Perry, Ohio (B)

 

This 1065 acre site is on a bluff about 50 ft above Lake Erie. It
is 7 miles NE of Painesville (16,500) and 33 miles NE of Cleveland
(metropolitan population 2.3 million). It is adjacent to the village
of Perry (851). The permanent population in a 2-mile radius is 1200,
in 5 miles V8000, in 10 miles 68,000, and in 50 miles approximately
2.5 million. Land use within 5 miles is 90% agricultural (nurseries)
or vacant. The lake shore is used for recreation. There are parks both
E and W of the site.

The site is in seismic zone 1. The prevailing wind direction is SE
in winter and NW in summer at an average speed of 6.5 mph.

U.S. Highway 20 is about 1 mile SSE of the site and two local roads
go through the site. The Penn-Central Railroad 1is about 3 miles SSE.
Water transportation is available via Lake Erie though the site itself
is on a high bluff above the lake.

Major close-by load centers are the metropolitan areas of: Youngs-
town (500,000) 60 miles, Akron (625,000) 50 miles, and Cleveland (2.3
million) 35 miles.

The site is in a close-by medium population density area, has ample
cooling water and is well located with respect to load centers. There
may be problems in expanding the site area due to the village of Perry
on the S and small parks to each the E and W. If the parks could be
included in the site, or if the site could circumvent the parks in its
expansion, sufficient land possibly could be obtained to support an NEC.
In view of the uncertainty as to what would be acceptable in this regard,
it has been assumed for the purposes of this study that enough additional
land can be obtained to support only a mini NEC. Population density
beyond about 5 miles also becomes a limiting factor. The population

factor at 10 miles is about 0.23 and at 30 miles considerable higher as
85

this encompasses the NE section of Cleveland. Environmental issues also
have arisen in connection with the present reactor construction program
at this site but it is believed that these will not become limiting fac-

tors.

Site OH-3: Zimmer Nuclear Station, Moscow, Chio (A)

 

This 491 acre site is on the eastern side of the Ohio River about
1/2 mile N of Moscow (700). The Cincinnati-Covington Metropolitan Area
is about 25 miles NW. The population in a distance of 2 miles is about
1500, and in 5 miles about 5000, Land use within a 5-mile radius is
agricultural and forests. The site is in seismic zone 1.

U.S. Highway 52 runs along the eastern boundary of the site and the
C&0 Railroad is on the western side of the river. Water transportation
is available via the Ohio River.

Major load centers within 100 miles include the metropolitan areas
of : Portsmouth (58,000) 65 miles, Columbus (950,000) 100 miles, Dayton-
Springfield (940,000) 80 miles, Cincinnati-Hamilton-Covington (1.5 million)
25 miles, Huntington, West Virginia-Ashland, Kentucky (200,000) about
100 miles, Lexington, Kentucky (230,000) 60 miles, and Louisville, Kentucky
(740,000) 90 miles.

This site is located on the narrow river plain between the river to
the W and a low range of wooded hills to the E which limits expansion in
these directions. The communities of Plainesville to the N and Moscow to
the S limit expansion along the river. Thus, the size of the site area
with good building sites for nuclear plants becomes the limiting factor.

It is estimated that the site is limited to a dispersed nuclear station.

Site OH-4: Erie Nuclear Station, Berlin Heights, Ohio (C)

 

This is a level to rolling 1740 acre site 2.4 miles S of the Lake
Erie shore between Cleveland, 34 miles to the E, and Toledo, 55 miles to
the NW. The site is in Berlin and Vermilion townships near the village
of Berlin Heights (828), 0.8 miles S. Nearby towns on Lake Erie are

Huron (6900) 3.4 miles NW, Vermilion (9900) 6.8 miles ENE, and Sandusky

 
86

(32,700) 8.9 miles NW. Other nearby towns are Milan (1400) 6.9 miles

SW, and Norwalk (13,400) 8.3 miles SW. The permanent population in a

2-mile radius is 1500, in 5 miles 8500, in 10 miles 46,400, and in 50

miles 2.5 million. Land use within 5 miles is 46% agricultural, 47% '
uncultivated, and 4% residential, The lakeshore is heavily used for

recreation in summer, although there are no large parks nearby. -

The site is in seismic zone 1. The prevailing wind is SW at an
average speed of 7.5 mph.

The Ohio Turnpike is 1.2 miles S of the site, state route 2 is
1.5 miles N, and the site is bounded on the W by state route 61. On the
N, the site is bounded by the Norfolk and Western RR, and ConRail (Penn.
Central) is 1.9 miles N. The nearest Lake Erie harbor is in Huron about
5 miles NW.

Major load centers are Cleveland (V2.3 million) 34 miles, Toledo
(v525,000) 55 miles, Akron (625,000) 50 miles, and Detroit (V4.5 million)
about 100 miles.

The local population density is low and land could be acquired to
support an NEC. However, expansion is limited by major roads and rail-
roads and would displace a number of residences. Population density
becomes larger at about 10 miles (Sandusky) and beyond. However, water
is unlimited and the site should support an NEC. The Davis-Besse site,

35 miles NW, is also a potential NEC.

Site OK-1: Black Fox Nuclear Station, Inola, Oklahoma (A)

 

This 2206 acre site is on the E bank of the Verdigris River (RM 39
to 43) 3 miles SW of Inola (v1200), and about 20 miles E of Tulsa
(v330,000). The population within 2 miles is about 100, within 5 miles
about 1800, and within 10 miles about 7300. Land use within 5 miles is
predominately farming and beef cattle raising. There is no industry near
the site but it is expected that industrial development will take place
N and within several miles of the site. Three o0il and gas pipelines pass
within 4 to 5 miles of the site on the NW side. Several recreational
sites are being developed on the river, two of these being along the site

border.

 
87

The site is in seismic zone 1. The site has very low potential for
air pollution but a high potential for tornadoes. The prevailing wind
direction is S at an average speed of 10.7 mph.

State Highway 33 runs E-W about 2 miles N of the site and the Muskogee
Turnpike runs NW-SE about 12 miles S of the site. The Missouri Pacific
Railroad runs NW-SE about 3 miles NE of the site. The Verdigris River
serves as part of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System
between the Arkansas River and Tulsa's Port of Catoosa.

The main electricity demand areas within 50 miles are Tulsa with a
population of approximately 0.5 million and Muskogee (v50,000)., Extend-
ing the distance to 100 miles adds the metropolitan areas of Ft. Smith
(v95,000), and Joplin (v68,000). Oklahoma City (“700,000) is about
125 miles.

The primary limiting factors to the site are availability of cooling
water and demand for the electric power. The Verdigris River during
normal low flow periods will not support much more capacity than the
2.3 GW(e) now planned for the site. The development of reservoirs and
the water management plans now underway will improve the situation but
it is estimated that the capacity which can be accommodated at this site

is limited to that of a dispersed nuclear station.

Site OR-1: Trojan Nuclear Power Station, Prescott, Oregon (B)

This 625 acre site is on the western bank of the Columbia River,
1/2 mile S. of Prescott (V350) and 31 miles NNW of Portland (375,000).
The population within a radius of 2 miles is about 600, and within 5 miles
about 8000. Land use within 5 miles is predominantly forests. The
seismic zone is 2.

Deep sea access is available via the Columbia River.?® U.S. High-
way 30 runs along the western side of the site and a mainline railroad runs
through the site.

Load centers within 100 miles include the metropolitan areas of:
Portland-Vancouver (1 million), Salem (135,000), Corvallis-Albany
(v50,000), Longview-Kelso (58,000), Aberdeen (20,000). The Seattle-

Tacoma-Everett metropolitan area (1.8 million) is slightly over 100 miles.

 
88

This site has many good features for a nuclear energy center. It
has ample cooling water, it is well located with respect to the Seattle-
Portland load centers and can tie-in with the large Bonneville Power
Administration hydro transmission network serving that area. The present
land area would need to be expanded and suitable building space is
limited by the nature of the terrain. This restriction is aggravated by -
the requirement for cooling towers which uses land that could otherwise
be used for reactor structures. In extending the site to the W, one
encounters rugged terrain not well suited for the emplacement of power
plant structures. The Columbia River is a barrier to expansion to the E.

Extension along the river is a possibility which cannot be adequately
assessed in this report. However, in view of the many good features of
the site it has been assumed that the site can support a mini nuclear
energy center.

This site is about 75 miles SSE of the WPPSS Nuclear Station at

Elma, Washington, and the two could serve much of the same demand area.
Also this site, the WPPSS Nuclear Stations at Elma and Hanford, the Pebble
Springs Site near Arlington, Oregon, and the Skagit Nuclear Station at
Sedro Woolley, Washington are all potential nuclear energy center sites
and the development of any one of these sites as an NEC would reduce the

attractiveness of the others because of the limited demand from the areas

which could be served.

Site OR-2: Pebble Springs Nuclear Station,
Arlington, Washington (D)

This 8400 acre site, including a 1900 acre cooling reservoir, is
3 miles SE of the Columbia River and about 3 miles ESE of Arlington (390)
which is in north central Oregon. Makeup water is pumped from the Columbia
River into Pebble Springs Reservoir. Storage regulation in the Columbia
Basin upstream of the site provides assurance of availability of water
for makeup. Population is sparse being only 600 people within 10 miles.
The only incorporated city within a 10-mile radius is Arlington, Oregon
(v400) 3 miles WNW. Seven small incorporated communities lie within the
10-mile radius circle, four in Oregon and three across the river in

Washington. One of these is W. Roosevelt to be discussed in connection
89

with Site P-7. The nearest population center is the Tri-Cities (Kennewick-
Pasco-Richland) about 55 miles ENE and a metropolitan population of about
78,000. Portland (v400,000) is 110 miles WSW. Population density in the
immediate region is low being about 10 within 2 miles, about 500 within

5 miles, about 600 within 10 miles, and about 70,000 within 50 miles.

Land usage within 5 niles is predominantly dry land agriculture and
grazing.

The prevailing wind direction is WSW with an average speed of 8 mph,
with good dispersion. The site is in seismic zone 2, Foundation condi-
tions in the area are excellent.

The transportation network serving the site is good. Oregon State
Highway 19 passes within 1.5 miles of the site, and the major E-W highway
across Oregon, I-80N, lies about 3 miles NW of the site. The UP Railroad
parallels the Columbia River approaching to within about 3 miles of the
site at Arlington. Spur lines of the UP are in the vicinity of the site.
The Columbia is a major navigable waterway and is 3 miles NW.

Major metropolitan load center areas available to the site are
Portland (vl million) 110 miles, Tri-Cities (78,000) 55 miles, Salem
(136,000) 135 miles, Corvallis (49,000) 145 miles, Eugene (v200,000)

165 miles, and Seattle-Tacoma-Everett (1.8 million) 170 miles. The site
could tie-in to the BPA transmission network at Arlington.

This site has excellent characteristics for an NEC. Cooling water
is ample, human activities and population are sparse in the area, the
transportation network is good, the meteorological conditions are good,
and the foundation conditions are excellent. The chief limiting factor
is the long distance to load centers and the competition with other good
sites for the load demand within 200 miles.

For the purposes of this report it is estimated that the site will
support a large NEC, although centers of this size are not likely to be
developed in this region for many years. This site, the WPPSS sites at
Hanford and Elma, Washington, the Skagit Nuclear Station at Sedro Woolley,
and the nearby Boardman Nuclear Station site are all potential NEC sites,
and the development of any one as an NEC would reduce the need of the

others because of limited demand.
90

Site PA-1l: Peach Bottom Nuclear Station,
Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania (C)

 

 

This 620 acre site is located on the western shore of the Conowingo
Reservoir of the Susquehanna River about 3 miles NE of Slatesville and
19 miles SSE of Lancaster (58,000). Population in a radius of 2 miles
is 700, and in 5 miles 15,000. Within 5 miles there are two hospitals,
Bainbridge Naval Training Station, Aberdeen Proving Ground and the Army
Chemical Center. Otherwise the land is agricultural and wooded.

The site is in seismic zone 1. The prevailing wind direction is
westwardly at an average speed of 4 mph.

The site is rather remote being served by two access roads from
State Highway 74 which is about 5 miles W. The Penn-Central Railroad is
on the E side of the reservoir across from the site. Access to the site
by water transportation does not exist except on the Conowingo Pond.

There are a number of major load centers within 50 miles, including
the metropolitan areas of: Baltimore (1.9 million), Metropolitan
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton area (3.6 million), Lancaster (195,000),
Harrisburg (370,000), York (185,000), and Reading (210,000).

