ML19343B848

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Bishop Contention 1 Concerning Population Projections
ML19343B848
Person / Time
Site: Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date: 12/18/1980
From: William White
DAMES & MOORE
To:
Shared Package
ML19343B832 List:
References
NUDOCS 8012300731
Download: ML19343B848 (51)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. l O 1 i l DIRECT TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM T. WHITE ON BEHALF OF HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY RE BISHOP CONTENTION 1/ POPULATION PROJECTIONS I i i I 6 Bonnoo 73g - -, - ~ - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~~- "-~~~ ~~ "~'~"~~ ~ "'" ~ ' ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~i

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM T. WHITE RE BISHOP CONTENTION 1/ POPULATION PROJECTIONS 1 Q. Please state your name and position. 2 A. .My name is william T. White. I am a Senior Soci-3 ologist with Dames & Moore. 4 Q. Please describe your educational background. 5 A. I have a B.S. degree in Nuclear Engineering from 6 North Carolina State University. I have a M.E. degree in 7 Nuclear Engineering from the University of Florida. I have 3 M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Sociology from the University of 9 Florida. 10 O. Please describe your work experience since grad-11 uating from college. 12 A. I went to work for Dames & Moore in 1973. Prior to 13 that time I was employed as an Instructor by The University 14 of Florida. 15 Q. What are your areas of expertise as consultant 't 6 with Dames & Moore? 17 A. My areas of expertise include sociology, demo-13 graphy, social impact assessment, regional economic studies 13 and project management. 20 Q. Please describe some of the tasks that you have 21 perf r=ed while employed by Dames & Moore. A. I have done studies on the effect of water al-22 23 locations upon the quality of life for 11 Indian tribes in central Arizona. I have done social and demographic impact 34

1 analyses for several large projects including the Alaska gas 2 pipeline. The latter study examined the impact of the 3 pipeline upon social structure, demographic profile and 4 native acculturation. I did a social and community impact 5 analysis of port development for the Portland District Army 6 Corps of Engineers. This ctudy included analyses of social 7 stratification, migration, education and community identity. 2 I conducted a community impact analysis of development of 9 interstate highway I-78 in Mountainside, New Jersey. I 10 have done a socio-economic impact analysis for a regional 11 sewerage system in Hillsborough County, Florida. In the 12 course of this study we analyzed the demographic and economic 13 growth patterns with respect to the proposed system and 14 exmmined whether the induced population and economic growth 15 would alter land use patterns and impact the provision of 16 social services. Finally, I have done social, demographic 17 and econcmic impact analyses for several nuclear and fossil 18 fuel plants including Delmarva Power & Light Company's 13 Swnmit Station, Public Service Electric and Gas Company's 20 Atlantic Generating Station, Rochester Gas & Electric Company's 21 Sterling Steam El'ectric Station, and The Seminole Electric 22 Cooperative, Inc., Seminole Electric Generating Station. I 23 have also served as Project Manager on a site selection 24 study for a coal fired power plant site for Pennsylvania 1 Power & Light Company. This study involved systematic 2 screening of sites in the study area with regard to environ-3 mental, social and engineering considerations. 4 Q. Are you a member of any professional associations? 5 A. I am a member of the American Sociological Associa-6 tion, the American Nuclear Society, the American Planners 7 Association, the Southern Sociological Society, and the 3 Rural Sociological Society. 9 Q. Have you published any articles? 10 A. Yes. I have published articles on the preparation 11 of social impact assessments and the site selection process 12 for energy projects. 13 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony? 14 A. The purpose of my testimony is to address Bishop 15 Contention 1 which alleges that the Applicant has underesti-16 mated population density within a 50 mile radius of the 17 Allens Creek project and that the projected population 13 density will exceed the siting criteria established by the 19 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 20 Q. Would you please describe the work that Dames & 21 Moore has done in assessing the population projections for 22 the 50 mile radius around the Allens' Creek site? 23 A. Dames & Moore was originally retained by the 24 Applicant to prepare the Environmental Report for the Allens I i