This site appears to have sufficient water capacity to support a
nuclear energy center but a more detailed analysis is needed on the
Conowingo Reservoir capacity and uses to determine specifically the
capacity which can be supported with the available cooling water. The
site is excellently located with respect to load centers. More land
would be required but apparently is available for acquisition. Nearby
population density is low but there are a number of small towns within
10 to 15 miles of the site. It is estimated that the site could support
a nuclear energy center. The planned capacity of this site would have
to be considered in conjunction with that of the Fulton Nuclear Station
just across the Conowingo Pond. The Three Mile Island Nuclear Station
is about 35 miles upstream and the Susquehanna Nuclear Station more than

150 river miles upstream.
91

Site PA-2: Limerick Nuclear Station, Pottstown, Pennsylvania (A)

This 587 acre site is on the E side of the Schuykill River. Water
can be drawn from the Delaware River during low flow in the Schuykill.
Pottstown (26,000) is about 3 miles NW, Reading (110,000) 20 miles, and
Philadelphia (3.5 million) is about 30 miles SE. The 1968 population
within 2 miles was 5300, and within 5 miles was 67,000. Land use within
5 miles is agricultural and undeveloped and primarily rural within
10 miles.

The Reading Railroad runs through the site and U.S., Highway 22 runs
just N and E of the site. The site is in seismic zone 1.

The site is well located to serve the load centers of Philadelphia,
Wilmington, Baltimore, Harrisburg, Lancaster, Reading, Allentown, and
Trenton. Thus, there is no problem in disposing of any amounts of power
that might be generated at the site,

Water is the primary limitation to this site. Ten percent of the
average flow of the Schuykill River would provide cooling water for a
mini NEC, but low flow conditions probably would not support this capacity.
Therefore, for planning purposes it has been assumed that the site is
limited to a dispersed nuclear station. Additional land may need to be
acquired but this should not pose a serious problem. Proximity to large

population centers is a secondary limitation.

Site PA-3: Beaver Valley Nuclear Station,
Shippingport, Pennsylvania (C)

 

 

This 450 acre site is on the S bank of the Ohio River 25 miles NW
of Pittsburgh (520,000). Midland (5200) is on the other side of the
river about 1 1/2 miles NW. The small community of Shippingport is 1/2
to 1 mile E. Several other small towns (populations not listed) are
within 4 to 5 miles. The 1968 population within 2 miles was about 8000,
and within 5 miles about 17,000. Land use within 2 miles is industrial
and residential and beyond that, agricultural within 5 miles. A large
industrial area is about 1 1/2 miles WNW.
The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad and U.S. Highway 168 run through

the site. Transportation is also available via the Ohio River.

 

 
 

92

The prevailing wind direction is NW or S at an average speed of 5 mph.
The site is in seismic zone 1.

Within a distance of 50 miles, the site could serve the load centers
of the Metropolitan Pittsburgh area (2.1 million) and Youngstown (.5 mil-
lion), as well as smaller population areas aggregating another .5 million
people. Within 100 miles are Cleveland (2.3 million), Akron (630,000),
Canton (320,000), Wheeling (160,000), Johnstown (150,000), and Erie
(230,000).

The site has several good features such as ample cooling water, low
nearby population density area, and good transportation routes. Its
chief limitations seem to be the small area of the site, the large popu-
lation center of Pittsburgh 25 miles away, and the local topographical
features. Since there are 3 million or more people and heavy industrial-
ized areas within 50 miles, and another 4 million people within 100 miles,
it appears that distribution of large amounts of generated electricity
should be no problem.

It is marginal as to whether the site can support a small nuclear
energy center. Additional land would have to be acquired — the feasibility
of which will require a more detailed analysis. Also, the proximity of

Pittsburg imposes a population density limitation.

Site PA-4: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
Goldsboro, Pennsylvania (A)

This 625 acre site is on Three Mile Island on the E side of the
Conowingo Reservoir of the Susquehanna River. At this point, the river
is nearly 2 miles wide with numerous islands in the area. Middletown
(9000) is 4 miles N and Harrisburg (70,000) about 10 miles NW. The
1969 population within 2 miles was about 2700, and within 5 miles about
30,000. Nearest houses are about 2000 feet away and land use within
5 miles is primarily agriculture. The York Haven Hydrostation is about
2 1/2 miles downstream and the Peach Bottom Nuclear Station about
35 miles downstream. The Susquehanna Nuclear Station is more than 100

river miles upstream.

 
93

The Pennsylvania Railroad runs along the E bank of the river within
about 1/2 mile of the site. The Pennsylvania Turnpike runs through
Middletown. Olmstead State Airport is 2 1/2 miles NW and the Harrisburg
Airport is 8 miles WNW.

The prevailing wind direction is WNW with an average speed of 5 mph.
The seismic zone is 1.

The site is well located to serve within 50 miles the metropolitan
load centers of Harrisburg (370,000), Reading (207,000), Lancaster
(200,000), York (185,000), Pottsville (57,000), Lebanon (78,000), and
Coatesville (66,000). The metropolitan areas of Philadelphia (5 million)
and Allentown-Bethlehem—-Easton (approximately 500,000) are within
100 miles.

The chief limitations to the site are its close proximity (10 to
15 miles) to the Metropolitan Harrisburg population of 370,000 people and
the size of the site which is limited by the area of Three Mile Island
the lower part of which has been dedicated to recreational use. Due to
this limitation it is estimated that the site can support very little

expansion over the capacity now planned.

Site PA-5: Susquehanna Nuclear Station,
Berwick, Pennsylvania (B)

 

 

This 1522 acre site is on the W side of the Susquehanna River about
16 miles SW of Wilkes-Barre (59,000). The population density of the
nearby region is low — there being within 2 miles about 1200 inhabitants,
and within 5 miles about 11,000. The site is about 1 mile from the river
and is hilly except for the flat river valley. Land use within 5 miles
1s wooded and agricultural. The site is in seismic zone 1.

The Erie Lakawanna Railroad and U.S. Highway 11 run along the bound-
ary just E of the site. There are no airports close by.

Within 50 miles the site could serve the metropolitan load centers
of Scranton-Wilkes Barre-~Pittson (approximately 500,000), Allentown-
Bethlehem—-Easton (approximately .5 million), Hazelton (65,000), Pottsville

(57,000), and other small communities. However, the metropolitan areas

within 100 miles include Philadelphia (approximately 5 million), Binghamton

(approximately 250,000), Reading (approximately 210,000), and Elmira

 
94

(135,000). Thus, having a demand for generated electricity should not
pose a serious limitation.

The chief limiting factors to the site are availability of cooling
water and to a lesser extent the close proximity of the Wilkes-Barre-—
Scranton area. Other conditions are relatively favorable. It is esti-
mated that the site can accommodate a mini NEC. Additional land would
have to be acquired to support this capacity but this should not be a
major obstacle.

The Three Mile Island Nuclear Station is more than 100 river miles
downstream and the Peach Bottom and Fulton Nuclear Stations are another

35 miles downstream.

Site PA-6: Fulton Nuclear Station, Fuller, Pennsylvania (C)

 

This 360 acre site is on the E bank of the Conowingo Pond of the
Susquehanna River across the pond from the Peach Bottom Nuclear Power
Station. The site is 1 1/2 miles W of the small community of McSparran,
17 miles S of Lancaster (58,000), 36 miles NE of Baltimore (910,000), and
59 miles WSW of Philadelphia (approximately 2 million). The population
within 2 miles is about 1000; within 5 miles about 6000, and within
10 miles about 28,000.

Land use within 5 miles is primarily agricultural or vacant. It is
relatively unpopulated and rural in nature. Peach Bottom Village and
Fairfield are the nearest communities, being about 1 mile SSE and 1.5 miles
NNE, respectively. Peach Bottom has about 100 houses and Fairfield about
30. In each case, many are summer cottages. The site is in seismic
zone 1.

A track of the Penn Central Railroad passes through the SW edge of
the site beside Conowingo Pond. A spur line will provide rail service to
the site. State Highway 74 is about 5 miles E of the site. Feeder roads
will have to be constructed from this highway into the site. Commercial
river traffic is limited to the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam.
Therefore, no water transportation link to the site exists.

The site is ideally located to serve several large load centers and

distribution of generated power should not be a serious limitation.

 
 

95

The chief limitations to the site are the proximity of the large
population centers of Baltimore and Philadelphia. The site seems to
have sufficient cooling water capacity to support a nuclear energy
center but a more detailed analysis is needed of the Conowingo Reservoir
capacity and uses to determine specifically what generating capacity can
be supported. Plans and projections must take into account the plans for
the Peach Bottom Site just across the reservoir. It is estimated that
the site can support an NEC.

The Three Mile Island Nuclear Station is located 35 miles upstream
and the Susquehanna another 100 miles or more above that.

Initial plans to build two 1160 MW(e) High Temperature Gas Reactors
(HTGR) on the site have been abandoned in favor of two coal fired plants.

The site analysis is valid for either HTGRs or LWRs.

Site RI-1: New England Power Station,
Charlestown, Rhode Island (A)

 

 

This 549 acre site is on the Atlantic Ocean at Block Island Sound,
about 9 miles E of Westerly (14,000) and 35 miles WSW of Providence
(180,000). The population density is about 1000 within 2 miles, 5000
within 5 miles, 43,000 within 10 miles, and about 2 million within
50 miles. The site was formerly a Naval Auxiliary Landing Field and
except to the NW is surrounded by salt water ponds. A private landing
strip and Kimball Bird Sanctuary lie immediately to the W, and Charles-
town (3700) and the Charlestown Beach area, a summer resort, lie across
a salt water inlet to the E. Land use within 5 miles is mostly forested
or unused, with several residential and recreational areas. Most of the
area is zoned residential.

U.S. Highways 1 and 1A run along the NW boundary of the site, and
the Conrail (Penn Central) RR runs about 4 miles to the W.

The site is on the border of seismic zones 1 and 2, and the pre-
vailing wind is SW at an average speed of 7.6 mph.

The site is well located to serve the Providence metropolitan area
(about 1 million), 35 miles, and Boston (V3.8 million) is about 85 miles

N.
96

The site has ample water, good foundation conditions, and is close
to load centers, but is small and lacks land suitable for expansion. It

is limited by land and population to a dispersed site.

Site SC-1: H, B, Robinson Nuclear Station,
Hartsville, South Carolina (A)

 

 

This 5000 acre site is on Lake Robinson. This man-made lake,
4000 feet wide and 7.5 miles long, is fed by Black Creek. The site is
about 7 miles NW of Hartsville (8000). Florence (26,000) is about
25 miles SE. The population within 2 miles is about 1400; and within
5 miles about 13,000. The area is sparsely populated. Land use within
5 miles is primarily agriculture.

Since this site is water limited to about the capacity now being

planned for it, no further analysis is justified.

Site SC~2: Oconee Nuclear Station,
Seneca, South Carolina (A)

 

 

This 500 acre site (part of 150,000 acres owned by Duke Power
Company) is on the 19,000 acre Lake Keowee. Oconee is part of the Keowee-
Taxaway Project in Western North Carolina consisting of a series of man-
made lakes for nuclear, hydro and pumped storage electricity generation.
The lake is fed by several small rivers and creeks. Pickens (13,000)
is about 15 miles NE and Greenville (62,000) is 26 miles ENE. Population
is sparse, being about 900 within 2 miles, about 62,000 within 5 miles.

The metropolitan areas of Greenville (300,000), Spartanburg
(140,000), and Anderson (64,000) are within about 50 miles of the site.
Within 100 miles are Columbia (330,000) and Augusta (215,000). Thus,
demand might constitute a time limiting factor to the amount of power
to be generated, considering that other generating plants on the Duke
system could serve some of the demand area. In this connection, see the
reports on the Catawba and Cherokee Nuclear Stations.

It is difficult to determine the potential capacity of this site
without analyzing the entire system; however, it appears that water

availability will limit the site to a dispersed station, and no further
 

97

analysis is justified. Also, it may be more desirable to develop
alternative Duke Power Company owned sites on Lake Keowee rather than

increase the capacity of Oconee.

Site SC-3: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,
Broad River, South Carolina (A)

 

 

This 11,000 acre site is being developed by South Carolina Electric
and Gas Company near the small community of Parr. It is part of a com-
plex consisting of the Parr Reservoir, the 7000 acre Monticello Lake, the
Nuclear Station, and pumped hydro using the two reservoirs. Columbia
(100,000) is 26 miles SE but the nearby area is sparsely populated. The
1970 population within 2 miles was less than 200, and within 5 miles
about 1200. Land use within 5 miles is mostly wooded (80%) and less to
agriculture (about 10%). A fossil plant and a small decommissioned
nuclear plant are on the site.

Interstate Highway 26 (I-26) runs NW-SE about 10 miles S of the site
and U.S. Highway 176 runs between I-26 and the site. State Highway 311
connects the site with these two highways. The site is in seismic zone 2.

The metropolitan centers of Columbia (330,000), Sumpter (70,000), and
Rock Hill (56,000) totaling about .5 million people are within 50 miles
of the site. Going out to 100 miles adds August (215,000), Anderson
(64,000), Greenville (300,000), Spartanburg (141,000), Charlotte (455,000),
and Florence (52,000) — another 1.3 million people. This indicates that
the site could be demand limited, considering that the Catawba Nuclear
Station is 65 miles NNE and the Robinson Nuclear Station about 80 miles
ENE. Water avilability appears to be another limiting factor and a more
detailed analysis 1s required to determine how much capacity the available
water will support. Otherwise, the site has features favorable for a
small nuclear energy center.

In the absence of specific information of water supplies, it is
estimated that the site is submarginal for an NEC and will only support

a dispersed station.

 

 
98

Site SC-4: Catawba Nuclear Station,
Lake Wylie, South Carolina (B)

 

 

This 23,600 acre site is located on a penninsula extending into
Lake Wylie of the Catawba River System of dams and hydro stations. The
site is about 10 miles NNW of Rock Hill (34,000) and about 19 miles SW
of Charlotte (241,000). The site is remote and in a low population
density area. The 1970 population within 2 miles is about 500; within
5> miles about 5700; and within 10 miles about 66,000. The land use
within 5 miles is wooded with homes (permanent and summer) along the
lake.

The area has good foundation geology with favorable seismic history.
It is in seismic zone 2. Meteorological factors provide reasonable dif-
fusion.

State Highway 274 runs just to the W of the site and is connected
with the site by State Highway 1132. The Southern Railroad runs several
miles S of the site and thence to Rock Hill.

The site, though remote, is extremely well located with respect to
load centers: metropolitan areas within 50 miles include Charlotte
(455,000), Gastonia (120,000), and Spartanburg (141,000). Extending the
distance to 100 miles adds Greenville (300,000), Anderson (64,000),
Columbia (300,000), Sumpter (70,000), and Ashville (130,000). Thus, the
metropolitan populations within 100 miles total nearly 2 million people.
This site is about 25 miles E of the Cherokee Nuclear Station, about
35 miles S of the McGuire Nuclear Station, and about 65 miles NNE of the
Summer Nuclear Station. Since the demand areas of these various sites
overlap to some extent, they must be analyzed as a system in determining
large concentrated capacities at any one site.

This site has several very favorable features. The limiting factors
are availability of cooling water and proximity to large population
centers. To determine the capacity which the available water will support
requires a more thorough analysis than has been performed for this study.

However, it appears that available water will support a mini NEC.
99

Site SC-5: Cherokee Nuclear Station,
Cherokee County, South Carolina (A)

 

 

This 1500 acre site is on the 99 Island Reservoir of Broad River.
Blacksburg (2200) about 6 miles N is the nearest town. Spartanburg
(45,000) is about 23 miles WSW and Charlotte (242,000) about 40 miles
ENE. The nearby area is sparsely populated. The population within 2 miles
is about 600; within 5 miles about 3500; within 10 miles about 32,000;
and within 50 miles about 1.3 million. Land use within 5 miles is mostly
cattle raising, only about 6% of the land being suitable for pasture or
farming,

The prevailing wind direction is SW at an average speed of about
/ mph. Calm periods are estimated to be 5% of the time. The site is
located in seismic zone 2.

The highway network in the region is good. I-85 is about 7 miles
NW. U.S. Highway 29 is 5 miles NW. State Highway 5 is 5 miles NE, and
State Highway 105 is 4 miles SW. The Southern Railroad is 5 miles NE.

The populations of metropolitan areas within 50 miles are:

Charlotte (v450,000), Spartanburg (Vv140,000), and Greenville (~300,000).
Extending this to 100 miles brings in: Winston-Salem (~v250,000),
Kannapolis (90,000), Johnson City (~100,000), Ashville (v130,000), and
Columbia (n330,000).

This site is about 25 miles W of the Catawba Nuclear Station and
thus the two are located to serve much of the same load centers. It is
also about 90 miles NE of Oconee Nuclear Station and about 55 miles S of
the McGuire Nuclear Station. Thus, these four sites must be considered
as part of a system in analyzing concentrated electricity demands from
any sites serving the same general region.

While this site has several very favorable features, the electric
generating capacity which it can accommodate is limited by availability
of cooling water and proximity to the large population areas. Demand
could be a limitation but water availability is the controlling factor.
It is estimated that the site is presently limited to a dispersed nuclear
station. The site generating capacity could be increased by constructing

additional reservoir capacity but this would be a costly alternative.
100

Site TN-1: Sequoyah Nuclear Station, Daisy, Tennessee (D)

 

This 525 acre site is on the W shore of Chicamauga Lake of the
Tennessee River at river mile 484.5. Daisy, a small community of about
2500 people is 5 miles NE and Chattanooga (145,000) is about 12 miles SW.
The site lies in a 10 mile wide valley surrounded by hilly terrain. The .
1980 population is projected to be about 1500 people within 2 miles and
about 12,000 within 5 miles. Land usage within 5 miles is undeveloped
rural and woods, with growing residential use. In addition, the lake
area is used extensively for recreation. The site is in seismic zone 2.

The transportation network serving the site is good. Water trans-
portation is available via the Tennessee River. The L&N Railroad and
U.S. Highway 27 run close to one another on the W side of the river, both
passing through Daisy. State Route 163 connects the site with U.S. High-
way 27.

Since the site serves the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) System,
its capacity for meeting load demands must be analyzed as part of the
total system needs. The main load center within 50 miles is metropolitan
Chattanooga (335,000) but within 100 miles are the metropolitan areas of
Knoxville (v440,000), Atlanta (v1.8 million), and Huntsville (~200,000).
Nashville (560,000) is about 100 miles. Thus, the site is well located
to serve large and growing load centers.

The site has excellent characteristics for a nuclear energy center.
Cooling water is adequate for a large center, it is well located to serve
major load demand areas, it is located in a rural, low population density
region, the transportation network is excellent, and the seismic character-
istics are good. The site area would need to be enlarged but this doesn't
appear to present a serious limitation. The chief limitation is the
proximity of the large population area of Chattanooga with public accep-
tance a potential restriction. Otherwise and as far as physical character-
istics are concerned, the site could support a large NEC.

The Watts Bar Nuclear Station is 44 miles upstream, the Clinch River
Breeder Reactor Demonstration Project is about 95 miles upstream, the

Bellefonte Nuclear Station 92 miles downstream, and the Brown's Ferry

 

 
101

Nuclear Station 190 miles downstream. All of these are potential nuclear

energy center sites and plans for one would affect each of the others.

Site TN-2: Watts Bar Nuclear Station,
Spring City, Tennessee (D)

 

 

This 1770 acre site is on the W shore of the Chickamauga Lake of the
Tennessee River about RM 528. The site is about 8 miles SE of Spring City
(approximately 8000) and 45 miles NE of Chattanooga (145,000). The 1970
population within a distance of 2 miles was approximately 200, and within
5 miles approximately 2000. Land usage within 5 miles is mostly wooded
(65%) and agriculture (35%). The site is in seismic zone 2.

The transportation network serving the site is good. Water access
is available via the Tennessee River. The L&N Railroad and U.S. Highway 27
run close to one another paralleling the river on the W side. They both
pass through Spring City. State Route 68 connects the site with U.S.
Highway 27.

The site is 44 miles upriver from the Sequoyah Nuclear Station site
and could generally serve the same load centers though it is a little
farther from Atlanta and Huntsville than the Sequoyah site.

The site has excellent characteristics for a nuclear energy center.
Cooling water is adequate for a large center, it is well located to serve
major load centers, it is located in a rural low-population density area,
the transportation network is excellent, and the seismic characteristics
are good. The site area would need to be enlarged but this does not
appear to present a serious limitation. Compared to the Sequoyah Nuclear
Station, this site is more remote from large population centers and hence
is less convenient to major load centers. The amount of cooling water is
less than at the Sequoyah site but is ample in each case. The site has
no serious limitations. It is estimated that the site will support a

large NEC.

Site TN-3: Clinch River Breeder Reactor Demonstration Project,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee (B)

 

This 1364 acre site is a severed part of the 37,000 acre Energy

Research and Development Agency (ERDA) Reservation. It is on a peninsula
102

surrounded on 3 sides by the Clinch River with the ERDA Reservation lying
generally to the N and E. An area of about 100 acres set aside for the
Clinch River Industrial Park joins the site on the NW. The ERDA Gaseous
Diffusion Plant is 3 1/2 miles NNW, the Y-12 Manufacturing and Fabricat-
ing Plant about 4 miles N, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory 4 miles NE,
and the Melton Hill Dam 4 1/2 miles E. Towns within 10 miles are Lenoir
City (5400) 9 miles SE, Kingston (4200) 7 miles W, Harriman (8800)

9.5 miles WNW, and Oak Ridge (28,500) 9 miles NNE. Knoxville (175,000)
is 25 miles E. The 1980 population is projected to be about 300 within
2 miles, 2800 within 5 miles, 50,000 within 10 miles, and 750,000 within
50 miles. Land usage within 5 miles is mostly government reservation,
and unused woods except for a small amount of cattle grazing. In addi-
tion there are numerous recreational sites within 5 miles.

The site is in seismic zone 2. Prevailing wind direction is SSW-NNE
at an average speed of 4.4 mph.

The transportation network serving the site is good. Water access
is available via the Clinch-Tennessee Rivers. A rail spur will be run
in from the Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Interstate 40 runs E-W 1 1/2 miles S
and State Route 58, 1 1/2 miles NW is the access highway.

The Clinch River Breeder Reactor, now deferred, was to be a demon-
stration of the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor concept. No other
electric power producing units exist at the site.

The major load centers within 50 miles of the site are the Gaseous
Diffusion Enrichment Plants and the Knoxville-0Oak Ridge-Maryville area
(v450,000). Extending the distance to 100 miles adds Chattanooga
(335,000), and to 150 miles adds Kingsport (100,000), Nashville (560,000),
Johnson City-Elizabethton (100,000), Bristol (50,000), and Lexington
(250,000). The site is well located for feeding into the TVA system.

The site has favorable features for a small NEC, Cooling water is
adequate, population density is low in nearby areas, and the transporta-
tion network is excellent. Limitations are the proximity to the population
centers of Knoxville and Oak Ridge and the relatively poor location with
respect to load centers. It is estimated that the site can accommodate
a mini NEC. Since the LMFBR Demo Plant and perhaps the LMFBR Fuel

Processing Plant were planned for the site, it might well serve as a
103

small LFMBR energy center. Other TVA sites downstream provide possible

NEC sites for light water reactors.

Site TN-4: Hartsville Nuclear Station, Hartsville, Tennessee (C)

 

This 1940 acre site is located on 0ld Hickory Lake of the Cumberland
River at approximate RM 285. The nearest communities are Hartsville
(2300) which is about 5 miles NW and Dixon Springs (100) which is about
1 1/2 miles E. Nashville (275,000) is 40 miles WSW. The 1970 populatibn
was, within 2 miles about 300, within 5 miles 2600, within 10 miles
12,000 and within 50 miles 900,000. Land use within 5 miles is mostly
agriculture with pasture land and hay crops predominating.

The prevailing wind direction is ENE at an average speed of "4 mph.
The site is in seismic zone 1.

The site is bounded on the N by Tennessee Highway 25. U.S. Highway
70N is across the river and about 6 miles S, I-40 is about 12 miles S.

A railroad spur will be run into the site from Hartsville. |

Major load centers within 50 miles are the metropolitan areas of
Nashville (560,000), Murfreesboro (29,000), and Bowling Green (37,000).
Extending the distance to 100 miles adds Clarksville (56,000), and
extending the distance to 150 miles adds Knoxville-Maryville-Oak Ridge
(440,000), Lexington (235,000), Louisville (900,000), Owensboro (50,000),
Evansville (140,000), Paducah (32,000), Florence-Sheffield (92,000), and
Chattanooga (335,000).

This site has many favorable features for a nuclear energy center.
Cooling water is adequate to support an NEC, the transportation network
is good, the seismic conditions are low risk, and the population density
is low. The land area would need to be enlarged to accommodate an NEC
but this doesn't appear to present a serious limitation. Public accep-
tance will be an issue and the site is relatively distant from major

load centers. Otherwise there do not appear to be any major limitations.

It is estimated that the site could support a nuclear energy center.

 

 
104

Site TN-5: Phipps Bend Nuclear Station,
Surgoinsville, Tennessee (B)

 

 

This 1270 acre site is on the W bank of the Holston River near
RM 121, and is located on a peninsula formed by a wide sweeping curve of
the river. Surgoinsville (Vv1300) is about 3 miles WNW, Church Hill
(v3000) about 6 miles NE, and Kingsport (32,000) about 15 miles ENE. 1In
1970 the population within 2 miles was about 600, within 5 miles 5300,
within 10 miles 18,000, and within 50 miles 850,000. Land use within
5 miles is agriculture and woods. The site is in a NE-SW valley with
ridges on either side within 4 to 5 miles.

The prevailing wind direction is ENE-WSW with an average speed of
5 mph. The site is located in seismic zone 2.