Creek project in the early 1970's. The populaticn projec- ~.4..s .-..a.'..e .d....". e ~.~.4 .4.. a.' ... 4.-a. e n. a.'.o.e p c.-. e.- a. 3 based on c.ro4ections done bv. the Houston-Galvesten Area 4 Ccuncil (HGAC) in 1972. Oa=&= & Meere used these projections 3 to prepare the population wheels shewn in the Environ = ental 6 Repert. These were the projections that were presented to 7 the Scard by the A.clicant at the ti=e the Scard =ade its v 3 findings in its P&rtial Initial Decision issued on Nove=- 9 ber 11, 1975 (see it 31 and 3 2). The population projections in the Inviron= ental Report SuY.lement were rec.ared bv c f l a 6 11lI Cames & Moore in 1977. At tha: ti=e the Texas Water Develep- =ent 3 card (TWDB) had done an updated population projection 13 and Da=es & Mccre used these projections for preparation of 14 the pcpulation wheel shown in the ER Supple =ent. 15 Q. Wh.at work has Da=es & Mccre done en population 16 cro-ections subsequent to the ad=issicn of Bishec Contentien ~, I 13 A. Mr. Bishop and Others have alleged that studies 59i ae. wy."e Ri.a. v e.. e.- d e = c.a. s.. a. a d ~..". a. ". e n' - r.'.' a... ' =- y t 20' 1977 pr0;ections were not realistic. We chtsined a copy of + ...e 3.4.. c a....-..a.' a s.'.. c. d.e.-.. a s. e s s..".e -a...".e. da.' ~.c. v, .w i I. a a.-.se. 4... e.4 ..-03ec.4o s. .~. 1.s a t i S.'

n..

" e s..'.' e v a. u. e v a.' ".a. 4 c.. ".# ~..'.e 3 4 e C e... =...-. "..d.' e s. ': m k I .w.e n... A.., 4 ,1..A.4.g i, 3,. s. "ne -4Aa. 4.e s.4..e o.v.e.y a s 1

3~ the computer model used for the projections, and concluded 2 that the studies were well done and that the computer model 3 used by the Rice Center was one of the most advanced computer models available for developing population projections. Popu-3 lation projections are based on the extension of past trends 6 into the future. The method by which these trends are extended determines the reasonableness of the projections. 3 Thus, if trends change, it is likely that population pro-9 jections will change. As a consecuence it is the projection 10 methodology which gives confidence to the projections. This 11 is particularly true when you are making forecasts for 30 33 and 40 years into the future. I believe the Rice Center 13 projection methodology is very reasonable. 3 4 Q. Does the Rice Center model take into account dif- , 5 ferences in growth patterns throughout the region of study? 3 A. Yes, it does. In fact, the study does an ex-3- cellent jcb of taking into account variable growth patterns -e 13 throughout the HGAC region. One of the things we did to 19 test the model was to do a field investigation cf growth 20 patterns around the Allens Creek site, particularly the area 21 to the east of the site which is experiencing outward growth 22 from the City of Houston. This field investigation was 23 conducted by a multi-disciplinary team of experts in economics, 24 demography and planning, employed by Dames & Moore specificallyi._

or the purpose of examining growth trends around the plant site area.

Our investigation demonstrates that there was no reason to change any of the methodology in the Rice Center .4 program. 3 C. How did the Rice Center studies compare with the 5 prior projections in the Environmental Report and Environ-I mental Re ort Supplement? 3 A. Initially, we could not =ake a meaningful co= pari-3 son of the Rice Center studies with these prior projections O for two reasons. First, the Rice Center studies stopped at the year 2000, and we had to make projections to 2020. Secondo 33 the Rice Center studies included only the HGAC area and did 13 include all of the counties within the 50 mile radius of not the Allens Creek site. Accordingly, we decided that further 3-work was necessary on the Rice Center studies in order to 0 16 develop a legitimate basis for comparison. 7 Q. Please describe the further work that you did. 1 13 A. We arranged with the Rice Center Oc use their 13 computer =cdel to do an analysis comparable with those per-20 forned by HGAC in 1972 and TWDB in 1977. In order Oc do i 21 this, we had to extend the projections to the year 2020 and 22 we had to include in the projections all of the counti 23 within the 50 mile radius of the Allens Creek site. .5.24o i 24 used the = cst current data for input into the computer, so .e.

i~ our result is even more current than the Rice Center studies 2 cited by the intervenors. 3 Q. What was the result of your analysis? 4 A. The results of our analysis cre shown in Appli-5 cant's Exhibit No. (WTW-1). Our analysis shows that 6 the latest population projections within the 50 mile radius 7 around the Allens Creek site are higher than the 1977 pro-3 jections, but that these most recent projections are below 9 the original 1972 projections which the Board found accept-1*0 able. Total population density projected for the year 2020, 3, ~^ within 30 Oiles of the plant is: (1) 1972 HGAC = 295 persons to ~~ per square mile: (2) 1977 TWDB = 80 persons per square mile; '^3 (3) 1980 Rice /D&M = 171 persons per square mile. Q. How do the Rice Center / Dames & Moore projections compare with the NRC's guidelines on siting? ~ 6 1 A. The projections compare favorably with the popula- ~7 1 tion density guidelines in Regulatory Guide 4.7. As shown ~S on Table 2 of WTW-1, none of the projections for the 0-1*9 30 mile annulus exceed the threshold numbers of 500 persons 'O per square mile at the beginning of plant operation or 1000 o, persons per square mile during the life of the plant. The 99 projections also comply with the proposed population density

  • ~

23 guidelines contained in the " Report of the Siting Policy 24 Task Force (NUREG-0 6 25 ) ". A detailed comparison of all the 3 Allens Creek projections with the criteria in NUREG-0625 can 2 be found on pages 8-11 of WTW-1. 3 Q. Would you discuss the steps you have taken to 4 assess population changes within a 10 mile radius of the plant? 5 A. When we did our original population projections in I 1972, we did not rely solely upon population projections by 3 the HGAC. We took actual air photos of the aiea within 10 a =iles of the site and counted the number of residences 3n within that area in order to provide a more detailed basis 11 for our population projections in the 10-mile annulus. 3-Within the last two months, we have taken new air photos of 13-the area within 10 miles of the site and have again counted , 4 the actual nu=ber of residences within that area. 3-3 Q. What have you concluded based upon these latest .6 photos? 7 A. Our results indicate that there has been about a 3 13 3,100 person increase within 10 miles of the site as compared 19 with a 4,760 person increase projected by the 1972 HGAC. 20 Based on this information we feel quite confident that our l 21 pro 3ections for growth around the immediate vicinity of the 22 site are reasonable.' 23 Q. .Mr. Bishop also contends that HL&P's population 24 projections for specific sectors east of the site are too 1 1 l

l I I 1 low. Is this assertion correct? 2 A. Mr. Bishop is apparently referring to the alloca-3 tion of population to certain sectors in the vicinity of the 4 town of Katy in the Environmental Report Supplement. (Figure 5 S2.2-2). In this regard, Mr. Bishop is correct, and this 6 is due to the manner in which the population wheels were t 7 prepared from the 1977 TWDB population projections. The 1977 8 projections, unlike the Rice Center and HGAC projections, 9 were made on a county-by-county basis. Therefore, in order 10 to allocate the population within a county into specific 11 sectors on a population wheel, it was necessary to estimate 12 the percentage of total county population that would fall 13 within the specific sector. This was done by estimating the 14 1970 percentage of a county's sector population to the total 15 county population. This percentage was assumed to remain 16 constant over the projection period (1980 to 2020).

Thus, 17 county projections were a11ocated to sectors using these

~ 13 1970 percentages. This method may have distorted the esti-l 19 mates of populations in a small number of sectors where 20 newly-formed concentrations of population developed. The 21 more recent Rice Center / Dames & Moore projections more 1 22 accurately reflect the allocation of population to various l l 23 sectors and demonstrate that the Allens Creek site meets the l l 24 NRC's siting criteria. l l 1 1 i

1 Q. Does this conclude your testimony? 2 A. Yes, it does. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 -LO-

s Rice Center / Dames & Moore Population 12-10-80 Analysis tor Allens Creek Nuclear 4490-057-012-8103 Generating Station - 1980 INTRODUCTION Population projections for the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station (ACNGS) have been made several times, each to update information based on the availability of more recent data und analyses. This report is intended to present the progression of these projections and to compare the projections produced each time.~ - The following four sets of population projections have been generated: 1. 1972 HGAC Projections The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) and Environmental Report (ER) used population projections prepared by the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) as the basis for the population wheels. Dames & Moore allocated the projections, which were presented on the basis of census tracts, to the 160 sectors; however, the 0- to 10 mile population distribution was based on a structure count using 1972 aerial photography. 2. 1977 TWDB Projections In 1977, Dames & Moore ipdated the projections using base projections developed by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). As with the HNC projections, Dames & Moore simply allocated the projections, which were prepared on a county basis, to the 160 sectors. These projections were presented in the 1977 Environmental Report Supplement. l i Applicant Exhibit No. (WTW-1) l l { l l l