Transportation access is provided by U.S. Highway 11-W which passes
within 2 miles, I-81 which runs NE-SW about 10 miles SSE of the site, and
the Southern RR which passes within 1 1/2 miles NW and from which a spur
line will be built to the site.

Metropolitan load centers within 50 miles are: Kingsport (%v100,000),
and Johnson City (v100,000); within 100 miles adds Knoxville (v450,000),
and Ashville (v130,000); and within 150 miles adds Huntington-Ashland
(v250,000), Charleston (Vv240,000), Greenville (n300,000) and Lexington
(v235,000). The load centers beyond 100 miles are on other utility sys-
tems; however, this being a TVA site it can feed power into the TVA sys-
tem for use elsewhere on the system.

Available cooling water at minimum flows would support only a dis-
persed nuclear station, but the system of dams on the Holston River and
its tributaries help to even out seasonal flows. Thus it is estimated
that the available water could possibly support more than just a dispersed
site. Additional land would need to be acquired to support this capacity
but this does not appear to present a major problem. Demand might be a
limiting factor at capacities much beyond that of a dispersed site.

In summary, limited cooling water makes the site a marginal mini NEC

possibility.

 
105

Site TX-1: Commanche Peak Nuclear Station, Glen Rose, Texas (A)

 

This 5000 acre site is located on Squaw Creek adjacent to the proposed
3135 acre (143,000 acre feet) Squaw Creek Reservoir. The nearest com-
munity is Glen Rose (Vv1600) which is about 4 1/2 miles SSE. Fort Worth
(390,000) is about 45 miles NNE and Dallas (850,000) about 70 miles NE.

The population within 2 miles is less than 100, within 5 miles about
2000, and within 10 miles about 6600. The land use within 5 miles is
rural farm/ranch land, most of which is rangeland.

The prevailing wind direction is SSE at an average speed of 11 mph.
The site borders seismic zones 0 and 1.

U.S. Highway 377 is about 9 miles NW, U.S. Highway 67 about 4 miles S,
and State Highway 144 is about 2 1/2 miles E. The AT&SF RR runs NE-SW
about 8 miles NW.

The site is well located to serve the Dallas-Fort Worth demand
area with a metropolitan area population of 2 1/2 million people.

The major limitation to the site is cooling water, and it has been
assumed that the site will not support more than the presently dispersed

nuclear station.

Site TX-2: Blue Hills Nuclear Station, Jasper, Texas (B)

 

This 3016 acre site is 2 miles SW of the Toledo Bend Reservoir on
the Sabine River. The storage capacity of the reservoir is 4,660,000
acre feet thus instantaneous or daily minimum flows in the Sabine River
are not strongly relevant. Reservoirs upstream have additional storage
capacity of over 1,000,000 acre feet. The site is about 10 miles N of
Wiergate (300) and Burkeville (v100), and 25 miles ENE of Jasper (6300).
The Texas-louisiana border is 9 miles E of the site and Shreveport
(182,000) is 95 miles N. The site is in a low population density area.
Population as of 1970 was within 2 miles 5, within 5 miles less than 200,
within 10 miles about 1500, and within 50 miles about 156,000. Land
use within 5 miles is mostly woods.

The prevailing wind direction in summer is SE with an average speed

of 12 mph, and in winter is N with an average speed of 12.5 mph.

 

 
106

Dispersion is good. The site is on the border of seismic zones 0 and 1.
The area is subject to frequent hurricanes.

State Highway 87 is about 2 miles W and U.S. Highway 190 runs through
Newton (Vv1600) 21 miles S of the site. The Sante Fe RR runs 18 miles W.
A spur RR will be run in from this line to the site.

Load centers within 100 miles of the site are the metropolitan
areas of Beaumont-Port Arthur (266,000), Lake Charles (80,000), Shreveport
(280,000), and Marshall-Longview (70,000). Houston (2.1 million) and
Texas City-Galveston (135,000) are about 140 miles and Dallas-Fort Worth
(2.5 million) about 215 miles.

This site has many favorable features for a nuclear energy center.
It is located in a low population density area, it is in a low risk
seismic zone, the transportation network is good, and the series of
reservoirs on the Sabine River appear to provide adequate cooling water
for a small nuclear energy center. The chief limitation is the relatively
long distance to major load centers. It is estimated that the site can
support a mini NEC. Additional land will need to be acquired for an

enlarged site but this should not be a serious limitation.

Site TX-3: Allens Creek Nuclear Station, Wallis, Texas (C)

 

This 11,000 acre site is located on a bluff W of the Brazos River
flood plain about 4 miles NE of Wallis (1000) and 7 miles SSE of Sealy
(2700). A 7600 acre cooling lake will be formed through which Allens
Creek will flow with the cooling lake discharging into the Brazos River.
The site is 45 miles W of Houston (1.3 million). The area is sparsely
populated there being as of 1970 less than 100 people within 2 miles,
about 2000 within 5 miles, about 8000 within 10 miles, and 1.5 million
within 50 miles. Land use within 5 miles is agriculture (80%), forests
and rangeland.

The prevailing wind direction is SSE with an average speed of 11.6 mph.
The site is in seismic zone 0.

State Route 36 runs SE-NW about 1 mile W of the reactor plant. It

connects with Interstate 10 at Sealy. The Sante Fe and Southern Pacific
 

107

Railroads cross at the S end of the cooling lake. A spur line will be
run into the site from the Sante Fe.

The site is well located to serve the metropolitan area of Houston
(2.1 million). The metropolitan areas of Beaumont-Port Arthur (266,000),
is about 125 miles, Austin (365,000) about 110 miles, San Antonio (925,000)
about 150 miles, Corpus Christi (260,000) about 160 miles, and Waco
(134,000) about 140 miles. Dallas-Fort Worth (2.5 million) is 225 miles.
This site is about 65 miles N of the South Texas Nuclear Project and thus
would serve some of the same electrical load areas.

The site has many favorable features for a nuclear energy center,
It is in a low population density area of low seismic risk, is served by
a good transportation network, is large enough to accommodate a small NEC.

A limitation to an NEC is that the generated power will have to be
transmitted relatively long distances to load centers. The site possibly

can support a small NEC if water is allocated for this purpose.

Site TX-4: South Texas Nuclear Project, Matagorda, Texas (B)

 

This 12,350 acre site is 3 miles W of the Colorado River and about
10 miles NW of the Bay of Matagorda which opens into the Gulf of Mexico.
The site is 8 miles NW of Matagorda (v1200), 12 miles SSW of Bay City
(12,000), and 80 miles WSW of Galveston (65,000). The population in the
area of the site is sparse being as of 1970 about 10 within 2 miles, 250
within 5 miles, 3200 within 10 miles, and 176,000 within 50 miles. Land
use within 5 miles is predominantly agriculture, rice being the major
crop. There are 6 ranches within 10 miles with a total of about 4000
head of cattle.

The prevailing wind direction is SE at an average speed of 9.5 mph.
The stability data shows a tendency for stable conditions. The site is
in seismic zone O.

The site is served by Farm Road No. 521 and by a county road con-
necting with State Route 60, 7 1/2 miles E. State Route 35 is 9 miles NW.
The Missouri Pacific RR is 5 miles NNE from which a spur line will be

run to the site.

 

 
 

108

The metropolitan areas of Galveston (135,000), Houston (2.1 million),
and Corpus Christi (260,000) are within 80 to 110 miles. Austin (365,000)
is about 145 miles, San Antonio (924,000) about 155 miles, and Beaumont-
Port Arthur (266,000) about 155 miles. This site is about 65 miles S of
the Allens Creek Nuclear Station, thus would serve some of the same
electrical load areas. v
This site has many favorable features for an NEC. It is in a low
population density area of low seismic risk, is served by a fair trans-
portation network, and has a large site area. The distances to major load
centers are relatively long and the supply of cooling water is limited.
At times the low flow in the Colorado is nearly zero but the large man-
made cooling pond mitigates the impact of this situation. If necessary,
cooling water possibly could be brought from the Gulf of Mexico about
15 miles distant. Construction would have to be conducted in a manner
to protect against adverse environmental impact, particularly of the
sloughs and estuaries which might be affected. At present the water
supply is not adequate to support an NEC, but possibly will support a

mini NEC.

Site VT-1: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station, Vernon, Vermont (A)

 

This 125 acre site is located on the W side of the Connecticut River
on Vernon Pond about 1/2 mile above Vernon Dam and hydrostation. The
community of Vernon, Vermont (1000) is approximately 2000 feet W and
Hinsdale, New Hampshire (v3300) is 1 1/2 miles E. Holyoke, Massachusetts
(52,500) is 29 miles S. The 1970 population within 2 miles was about
2060, and within 5 miles 6590. Land use within 5 miles is wooded (75%),
and the balance agricultural and industrial.

The prevailing wind direction is NNW at an average speed of 8 mph.
Hills rise on both sides of the river creating a valley condition which
effects winds and other meterological conditionms. Stability data is
average. The site is in seismic zone 2.

State Route 142 and the Vermont RR run along the W edge of the site.

The site is well located to serve the load centers of Lowell,

Lawrence, Manchester, Concord, Claremont, Battleboro and Springfield.

 

 
109

However, the site is small in size and the community of Vernon about
2000 feet away limits any expansion. Thus, it appears that the site is

limited to the capacity now planmned for it.

Site VA-1: Surry Nuclear Station, Gravel Neck, Virginia (B)

This 840 acre site is on a peninsula on the E shore of the James
River which at this point is 3 miles wide and has a 25 ft deep channel.
This point in the river is about the limit of salt water intrusion from
the ocean. The site is 7 1/2 miles SSE from Williamsburg (9100) and
10 miles NW of Newport News (138,000). The population density is low in
the immediate area and as of 1970 was about 10 within 2 miles, about 700
within 5 miles and 108,000 within 10 miles. Land use within 5 miles is
agricultural W and S, and water and military reservations N and E.
Jamestown Island, a Federal park is 4 miles NW; Chippokes Plantation, a
State Park, is 3 miles WSW; Jamestown National Historical Park is 5 miles
WNW; and Colonial Williamsburg is 7 1/2 miles NNW. Adjacent to the site
on the N is Hog Island, a waterfowl refuge. These numerous attractions
bring thousands of visitors to the area. The site is located in seismic
zone 1.

There is water access to the site by the James River. State Route 10
is the highway access to the site. The nearest railroads are at Portsmouth
25 miles SE or at Newport News on the other side of the river.

The site is well located to serve major load centers being within
50 miles of the metropolitan areas of Norfolk-Portsmouth (768,000),
Newport News-Hampton (327,000), Richmond (526,000), Petersburg-Hopewell
(130,000).

The site has ample cooling water, has low population density in the
immediate area, is in a low seismic risk zone, has an adequate transporta-
tion network and is well located to serve major load centers. The primary
limitations are the high population density areas of Newport News and
Portsmouth to the SE and the heavily visited recreational areas to the NW.
A more detailed assessment would be required to define this limitation

more accurately.

 
110

The requirement for cooling towers could limit the site capacity to
something less than an NEC unless there is abundant land to space the
towers to avoid possible interference effects. Acquisition of the addi-
tional land needed in order to avoid this problem may be difficult. In
consequence of this consideration, the site has been down-graded from a

potential NEC to a potential mini NEC. v

Site VA-2: North Anna Nuclear Station, Mineral, Virginia (A)

This 1075 acre site is on the S side of the North Anna River. A dam
is being built downstream which will form a 13,000 acre reservoir. By
using a system of dykes, a 3400 acre cooling pond will be formed near the
plant site. The site is about 8 miles ENE of Mineral (400) and 40 miles
NNW of Richmond (235,000). Population in the area is sparse being as of
1968 about 200 within 2 miles and about 1100 within 5 miles. Land use
within 5 miles is primarily wooded (60%) and agricultural (307). The site
is in seismic zone 1.

The transportation network to the site is limited. A state highway
connects the site with U.S. Highway 33 about 8 miles W. The C&0 RR runs
through Mineral.

The site is well located to serve the load centers of Metropolitan
Richmond (526,000), Charlottesville (66,000), and Washington (3.2 million).

The site is cooling water limited and appears incapable of supporting
more than a dispersed nuclear station, although the judicious use of
cooling towers and reservoirs could possibly permit accommodation of a

slightly higher capacity.

Site WA-1: WPPSS(Hanford) Nuclear Station,
ERDA Reservation, Richland, Washington (D)

 

 

- This site is located within the 600 square mile Energy Research and
Development Administration's (ERDA) Hanford Reservation in Benton County,
Washington. It is about 2.5 miles W of the Columbia River, 8 miles N of
Richland (v27,000) and 55 miles ESE of Yakima (48,000). The land is a
flat, sparsely populated desert. The low population zone, 4 miles in

radius, contained only 38 residents in 1970. The Fast Flux Test Facility

 
111

and the WPPSS Hanford-2 (WNP-2) Reactor are the only installations within
the low population zone. Land use within 5 miles is mostly government
reservation but there is some agricultural use of the land off the
reservation. The site is located in seismic zone 2.

The transportation network has been designed to serve the government
facilities on the reservation and is excellent. Three state highways
serve the reservation; two run through the reservation and the third
passes along the E side of the river across from the reservation boundary.
There is a good internal network of roads and a main line railroad runs
through the reservation.

The site is remote from load centers. Within 50 miles the Hanford
Reservation itself and the metropolitan area of Richland (78,000) provide
the only sizable load demands. The site is within 150 miles of the
metropolitan areas of Yakima (90,000), Spokane (266,000), and Seattle
(1.8 million). Portland-Vancouver (1,077,000) is 165 miles away.
Although the site is distant from load centers it is accessible to the
Bonneville Power Administration transmission network which provides a
large capacity for moving large blocks of power.

This site has excellent features for the location of a large NEC.

It has ample cooling water, abundant land, sparse population, good
meteorological conditions, and is in a moderate seismic zone. The
government-owned Hanford Reservation assures adequate land and facilities
control of a potential NEC. The chief disadvantage, the long distance
from load centers, is off-set to a large degree by the site being close
to the BPA high capacity transmission system.

It is estimated that the site can support a large NEC though centers
of this size are unlikely to be developed in this region for many years.
This site could support a collocated fuel processing and fabrication
center.

This site, the Pebble Springs site near Arlington, Oregon, the
WPPSS Nuclear Station at Elma, the Skagit Nuclear Station at Sedro Woolley,
Washington, and the Boardman Nuclear Station site are all potential NEC

sites and the plans for an NEC at any one would reduce the need for the

others because of limited demand from the areas which could be served.

 

 
 

112

Site WA-2: WPPSS Nuclear Station, Elma, Washington (B)

 

This 2540 acre site is 1 mile S of the Chehalis River at the con-
fluence with the Satsop River about 26 miles WSW of Olympia, Washington
(23,000). Elma (2300) is 4 miles NW, Montesano (3000) about 5 1/2 miles
NW, and Aberdeen (19,000) about 16 miles W. The projected 1980 popula-
tion is expected to be about 100 within 2 miles, 4000 within 5 miles,
10,000 within 10 miles, and 400,000 within 50 miles. Land use within
5 miles is mostly forests with some agricultural areas in the river
valleys.

The prevailing wind direction is SW at an average speed of 6 mph.
Western Washington experiences better diffusion conditions than much of
the rest of the country. The site being only 25 miles E of Grays Harbor
on the Pacific Ocean will be meteorologically influenced by the ocean.
The site is in seismic zone 3.

U.S. Highway 12 runs E-W 3 miles N of the site. The Northern Pacific
RR parallels the highway in this area. The Union Pacific RR runs along the
S bank of the Chehalis River, from which a spur line goes into the plant.

The site is well located to serve Aberdeen (19,000) and the metro-
politan areas of Seattle-Tacoma-Everett (1.8 million) 70 miles, Bremerton
(91,000) 45 miles, and Portland-Vancouver (V1 million) 100 miles. It is
also accessible to the Bonneville Power Administration high capacity
transmission system.

Some of the cooling tower makeup water will come from Ranney wells,
but the supply of cooling water from the Chehalis River appears marginally
adequate to support a mini NEC. Moving closer to Grays Harbor (20 to
25 miles) presumably would resolve one water problem. The proximity of
Aberdeen (19,000) and the seismic zone could be limiting factors. Addi-
tional land would need to be acquired but appears to present no limiting
problem, however the nearby terrain is rugged and could impose serious
and costly construction problems. It is estimated that the site can
accommodate a mini NEC.

This site, the Pebble Springs site near Arlington, Oregon, the
Boardman Nuclear Station site, the WPPSS Hanford Nuclear Station, the

Skagit Nuclear Station at Sedro Woolley, Washington, and the Trojan

 

 
113

Nuclear Station at Prescott, Oregon are all good sites, some being poten-
tial NECs. Thus, the development of any one to its full capacity would
reduce the attractiveness of the others because of limited demand from

the areas which could be served.

Site WA-3: Skagit Nuclear Station, Sedro Woolley, Washington (C)

 

This 1500 acre site is in the Skagit River Valley about 1 mile N of
the river. The South Fork of the Noohsack River is about 5 1/2 miles NE.
Samish Bay of the Pacific Ocean is 16 miles W. Sedro Woolley (4600) is
about 6 miles WNW, Bellingham (“v40,000) about 23 miles NW, and Seattle
(600,000) 64 miles S. The 1970 population within a 2-mile radius was
about 300, within 5 miles about 3900, within 10 miles about 16,000, and
within 50 miles about 500,000. Land use within 5 miles is agricultural,
particularly dairy, beef, and poultry production; and forestry.

The prevailing wind direction is ENE at an average speed of 8 mph.
Calms occur about 0.2% of the time. The site is in seismic zone 3. The
site is meteorologically influenced by the Pacific Ocean.

State Highway 20 borders the site on the S and the Burlington-
Northern RR runs between the site and the river.

The site is about halfway (65 miles) between Seattle and Vancouver,
British Columbia and is well located to serve the metropolitan areas of
Seattle, Tacoma-Everett (1.8 million), Vancouver (n200,000), Victoria
(62,000), Bremerton (91,000) and Bellingham (58,000). In British Columbia
the site is in competition with the large hydro-electric resources of
that area. The hydro-electric gefierating capacity of the NW U.S. also
serve this area but existing capacity is fully committed.

The site has many favorable features for an NEC; adequate cooling
water, low population area, available land for expansion and a good
transportation system. The chief disadvantages are the seismic zone and
the ability to economically transport large amounts of power to the
demand areas. In this sense the site is in competition with the potential
capacity of the WPPSS Nuclear Stations at Elma and Hanford, the Pebble
Springs site, Arlington, and the Trojan Nuclear Station at Prescott,

Oregon. These all are potential NEC sites but the development of any

 
114
one of them as an NEC would reduce the potential of the others because

of limited demand for the areas which would be served.

It is estimated that the site will support a small NEC.

Site WI-1: La Croose Nuclear Station, Genoa, Wisconsin (A)

 

This small site of about 100 acres is on the E bank of the Mississippi
River in a 2-3/4 mile wide valley with 500 ft bluffs on either side. Genoa
(320) is about 1 mile N and La Crosse (v51,000) is 20 miles N. The 1960
population within 2 miles was less than 500, within 5 miles less than
1100, within 10 miles about 8000, and within 25 miles about 115,000.

Land use within 5 miles is mostly agricultural with some wooded and marshy
land along the W side of the river. A 14,000 kW(e) coal-fired electric
generating plant is adjacent to the nuclear plant. The site is in

seismic zone 0.

State Highway 35 and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RR run through
the site. Water access is available via the Mississippi River.

This small 50 MW(e) nuclear plant and the smaller 14 MW(e) coal-fired
plant serve the local electrical demand of the Dairyland Power Cooperative.
This local demand will grow slowly in the future and being spread over a
large area will best be served by several small distributed plants. The
site is small, is on a fill formed with dredged material from the river,
and cannot be enlarged easily. Thus, the site is pretty well limited to
the existing plants. However, moving the site onto the bluffs up out of
the Mississippi River Canyon would relieve the land limitation but would

impose large water pumping costs.

Site WI-2: Point Beach Nuclear Station
Two Creeks, Wisconsin (B)

 

This 1260 acre site is on the W shore of Lake Michigan in the com-
munity of Two Creeks. Green Bay (92,000) is 27 miles NW, and Two Rivers
(13,500) is 10 miles S. The Kewaunee Nuclear Station is 5 miles N. The .
Point Beach State Forest is just S of the site. The population is about

300 within 2 miles, and 1500 within 5 miles. Land use within a 5-mile .

 
115

radius is agricultural (dairy farming and vegetable canning) and lake
area. The site is located in seismic zone 1.

State Highway 42 runs N-S just W of the site, water access is avail-
able via Lake Michigan, and a main line RR runs through Manitowoc,
15 miles S.

Metropolitan areas within 50 miles of the site are: Green Bay
(153,000), Appleton (159,000), and Manitowoc-Two Rivers (57,000). A
100-mile radius would add Fond du Lac (48,600), Oshkosh (71,300),
Sheboygan (71,400) and Milwaukee (1.4 million). Chicago (V7 million) is
about 180 miles.

This site has ample cooling water, is located in a low population
density area and is reasonably close to large load centers. The site
would have to be expanded to accommodate a capacity much larger than
what is now planned. This could be done by expanding W and N across the
State Highway 42. Southward expansion is blocked by the Point Beach
State Forest. The small community of Point Beach, now within the site,
could become a limiting factor to an NEC. Environmental considerations
also become a major consideration due to the type of agriculture in the
region, and the close-by recreational area.

It is estimated that the site could support a mini NEC. The Kewaunee

Nuclear Station site could serve the same area.

Site WI-3: Kewaunee Nuclear Station, Carlton, Wisconsin (C)

 

This 907 acre site is located on the W shore of Lake Michigan about
halfway between Kewaunee (2900) to the N and the small community of Two
Creeks to the S. Green Bay (92,000) is 27 miles WNW. The Point Beach
Nuclear Station is about 5 miles S, and the Point Beach State Park is
8 to 11 miles S. The population in the area is sparse, The 1985 pro-
jections are for about 200 people within 2 miles and 3000 people within
5> miles. Land usage within 5 miles is agricultural and dairy farming.
The site is in seismic zone 1.

State Highway 42 runs through the site. Water access is via Lake

Michigan. A main line RR runs through Manitowoc 20 miles S.

 
 

117

cannot support more than a dispersed nuclear station, and at this time
there is some question as to whether the nuclear station planned for the

site will be approved.

Site WI-5: Tyrone Energy Park, Durand, Wisconsin (A)

This 4600 acre site is 1.2 miles SE of the Chippewa River about
8 miles NE of Durand (2100) and 19 WSW of Eau Clair (45,000). Minneapolis-
St. Paul (1.8 million) is about 65 miles WNW. The 1970 population within
2 miles was about 100 people, within 5 miles about 1200, and within
10 miles about 9000. Land use within 5 miles is agricultural and dairy
farming. Dunville public hunting and fishing ground is 8 miles from the
site.

The prevailing wind direction is NNE in winter and SSE in summer,
at average speeds of 11 mph and 9 mph, respectively. The site is in
seismic zone 1.

Highway access is from State Route 85, 1 mile S, which connects with
U.S. Highway 10 at Durand. 1-94 is about 14 miles N. The Chicago-
Milwaukee-St. Paul RR passes through the site.

The site is well located with respect to load centers. Metropolitan
areas in the region of the site are Eau Claire-Chippewa Falls (82,000)

20 miles distant, La Crosse (76,000) 65 miles, Rochester (77,000) 60 miles,
and Minneapolis-St. Paul (V2 million) about 65 miles.

Adequacy of cooling water appears to be the primary limitation to
the site. Other features are relatively favorable. It is estimated that
the site will support a large dispersed nuclear station. Additional land
might have to be acquired but this does not appear to present a serious

limitation.

5.2 Analysis of Potential Sites

The following analysis of a limited number of potential sites are

=13 and is

based on information from various readily available sources,
not intended to be a complete nor comprehensive report of all potential
sites. It rather is an illustration of what might be available in

addition to the identified existing sites listed in this report.

 
 

118

Site P-1: ERDA Savannah River Reservation, Augusta, Georgia

 

Reviewed as part of the analysis for the Alvin W. Vogtle Site,

Waynesboro, Georgia (see GA-2).

Site P-2: Savanna Ordnance Depot, Galena, Illinois (D)

 

This potential nuclear energy site® is a U.S. government-owned
ordnance depot extending for about 13 miles on the E side of the Missis-
sippi River and encompassing about 30 square miles of land. It is about
12 miles SSE of Galena (v4000), 20 miles SE of Dubuque, Iowa (62,000),

25 miles NW of Savanna (5000), and about 140 miles WNW of Chicago

(3.1 million). Population within 5 miles is sparse, and only several
small towns are within 15 miles. Land use within about 15 miles is the
ordnance depot, agriculture, and the upper Mississippi River Wildlife
and Fish Refuge to the N.

Water is adequate (with use of cooling towers) for a large nuclear
energy center. The transportation network is good. Water access is
available via the Mississippi River. The Illinois Central RR serves the
site and the internal road network is good. State Route 84 runs N-S at
a distance of 5 miles E.

Meteorological conditions are fair. The area is susceptible to
tornados but dispersion conditions should be good and the potential for
fogging low. The site is in seismic zome 1. The foundation conditions
may be poor.

Power demands within a 50-miles radius are relatively small but within
150 miles include Chicago and other large load centers. Metropolitan
areas within 50 miles include Dubuque (76,000), Clinton (40,000), and
Quad Cities (310,000). Extending this distance to 100 miles adds Water-
loo (125,000), Cedar Rapids (150,000), Rockford (300,000) and Peoria
(300,000). Chicago with a metropolitan population of about 7 million is
about 140 miles E.