3. 1980 Rice Center In early 1980, Rice Center published a set of projections for the HGAC. The projections were to year 2000, and were prepared for census tracts. Five counties (Fayette, Grimes, Jackson, Lavaca, and Washington) which are within 50 miles of the site were not included in the Rice Center projections. For compari-son purposes, Dames & Moore estimated the population contribu-tion of these counties, and included them in the population wheels. Dames & Moore allocated the Rice Center projections to the 160 population wheel sectors. 4. 1980 Rice Center / Dames & Moore Projections In late 1980, Dames & Moore contracted with Rice Center to use its input / output model to project population for the 50 mile-radius study area. Although the model is the same as the 1980 Rice Center projection model, more recent data were available for the Rice Center / Dames & Moore projections. Appendix A provides the methodology for allocating the projections tu the population wheel. As noted above, four se parate projections were made between 1972 and the present because of the availability of new data and new analyses. Further, a second set of aerial photographs was obtained in 1980 for the 0- to 10 mile area around the site. Using the photography, structures were counted for each population wheel sector in the 10 mile annulus, and it is this distribution which is presented for the 1980 population for the two Rice Center projections. COMPARISON OF PROJECTIONS The 1972 HGAC set of projections are generally the most conservative (largest). As shown in Table 1 and Figures 1 through 10, the 1972 HG1C projections exceed all the others in nearly every annulus except the -. -

30- to 40 mile annulus. In this annulus, the 1980 Rice Center / Dames & Moore projections are largest. In general, the lowest set of projections are those based upon the TWDB projections. Table 1 and Figures 1 through 3 and 6 through 8 also show that the 1980 Rice Center and 1980 Rice Center / Dames & Moore projections are very similar. In general, the 1980 Rice Center / Dames & Moore projections are slightly larger than the 1980 Rice Center projections. Examination of Figures 1 through 17 indicate that: 1. The major concentration of population in the study area is east of the site, in the Houston area. 2. Those sectors uhich are expected to increase most rapidly are from 20 miles to 50 miles from the site,, in a wedge-shaped seg-ment from ENE to ESE. 3. The population west of the site is expected to grow slowly; indeed, in the areas SW of the site an actual decline in popula-tion may occur. Annular Comparisons Annular comparisons are intended to yield several pieces of infor-mation: 1. Annular population densities. 2. Rate of population increases over the life of the plant. 3. Relative differences between the projection series. As discussed below, these data help to place population growth within 50 miles of the plant into perspective. Table 2 provides the annular totals f or comparison. -

0- to 5-Mile Annulus From the beginning of plant ope ration (1990) over the life of the plant (2020), population within 5 miles of the plant should not show more than a 50 percent increase. The 1972 HGAC population series shows a 49 percent growth. The smallest increase is 35 percent for the 1977 TWDB l projection series. There are two basic reasons for the projected slow growth within j 5 miles of the plant. One reason is the cooling lake and plant exclu-sion area. These two areas exclude population within 1 mile of the plant and much of the 1-to 2 mile annulus. The other reason is that the area within 5 miles of the plant is primarily agricultural. Only the town of Wallis, between 4 and 5 miles from the plant, provides a population concentration. The maximum density projected by any of the projection series is 85 persons per square mile. The Rice Center / Dames & Moore projection t series is the most. recent set of projections, and a density of 65 per-sons per square mile is expected by 2020. In 1990, the projected 5 mile density ranges f rom 57 persons per square mile (1972 HCAC) to 28 persons per square mile (1977 TWDB). 5-to 10-Mile Annulus The town of Sealy is within the 5-to 10 mile annulus and provides the largest single concentration nf people within the annulus.

However, even with the presence of Sealy, the highest projected annular population is not expe cted to increase by more than about 27,000 persons (1972 HCAC). Of this increase, about 12,000 is attributable to Sealy and its surrounding area.

The 1972 HGAC projections show annular population density may increase to 155 persons per square mile in 2020; however, the mere recent Rice Center / Dames & Moore projection series projects a maximam . -,,.. ~,.. -