The site has many features favorable to the establishment of a nuclear
energy center. Cooling water is adequate, the site is a government-owned

reservation with ample land, it is in a low population density area, and
119

seismic conditions are good. The chief disadvantages seem to be the
relatively long distance to major load centers and possibly poor founda-
tion condtions.

The site appears potentially capable of supporting a large nuclear
energy center. The site is about 70-—80 river miles (about 35 air miles)
upstream from the Quad Cities site which could possibly be developed into

a small NEC.

Site P-3: Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland (B)

 

This potential nuclear energy site® is a U.S. government-owned
military reservation extending about 15 miles along the NW shore of the
Chesapeake Bay and encompassing about 45 square miles of land. The site
is just across the Bush River and NE of Edgewood Arsenal. Havre de Grace
(8500) is 8 miles NE, Perryman (900) on the W edge of the area, Belcamp
(600) 5 miles NW, Abingdon (300) 6 1/2 miles W, Edgweood (3100) 7 1/2 miles
SW, Baltimore ("2 million) 28 miles SW, and Washington (V3 million) about
70 miles SW. No people reside on the site.

The site is generally flat, primarily woodland and marshes and is
traversed by a number of small streams. It has been used by the U.S.

Army for a number of years as a proving ground for weapons. Part of the
area is currently designated as the Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge.
Unexploded munitions bedded in the ground are a potential hazard. A
mainline of the Penn Central RR and Interstate 95 parallel the NW boundary
of the site. Numerous secondary roads traverse the site.

The site is considered susceptible to hurricanes but should have good
dispersion conditions. There may be a potential fogging condition. The
location is in seismic zone 1.

The major load centers within a 50-mile radius are the metropolitan
areas of Baltimore (V2 million), and Wilmington (V70,000). Washington
(v3 million) is about 70 miles away.

With the use of cooling towers sufficient water exists at the site
to support a nuclear energy center. The estuarine situation which includes
the Gunpowder and Bush Rivers as well as the bay situation would pose

environmental problems as this is an important nursery ground for Atlantic

 
120

coast fish. Population density, including the proximity to Baltimore,
could be a limitation, the extent of which will require more detailed
study. Excluding the National Wildlife Refuge the site still has suf-
ficient land to support an NEC. Considering the overall favorable fea-
tures, it is estimated that the site can support a mini NEC. The Summitt

Nuclear Station is about 25 miles ENE.

Site P-4: Westport River, Westport, Massachusetts (C)

 

This potential nuclear energy center site’ is located on the peninsula
formed by the Westport River and Buzzards Bay. It has an Atlantic Ocean
coastline of about 40 miles but encompasses an area of only about 25 square
miles. Nearby cities are New Bedford (100,000) 10 miles NNW, Fall River
(98,000) 15 miles NW, Providence (187,000) 25 miles NW, Brockton (84,000)
40 miles N and Boston (620,000) 50 miles N. The population density is
relatively low up to about 10 miles. The land is occupied mainly by sum-
mer residents and is mostly privately owned. The central part of the
site is partially occupied by the Damerest Lloyd Memorial State Park. The
western part is partially occupied by Horseneck State Reservation.

The site is hilly and rocky, and rises to an elevation of over 100 ft
above sea level. Tt is susceptible to hurricanes, may have poor dispersion
conditions, and has a high potential for fogging. It is on the border of
seismic zones 1 and 2., No railroad traverses the area and only secondary
roads lead to the site.

Sufficient water exists to support a nuclear energy center but there
could be a major problem involved in preventing unacceptable environmental
impacts on the marine environment.

The site is well situated to serve major load centers, such as Boston
(3.8 million), Providence (900,000), Fall River (150,000) and New Bedford
(160,000), all within 50 miles.

Sufficient water exists to support an NEC but the transfer of water
from the Westport River to Buzzards Bay might raise environmental problems.
Also the estuarine situation could raise marine ecology problems. The

proximity of New Bedford, Fall River and Providence may also impose
 

121

limitations to the size of the NEC. It is estimated that the site can

possibly support a small nuclear energy center.

Site P-5: Central New Jersey, Toms River, New Jersey (A)

 

This site” is ip the Pine Barrens of Central New Jersey. It encom-
passes an area of about 100 square miles. Its eastern boundary is
about 10 miles from the Atlantic Coast and its western boundary about
25-30 miles from Camden, New Jersey (115,000). Other nearby cities are
Toms River (9000) 11 miles NNE, Roosevelt City (800) 6 miles N, Chatsworth
(400) 9 miles WSW, Atlantic City (59,000) 35 miles S, Philadelphia
(2 million) 40 miles W, and New York City (8 million) 60—70 miles N. The
population is low within 5 to 10 miles of the site but the site is within
50 miles of densely populated areas. Currently the land is wilderness
with cultivated cranberry bogs in some portions. The Fort Dix military
reservation is 8 miles N, the Lebanon State Forest is 11 miles NNW and
Penn State Forest is 9 miles SSE.

A line of the Central RR of New Jersey forms the western boundary of
the site.

The site may be susceptible to hurricanes and has some potential for
fogging, but dispersion conditions should be good. It is located in
seismic zone 1.

The site is water short and it appears that the only way to utilize
it as a nuclear energy site is to bring water from the Atlantic Ocean.
Even so, the terrain conditions may make it difficult to transport and
store this water without contaminating the local fresh water aquifer with
salt water. The area supports a fragile ecosystem and this wilderness
area 1is the only one available to the nearby heavily populated zones.
Therefore, protection of the environment is a problem which must be
considered.

The site is well located for serving the load centers of Philadelphia,
New Brunswick, Camden, Trenton, Atlantic City and even New York. The
metropolitan population within a 50-miles radius is over 5 million people

and within 75 miles more than 23 million.
122

The chief advantages to the site are ample land for development of
a center, sparse nearby population, and good location with respect to
major load centers. Disadvantages are the problems associated with pro-
viding cooling water, the environmental situation, and perhaps poor
foundation conditions, For the present the lack of water and the environ-

mental situation appears to make the site unsuitable for an NEC (A).

Site P-6: Camp Gruber Military Reservation, Oklahoma (C)

 

Camp Gruber is a potential nuclear energy center site which was
evaluated for the Federal Energy Administration by the Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratory and the information for this analysis has been
derived from their report.10

Camp Gruber is a 70,000 acre former military reservation now owned
by the U.S. Government and the State of Oklahoma. It is between the
Arkansas River which forms its border and the Illinois River to the E.

The Arkansas River experiences wide fluctuations between high and low

flow conditions but the extensive reservoir system has to a large extent
mitigated the effects of low water flows. Thus, the cooling water supply
at the Camp Gruber location appears sufficient to support a nuclear energy
center of 12 to 15 GW(e). However, all the water in the Arkansas River

at low flow periods has been appropriated and cooling water would have

to be obtained by purchase of water rights or the construction of storage
reservoirs.

The reservation is roughly a 10-mile square extending from a NS line
just W of Braggs E for about 10 miles, and NS along this line for about
10 miles, starting 3 to 4 miles S of Braggs (350).

Fort Gibson (Vv1500) is a few miles NW of the NW corner of the reser-
vation. Muskogee (38,000) is 50 miles WNW and Tulsa (v350,000) is 50 miles
NW. Population within 5 miles of the reservation is sparse, the main
communities being the ones listed above. The reservation itself has few
permanent residents. Land use within 5 miles is primarily for recreation,
cattle grazing, military training, and a game refuge.

The area is subject to tornadoes, strong winds and severe hailstorms.
It is in seismic zone 1 but there is evidence of old faults on the site.

Foundation conditions at the site are good.

 
123

The transportation network serving the site is good. Water trans-
portation is available via the Arkansas River. The Missouri Pacific RR
mainline is just to the W with old feeder lines serving the site. The
Muskogee Turnpike is a few miles to the W connecting with I-40 15 miles
S of the site, and State Route 10 runs E-W through Fort Gibson.

Camp Gruber is not particularly well located with respect to major
load centers. The various load centers, their metropolitan populations
and the approximate distances from Camp Gruber are: Muskogee (V5000)

10 miles, Tulsa (v500,000) 50 miles, Fort Smith (v95,000) 50 miles,
Fayettesville-Springdale (“75,000) 65 miles, Joplin (v65,000) 100 miles,
Oklahoma City (v700,000) 125 miles, Wichita (v350,000) 200 miles, and
Kansas City (V1.3 million) 225 miles.

In summary, the significant advantages of the Camp Gruber reservation
for a nuclear energy center are: adequate cooling water, ample land, a
low nearby population density, good terrain and construction conditions,
and it is close enough to coal fields and gas transmission pipelines that
a combined nuclear-synthetic fuels plant might be an attractive possi-
bility. Environmental protection measures should not be a major problem
for this area.

The major disadvantages to the site are the long distances to major
load centers. There also is uncertainty about the availability but not
the adequacy of cooling water. However, this is a matter of priorities
of use. The adverse meteorological conditions, particularly the possi-
bility of frequent tornadoes must be provided for in the design and con-
struction of a large energy facility, particularly the transmission net-
work.

It is estimated that the site can support a small nuclear energy

center if water is allocated for this purpose.

Site P-7: Roosevelt Nuclear Station Site,
West Roosevelt, Washington (D)

This 5000 acre potential site on the Washington side of the Columbia
River about 5 to 6 miles N of and across the river from the Pebble Springs

Nuclear Station is being studied by the Pacific Power and Light Company

 

 
124

2 The energy center is envisioned as

as a potential energy center site.!
including as many as six nuclear reactors and four coal-fired generating
stations to take care of its needs until the turn of the century.
The potential site is near West Roosevelt, Washington on the opposite
bank of the Columbia River from Arlington (“400). Thus, some of the same
characteristics apply to this site as to the Pebble Springs Nuclear ¢
Station site. Highway and railway transportation networks would be dif-
ferent since the two sites are separated by the Columbia River. Also,
there are some terrain differences. State Highway 14 traverses the site
and I-80N is just across the river in Arlington. The main line of the
Burlington-Northern RR runs through Roosevelt. The Columbia River pro-
vides water access. Thus, the transportation network is good.
This site appears to have the same advantages and disadvantages as
the Pebble Springs site. Thus, it has been assumed for this study that
it could be developed into a large nuclear energy center with the same
caveats as those applying to the Pebble Springs site.
The West Roosevelt site and the Pebble Springs site could possibly

be developed into a common NEC.

Site P-8: Sheboygan, Wisconsin (C)

 

This site identified as a potential nuclear energy center by the

AEC's Office of Planning and Analysis? is a long, narrow strip of land on

the W shore of Lake Michigan commencing about 4 miles SSW of Sheboygan,

Wisconsin (47,000) and extending SSW a distance of about 15 miles. Port
Washington (7000) is about 7 miles SSW of the southern boundary of the
site. Several other small towns, Cedar Grove (1200), Waldo (400), and
Batavia (200) are within a few miles of the site. The closest large city
is Milwaukee (765,000) 40 miles S. Population density in the vicinity of
the site needs to be analyzed in greater detail to determine if this
constitutes a problem.

The site encompasses an area of about 30 square miles. It is gener-
ally flat at an elevation 50 to 60 ft above Lake Michigan. Most of the

land is cleared and farmland, although a significant portion of the site

 
125

is wooded. Two state parks are located on the northern end and another
at the southern end of the site.
The Chicago and Northwestern Railroad parallels the western boundary
' of the site at a distance of 2 to 3 miles. U.S. Highway 141 also parallels
the western boundary between it and the railroad. Water access is avail-
’ able via Lake Michigan.
The site is judged to be susceptible to tornadoes and may have poor
dispersion conditions, and a potential for fogging. The location is in
seismic zone 1.
The metropolitan population centers within 50 miles total about
1.6 million people, 1.3 million being in the Milwaukee area. Chicago
with its metropolitan population of 7 million people is about 140 miles.
The chief advantages of the site as an NEC are ample cooling water
and available land. Disadvantages are the long distances to large load
centers, and perhaps the population densities of nearby areas. The
Kewaunee and Point Beach Nuclear Power Sations are from 45 to 50 miles N
on the shore of Lake Michigan.

It is estimated that the site could support a nuclear energy center.
6. INDEX OF POWER STATIONS

 

Name Site number Name Site number

Aberdeen P-3 Hartsville TN-4
Allens Creek TX-3 Hatch GA-1
Arkansas AR-1 Hope Creek NJ-2
Arnold IA-1 Humbolt Bay CA-1
Atlantic NJ-4 Hutchinson FL.-3
Bailly IN-1 Indian Point NY-1
Barton AL-3 Jamesport NY-6
Beaver Valley PA-3 Kewaunee WI-3
Bell NY-8 Koshkonong WI-4
Bellefonte AL-4 Lacrosse WI-1
Big Rock Point MI-1 LaSalle IL-4
Black Fox OK-1 Limerick PA-2
Blue Hills TX-2 Maine Yankee ME-1
Braidwood IL-6 Marble Hill IN-2
Browns Ferry AL-1 McGuire NC-2
Brunswick NC-1 Mendocino CA-4
Byron IL-5 Midland MI-5
Callaway MO-1 Millstone CT-2
Calvert Cliffs MD-1 Montague MA-3
Camp Gruber, OK P-6 Monticello MN-1
Catawba SC-4 Newbolt Island NJ-3
Cherokee SC-5 New England RI-1
Clinch River TN-3 New Jersey, Central P-5

Clinton IL-7 Nine Mile Point NY-2
Commanche Peak TX-1 North Anna VA-2
Connecticut Yankee CT-1 Oconee SC=2
Cook MI-4 Oyster Creek NJ-1
Cooper NE-2 Palisades MI-3
Crystal River FL-2 Palo Verde AZ-1
Davis~Besse OH-1 Peach Bottom PA-1
Diablo Canyon CA-3 Pebble Springs OR-2
Douglas Point MD-2 Perkins NC-4
Dresden IL-1 Perry OH-2
Erie OH-4 Phipps Bend TN-5
Farley AL-2 Pilgrim MA-2
Fermi MI-2 Point Beach WI-2
Fitzpatrick NY-2 Prairie Island MN-2
Forked River NJ-1 Quad Cities IL-3
Ft. Calhoun NE-1 Quanicasse MI-7
Ft. St. Vrain CO-1 Rancho Seco CA-5
Fulton PA-6 River Bend LA-2
Ginna NY-4 Robinson SC-1
Grand Gulf MS~1 Roosevelt p-7

Green County NY-5 Salem NJ-2
Greenwood MI-6 San Onofre CA-2
Hanford WA-1 Savanna Ordnance Depot p-2

Harris NC-3 Savannah River P-1

 

 

 

 
127

Index of Power Stations (continued)

 

Name Site number Name Site number

Seabrook NH-1 Turkey Point FL-1
Sequoyah TN-1 Tyrone WI-5
Sheboygan P-8 Vermont Yankee VT-1
Shoreham NY-3 Vogle GA-2
Skagit WA-3 Washington PPSS WA-2
South Texas TX-4 Waterford LA-1
Sterling NY-7 Watts Bar TN-2
Summit DE-1 Westport, MA P-4
Sumner SC-1 Wolf Creek KS-1
Sundesert CA-6 Yankee MA-1
Surry VA-1 Yellow Creek MS-2
Susquehanna PA-5 Zimmer OH-3
Three Mile Island PA-4 Zion IL-2
Trojan OR-1

 

 

 
10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

128

REFERENCES

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nuclear Power Growth 1974—2000,
WASH 1139(74) (February 1974).

Roger LeGassie, Testimony before the JCAE Subcommittee Hearings to
Review the National Breeder Reactor Program held by Congressman
Mike McCormack, June 1975. ’

E. J. Hanrahan, R. H. Williamson and R. W. Bown, '"United States
Uranium Requirements," The Uranium Industry Seminar, Grand Junction,
Colorado, Oct. 19, 1976.

E. J. Hanrahan, R. H. Williamson and R. W. Bown, '"The Changing
Nuclear Picture: Uranium and Separative Work Requirements," The
Atomic Industrial Forum "Fuel Cycle Conference '77,'" Kansas City,
Missouri, Apr. 25, 1977.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Energy Center Site Survey,
NUREG-00001~-ES (January 1976).

Nuclear Reactors Built, Being Built, or Planned in the United States
as of Dec. 31, 1976, TID-8200-R-35, TIC ERDA.

U.S. Energy Research & Development Administration, Nuclear Power
Reactors in the United States, Mar 31, 1975, June 30, 1975,
Sept. 30, 1975 and Dec. 31, 1975.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nuclear Power Reactors in the United
States, Dec. 31, 1974 and prior issues.

Power Parks — A Preliminary Analysis, Office of Planning and
Analysis, USAEC (September 1973).

Siting Energy Facilities at Camp Gruber, Oklahoma, A Report to the
Federal Energy Administration by the Pacific Northwest Laboratories
of the Battelle Memorial Institute (June 1975).

Evaluation of Nuclear Energy Centers — A Task Force Study, Division
of Reactor Research and Development, USAEC, WASH 1288 (January 1974).

Power Plant Site Evaluation for Pacific Power and Light Company,
prepared by Western Region Envicon Division of Woodward Clyde
Consultants (Mar. 1, 1975).

Executive Swmmary Siting Study for Washington Public Power Supply
System, Woodward~Clyde Consultants (December 1975).

Fred A. Heddleston, ''Design Data and Safety Features of Commercial
Nuclear Power Plants,' ORNL-NSIC-55 (Vol. I—VI) (1973-1977).

Garland Samuels, Assessment of Water Resources for Nuclear Energy
Centers, ORNL-5097 (September 1976).

"Assessment of Energy Parks vs Dispersed Electric Power Generating
Facilities,'" prepared for the Office of Science Adviser, Energy R&D
Policy Office of the National Science Foundation by the General
Electric Company, NSF 75-500, May 1975.

 

 
 

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.
22.
23.

24.

25.

129

Land Use and Nuclear Power Plants — Case Studies of Siting Problems,
WASH 1319 (UC-11) (October 1974).

Nuclear Power Facility Performance Characteristics for Making
Environmental Impact Assessments, USAEC, WASH 1355 (December 1974).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, News Releases, Washington, D.C.,
(1975, 1976 and 1977).

The National Atlas of the United States of America, U.S. Geological
Survey, Department of Interior (1970).

Rand MeNally Road Atlas U.S. and Canada, 51st Edition (1975).

Rand MeNally 1976 Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide, 107th Edition.

D. F. Cope and H. F. Bauman, Utility Survey on Nuclear Power Plant
Siting and Nuclear Energy Centers, ORNL/TM-5928 (June 1977).

Earthquake History of the United States, Publication 41-1, Revised
Edition (through 1970) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Commerce (1973).

Geraghty, Miller, Van der Leeden and Troise, Water Atlas of the
United States, Water Information Center, Port Washington, New York
(1973).
 
£
a & g

5-9.
10.
11.
12,
13,
14,

15-22,
23-32,
33.
34,
35.
36.
37.
38.
39,

87.
88—90.
9]1.

92--94.

95-104.

105.

106.

107.
108.

109.

131

ORNL/TM-5927
Dist. Category UC-80

Internal Distribution

 

T. D. Anderson 40, W. Fulkerson

S. I. Auerbach 41, J. F. Harvey

J. A. Auxier 42, R. F. Hibbs

Seymour Baron 43. 0., H. Klepper

H. F. Bauman 44. Milton Levenson

S. E. Beall 45. M. L. Myers

H. I. Bowers 46, H. Postma

C. C. Burwell 47. M. W. Rosenthal

R. S. Carlsmith 48, T. H. Row

C. V. Chester 49. Dunlap Scott

T. E. Cole 50-74, 1I. Spiewak

D. F. Cope (Consultant) 75. R. E. Thoma

W. B, Cottrell 76. D. B. Trauger

F. L. Culler 77-80. Central Research Library
R. M, Davis 8l. Document Reference Section
J. G. Delene 82-84. Laboratory Records

D. M. Eissenberg 85. Laboratory Records, RC
G. G. Fee 86. ORNL Patent Office

A, J. Frankel

External Distribution

D. C. Bauer, Division of Nuclear Research and Applications,
ERDA, Washington, DC 20545

E. 5. Beckjord, Director, Division of Reactor Development and
Demonstration, ERDA, Washington, DC 20545

A. P. D'Zmura, Division of Nuclear Research and Applications,
ERDA, Washington, DC 20545

R. W. A. LeGassie, Office of the Assistant Administrator for
Planning, Analysis and Evaluation, 7th Floor, Room 7127, ERDA,
Washington, DC 20545

W. F. Savage, Division of Nuclear Research and Applications,
ERDA, Washington, DC 20545

S. Strauch, Assistant Director for Energy Systems Analysis,
Division of Nuclear Research and Applications, ERDA, Washington,
DC 20545

K. A. Trickett, Division of Nuclear Research and Applications,
ERDA, Washington, DC 20545

R. L. Egli, Director, Reactor Division, ERDA, Oak Ridge

J. A. Lenhard, Director, Research & Technical Support Division,
ERDA, Oak Ridge

Don G, Allen, President, Yankee Atomic Electric Company,

20 Turnpike Road, Route 9, Westborough, MA 01581
110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

121.

122,

123,

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

132

Wells P. Allen, Senior Vice President, New York State Electric
and Gas Corp., 4500 Vestel Parkway, E., Binghamton, NY 13902

J. S. Anderson, Senior Vice President of Engineering and
Operations, Utah Power and Light Company, 1407 W. North Temple
Street, P.0. Box 899, Salt Lake City, UT 84110

W. D. Arms, Vice President, Idaho Power Company, 1220 Idaho
Street, Boise, ID 83707

Dan M. Axelrod, United Engineers and Constructors, 30 South
17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19101

R. E. Balhiser, Director, Fossil Fuel and Advanced Systems
Division, Electric Power Research Institute, P.0. Box 10412,
Palo Alto, CA 94304

Robert H. Ballard, Division Manager, System Planning Division
Omaha Public Power District, 1623 Harney, Omaha, NE 68102

James H. Baroff, The Energy Center, 1218 16th Street, NW, Washing-
ton, DC 20036

Alexander Bastos, Office of Siting, Room 6150, Federal Energy
Administration, 12th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
20461

Ralph Bean, Chairman, New England Planning Commission, Central
Maine Power Company, Edison Drive, Augusta, ME 04330

Robert 0. Bigelow, Planning Engineer, New England Electric
System, 20 Turnpike Road, West Burrow, MA 01581

R. T. Bowles, Director, System Planning Department, Florida
Power Corporation, 3201 Thirty-fourth Street, S., P.0. Box 14042,
St Petersburg, FL 33733

Robert Brenner, 224-B Halsey Street, Princeton, NJ 08540

John K. Brian, Vice President of Engineering and Construction,
Union Electric Company, One Memorial Drive, St. Louis, MO 63166
Perry G. Brittain, President, Texas Utilities Services, Inc.,
2001 Bryan Tower, Dallas, TX 75201

Walter Brown, Administrator-Manager, National Electric Reliability
Council, Research Park, Terhune Road, Princeton, NJ 08540
Kenneth D. Buck, Senior Planning Engineer, Bulk Power Planning
Section, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Illuminating
Building, Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44101

David Burd, Science Information Center, Rochester Gas and Electric
Corp., 89 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14649

Saul Burstein, Senior Vice President, Wisconsin Electric Power
Company, 231 West Michigan Street, Milwaukee, WI 53201

K. A. Carlson, Vice President, Engineering & Environmental,
Minnesota Power and Light Company, 30 West Superior Street,
Duluth, MN 55802

William Cavanaugh, III, Assistant Director, Power Production,
Arkansas Power & Light Company, 9th & Louisiana Streets,

Little Rock, AR 72203

Fred Clagget, Office of Community Development, Office of the
Governor, Olympia, WA 98504

Dan Colmer, Vice President, Mississippi Power and Light Company,
Box 1640, Jackson, MS 39205

Bill Colston, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, P.O. Box 1831,
San Diego, CA 92112
 

133.

134,

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142,

143.

144.

145,

146.

147.

148.

149,

150.

151.

152.
153.

154.
155.

156.

133

John T. Conway, Executive Assistant to the Chairman, Consolidated
Edison Company, New York City, NY

J. Coughlin, Vice President Nuclear, Public Service Company of
Indiana, Inc., 1000 East Main Street, Plainfield, IN 46168

E. N. Cramer, Engineer for Advanced Engineering Systems,

Southern California Edison Company, P.0. Box 800, Rosemead, CA
91770

Ed H. Crews, Jr., Vice President, Construction and Engineering,
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, 328 Main Street,
Columbia, SC 29218

L. C. Dail, Chief Engineer, Duke Power Company, 422 South Church
Street, Charlotte, NC

Jim Davidson, Senior Vice President, Iowa Electric Light & Power
Company, ie Tower, 200 First Street, SE, Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
Alan R. Davis, Director of Public Information, Boston Edison
Company, 300 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199

A. V. Dienhart, Vice President of Engineering, Northern States
Power Company, 414 Nicolett Mall, Minnespolis, MN 55401

Richard M. Eckert, General Manager, Engineering and Construction,
Public Service Electric and Gas, 80 Park Place, Newark, NJ 07101
Charles Erickson, Assistant Chief Electrical Engineer, Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power, 111 North Hope Street,
P.0. Box 111, Los Angeles, CA 09912

Malcolm Ernst, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop 209,
Lugen Bell Building, Washington, DC 20555

Mike Evans, Nuclear Engineer, Kansas City Power and Light Company,
1330 Baltimore Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64141

Robert A. Evans, Assistant Vice President, Northeast Utilities,
P.0. Box 270, Hartford, CT 06101

M. E. Fate, Jr., Executive Vice President, Public Service Company,
Public Service Company of Oklahoma, P.0. Box 201, Tulsa, OK 74102
Roger D. Feldman, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Finance & Environ-
ment, Federal Energy Administration, Washington, DC 20461

W. J. Ferguson, Vice President, Engineering & Construction, Puget
Sound Power & Light Company, Puget Power Building, Bellevue, WA
98009

Terry A. Ferrar, 312 Ridge Avenue, State College, PA 16801
Harold B. Finger, Manager, Center for Energy Systems, General
Electric Company, Suite 800, 777 1l4th Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20005

Lynn Firestone, Vice President, Ohio Edison Company, 47 North
Main Street, Akron, OH 44308

S. D. Freeman, 7211 Pyle Road, Bethesda, MD 20034

H. T. Fullam, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Battelle
Boulevard, Richland, WA 99352

Gerald Garvey, 81 Alexander Road, Princeton, NJ 08540

R. M. Gerzetlich, Executive Engr. Fac. Planning, Consumers Power
Company, 212 W. Michigan Avenue, Jackson, MI 49201

Jack Gilleland, Tennessee Valley Authority, Power Building,

540 Market Street, Chattanooga, TN 37401
157.

158.

170.

171.
172.

173.

174.

175.

176.

177.

178.

179.

180.

181.

182.

183.

184.

185.

186.

187.

188.

189.

159.

160—169.

134

John W. Gore, Vice President, Engineering and Construction,

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Gas and Electric Building,

Baltimore, MD 21203

Frank W. Graham, Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., 7101 Wisconsin

Ave., 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20014

R. G. Graham, Manager, Public Relations, Cincinnati Gas and L
Electric Company, 139 E. Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202

Fred A. Gross, Associate Director, Western Interstate Nuclear

Board, 2500 Stapleton Plaza, 3333 Quebec Street, Denver, CO '
80207

R. 0. M. Grutle, Vice President, Production, Otter Tail Power

Company, 215 South Cascade Street, Fergus Falls, MN 56537

Orval Hansen, 1819 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006

William B. Harral, Executive Director, Governor's Energy

Council, P.0. Box 1323, Harrisburg, PA 17120

Harold Harty, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Battelle

Boulevard, Richland, WA 99352

R. M. Heatherington, Vice President of Operations, Iowa-Illinois

Gas and Electric Company, 206 East Second Street, Davenport, IA

52808

Pat Howe, Director, Environmental Services, Carolina Power and

Light Company, Raleigh, NC

Herbert Jacobs, Energy Parks Coordinator, Governor's Energy

Council, State Capital, Harrisburg, PA 17120

R. T. Jaske, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555

Steven Jellinek, Staff Director, Council on Environmental 3
Quality, 722 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington, DC 20006

M. W. Kech, Vice President Systems Planning, Toledo Edison Co.,

300 Madison Avenue, Toledo, OH 43652 Y
Frasmus H. Kloman, Secretary, National Academy of Public Admin-
istration, 1225 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036
Lynn Koch, Manager of the Nuclear Program, Illinois Power
Company, 500 South 27th Street, Decatur, IL 62525

Glen L. Koester, Executive Vice President, Kansas Gas and Elec-
tric Company, 201 North Market Street, Wichita, KS

R. M. Kopper, Executive Vice President, Indiana & Michigan
Electric Co., 2101 Spy Run Avenue, Fort Wayne, IN 46801

R. R. Koprowski, Vice President Engineering and Construction,
Rochester Gas and Electric Corp., 89 East Avenue, Rochester,
NY 14649

James P. Lagowski, Site Planning, Detroit Edison Company,

2000 Second Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226

H. Landsberg, Director, Division of Energy and Resource
Commodities, Resources for the Future, 1755 Massachusetts Ave.
N.W., Washington, DC 20036

Owen A. Lentz, Executive Manager, East Central Area Reliability
Coordination Agreement, P.0. Box 192, Canton, OH 44701

Joseph Lieberman, Nuclear Safety Associates, 5101 River Road,
Bethesda, MD 20016

L. F. Lischer, Vice President, Commonwealth Edison Company,
One First National Plaza, P.0. Box 767, Chicago, IL 60690

 

 
 

190.

191.
192.

g 193,

194,
195.

196.

197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.

203.

204.
205214,
215.
216.
217.

218.

219.

220.

Y 221.

135

Glenn H. Lovin, Edison Electric Institute, 1015 18th Street,
N.W., Washington, DC 20036

J. E. Luhring, Vice President for Nuclear, Iowa Power and

Light Company, 666 Grand Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50309

J. P. Madgett, General Manager, Dairyland Power Cooperative,
2615 East Avenue, La Crosse, WI 54601

Chuck Mangan, Manager of Production and Plant Engineering,
Niagara Mohawk Power Company, 300 Erie Boulevard, West Syracuse,
NY 13202

R. J. Marchetti, Vice President for Power, Minnesota Power and
Light Company, 30 West Superior Street, Duluth, MN 55802
Austin J. Mary, Assistant to Senior Vice President, Gulf States
Utilities Company, P.O. Box 2951, Beaumont, TX 77704

J. J. Mattimoe, Assistant General Manager and Chief Engineer,
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 6201 S. Street, Box 15830,
Sacramento, CA 95813

J. R. McCormick, President, Hartford Electric Light Co., 176
Cumberland Ave., Wethersfield, CT 06109

William M. McNamara, Madison Gas and Electric Company, 100 North
Fairchild Street, Madison, WI 53701

J. M. McReynolds, Vice President of Engineering, Houston Lighting
and Power Company, P.0O. Box 1700, Houston, TX 77001

Marc Messing, Facility Siting Analyst, Environmental Policy
Center, 317 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20003

J. M. Mooney, Vice President, Louisiana Power & Light Company,
142 Delaronde Street, New Orleans, LA 70174

W. J. Mosley, Vice President Energy Planning, Consumers Power
Co., 212 W. Michigan Avenue, Jackson, MI 49201

Richard A. Mulford, Project Manager, Mechanical Engineering
Division, Philadelphia Electric Company, 2301 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19101

L. Manning Muntzing, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and McRae, 1757 N
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036

K. J. Nemeth, Executive Director, Southern Interstate Nuclear
Board, One Exchange Place, Suite 1230, Atlanta, GA 30341

C. M. Newstead, Technical Support Organization, Bldg. 197,
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, L.I., NY 11973

John A. Nutant, Offshore Power Systems, 8000 Arlington
Expressway, Jacksonville, FL 32211

William Oakley, Assistant to Senator Bellman of Oklahoma,
Washington, DC

William S. O'Brien, Director, Environment & Licensing, Florida
Power Corporation, 3201 Thirty-fourth Street, S., P.0. Box 14042,
St. Petersburg, FL 33733

James I. Owens, Project Manager, Summit Nuclear Power Plant,
Delmarva Power and Light Company, 800 King Street, Wilmington,
DE 19899

P. F. Palmedo, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, L.I., NY
11973

J. F. Purcell, Vice President, Public Relations, Northern Indiana
Public Service Company, 5265 Hohman Avenue, Hammond, IN 46325
222,

223.

224,

225.

226.

227,

228.

229.

230.

231.

232.

233.

234,

235.

236.

237.

238.

239.

240.

241.

242,

243,

136

Edmund J. Purdy, Philadelphia Electric Company, 2301 Market
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19101

Stanley Ragone, Senior Vice President for Power, Virginia Elec-
tric and Power Company, 700 East Franklin Street, Richmond, VA
23261

James T. Ramey, Vice President, Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.,
7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20034

John Randazza, Assistant Vice President, Central Maine Power
Company, Edison Drive, Augusta, ME 04330

G. Riley, Manager Systems Planning, Alabama Power Company,

600 North 18th Street, Birmingham, AL 35202

Jene Robinson, Illinois Power Company, 500 South 27th Street,
Decatur, IL 62525

D. A. Ross, General Manager Nuclear, Jersey Central Power &
Light Co., Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Rd., Morristown, NJ
07960

R. G. Ryan, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555

John Saeger, Project Manager, Energy Park Development,
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, 2 North 9th Street,
Allentown, PA 18101

R. E. Schill, Central Vermont Public Service Corp., 77 Grove
Street, Rutland, VT 05701

Burkhard Schneider, Site Planning, Detroit Edison Company,
2000 Second Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226

B. W. Shackelford, Vice President for Planning and Research,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beale Street, San Francisco,
CA 94106

Barry S. Shanoff, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC

Don Sinville, Vice President, Public Service Company of New
Hampshire, 1000 Helm Street, Manchester, NH 03105

Harry Ken Sloth, Director of Environmental Affairs, Nebraska
Public Power District, 2504 Fourteenth Street, Columbus, NE
68601

S. H. Smiley, Director of Special Studies, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555

Robert J. Stegon, Offshore Power Systems, 8000 Arlington Express-
way, Jacksonville, FL 32211

Jack Stiles, Vice President for Power Planning, Pacific Power
and Light Company, Public Service Building, Sixth Avenue,
Portland, OR 97204

Gerald I. Stillman, Principal Research Development Engineer,
Power Authority of the State of New York, 10 Columbus Circle,
New York, NY 10019

D. S. Stokley, Senior Vice President Engineering and Operation,
Wisconsin Power & Light Co., 222 W. Washington Ave., P.O.

Box 192, Madison, WI 53701

James L. Sundquist, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution,
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036

Joseph Swidler, Leva, Hawes, Symington, Martin and Oppenheimer,
815 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006
244,

245.

246.

247.

248,

249,

250.

251.

252.

253.

254,

255,

256.

257.

258.

259.

260.

261.

262.

263.

264,

265.

266.

137

L. D. Taylor, Professor of Economics, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ 85721

Jack R. Templeton, Manager of Systems Planning, Potomac Electric
Power Company, Thomas Edison Building, 1900 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20006

Ruble A. Thomas, Vice President, Southern Services, Inc., P.O.
Box 2625, Birmingham, AL 35202

Jack Thorpe, Chief Engineer, General Public Utilities Company,
80 Pine Street, New York, NY 10005

David Tillson, Site Study Specialist, Washington Public Power
Systems, 301 Fifth Avenue, P.0. Box 968, Richland, WA 99352
Wilfred 0. Uhl, Senior Vice President, Long Island Lighting
Company, 250 0l1d Country Road, Mineola, NY 11501

Robert E. Uhrig, Florida Power & Light Company, P.0. Box 013100
Miami, FL 33101

Arvin E. Upton, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, 1757 N. Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20036

E. E. Van Brunt, Jr., APS Vice President, Nuclear Services,
ANPP Project Director, Arizona Nuclear Power Project, P.0. Box
21666, Phoenix, AZ 85036

D. E. Vandenburgh, Vice President, Yankee Atomic Electric
Company, 20 Turnpike Road, Route 9, Westborough, MA 01581
Henry Van Wassen, Manager Beaver Valley Project, Dugnesne
Light Co., 435 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburg, PA 15219

Gregory S. Vassell, Vice President, Systems Planning, American
Electric Power Company, Inc., Room 1332, 2 Broadway, New York,
NY 10004

Don Voyles, Vice President, Duke Power Company, 422 South
Church Street, Charlotte, NC

R. F. Walker, President, Public Service Company of Colorado,
P.0. Box 849, Denver CO 80201

A. E. Wallace, President, Connecticut Light and Power Co.,

107 Selden Street, Berlin, CT 06037

William E. Warne, Chairman, Consultant, 2090 Eighth Avenue,
Sacramento, CA 95818

Alvin M. Weinberg, Director, Institute for Energy Analysis,
Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, TN 37830

P. J. West, Chief of Development and Environmental Controls,
Southern California Edison Company, P.0. Box 800, Rosemead,

CA 91770

Merrill Whitman, Americans for Energy Independence, 1250
Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 502, Washington, DC 20036

C. F. Whitmer, Vice President Engineering, Georgia Power Co.,
270 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30303

Jack Wilkins, Associate General Manager, Omaha Public Power
District, 1623 Harney, Omaha, NE 68102

Bill Williams, Technical Assistant to General Manager, South
Carolina Public Service Authority, Monks Corner, SC

Neil H. Woodley, Chairman, Generation Resources Investigation
Team, Portland General Electric Company, Electric Building,
621 S.W. Alder Street, Portland, OR 97205
138

267. E. J. Woolever, Vice President Engineering and Construction,
Duqnesne Light Co., 435 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburg, PA 15219
| 268, P. D. Ziemer, President, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation,
\ P.0. Box 700, Green Bay, WI 54305
| 269-407. For distribution as shown in TID-4500 under UC-80, General
| Reactor Technology

¥+ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-748-189/280