annular density of 102 persons per square mile. In 1990, the beginning of plant ope ration, the annular population density ranges f rom 69 per-sons per square mile (1972 HGAC) to 35 persons per square mile (1977 TWDB). The Rice Center / Dames & Moore projected densities are 56 and 61 persons per square mile. i 10- to 20-Mile Annulus The 1972 HCAC projections are the most conservative (largest). The difference is rmallent in 1980, where about a 17,000 person differ-ence exists between the 1972 HGAC and the 1977 TWDB projections. By 2020, this difference has increased to about 96,000. The conserva-tism of the HCAC projections is shown in the 1980 to 2020 population increase of over 200 percent. The more recent Rice Center / Dames & Moore projections increase only by about 100 percent over the same period. Population density is not expected to exceed 170 persons per square mile for the maximum projection (the 2020 estimate of the 1972 HGAC projections). In 1990 (the beginning of reactor operation), the esti-mated annular population density ranges from 100 persons per square mile (1972 HCAC) to 39 persons per square mile (1977 TWDB). The Rice Center / Dames & Moore estimate for 1990 is 56 persons per square mile. 20- to 30-Mile Annulus With the exception of the 1980 estimate, the 1972 HCAC projec-tions are most conservative (largest). In 1980, the Rice Center / Dames & Moore projection is about 23,000 persons larger; however, the rate of growth inherent in the 1972 HGAC projections is higher and the HGAC projection exceeds the Rice Center / Dames & Moore projections by 1990. In j fact, the 2020 HGAC estimate is almost twice the 1980 Rice Center / Dames & j Moore estimate. The densities in this ring range from 47 persons per square mile (TWDB projections) to 402 persons per square mile in 2020 (1972 HGAC projection). Each projection series shows an increase in densities during the life of the plant. The Rice Center / Dames & Moore projections are between the HGAC and WDB projections. In 2020, the Rice Center / Dames & Moore projected population density is 243 persons per square mile. 30- to 40-Mile Annulus In this annular ring, the highest sets of projections are those prepared by Rice Center. Both the 1980 Rice Center and the 1980 Rice Center / Dames & Moore projections exceed the others, such that by 2020, the Rice Center / Dames & Moore total is almost 400,000 persons more than the 1972 HGAC projections. The Rice Center projections suggest more intensive development in the 30- to 40-mile ring than the HOAC projec-tions; however, these projections show less growth in the 40- to 50 mile annulus. In effect, as discussed below, development will move away from central Houston at a faster rate than hypothesized in the 1972 HGAC projections. 40- to 50-Mile Annulus The 40- to 50 mile annulus overlaps a large portion of central Houston. This is reflected in the very large population in this annulus, as well as relatively high densities. However, the Rice Center / Dames & Moore projection for each year except 1980 is smaller than the 30- to 40 mile annular totals. The major trend of interest is that the 1972 HCAC and 1977 TWDB pro-jections place more population in the 40- to 50 mile annulus than the 30- to 40 mile annulus. The reverse condition is the case for the 1980 Rice Center / Dames & Moore set of projections. This set of projections has higher growth occurring away from Houston..

All four projections have several traits in common: 1. Population growth is expected to continue. 2. Major growth is expected to occur east of the site in the Houston area. Although the amounts of growth differ amcag the projection series, the direction of growth is not in question. As we demonstrate below, even with this anticipated growth, the ACNGS site meets all of the existing NRC population guidelines. NRC POPULATION CRITERIA There are two sets of guidelines which may be used to evaluate the population distribution for Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station (ACNGS). The criteria published in Regulatory Guide 4. 7, " General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations," have been used for many years. The criteria in Regulatory Guide 4.7 focus upon the population density around a site out to a distance (.f 30 miles. The other set of potential criteria are published in NUREG-0625, " Report of the Siting Policy Task Force." These criteria use a combination of density limits and specific sector requirements. Further, the suggested NUREG-0625 revisions place more emphasis on population close to the site than the criteria in Regulatory Guide 4.7. Regulatorv Guide 4.7 The density criteria in Regulatory Guide 4.7 examine the population density distribution of the site out to a radial distance of 30 miles from the site. Two numerical criteria are established: 1. At the initial time of plant operation, the cumulative popu-lation density at any radial distance out to 30 miles should not exceed 500 persons per square mile.

2. Over the life of the plant, the cumulative population density at any radial distance out to 30 miles should not exceed 1,000 persons per square mile. If either of these criteria are likely to be exceeded, an additional indepth consideration of alternative sites in the environmental review will be t rig g e reil. The criteria do not represent upper limits of acceptability. The ACNGS projections do not exceed either density level. Figure 11 shows that in 1990, the projected operation date of ACNGS, the maximum cumulative population density within 30 miles of the site is about 140 persons per square mile (the 1972 HGAC projection). The more recent Rice Center / Dames & Moore projection peaks at '110 persons per square mile. Further, the population densities over the life of the plant will not exceed 1,000 persons per square mile. Since the study area is growing, the 2020 projections generate the highest densities. Figure 12 shows that the 1972 HGAC projection, the largest projection, never exceeds 300 persons per square mile. Further, the recent Rice Center / Dames & Moore projected density peaks at about 175 persons per square mile, well below tha 1,000 person per square mile level. NUREG-0625 The recommended guidelines in NUREG-0625 examine three distinct annuli. The intent of the recommendations is to focus upcn population close to the site. 0- to 5-Mile Annulus - The criteria for population from the exclu-sion area to the 5 mile radius are: Population Density Within the Annulus. The annular population density should not exceed 100 persons per square mile, or one-half the average population density of the region in which the 1. l . ~..

~ 3 plant is located, whichever is greater. The term " region" was not defined; the 100 persons per square mile was therefore used. The ACNCS exclusion area is approximately 3.0 square miles. Sub-tracting this area from the 5 mile radial area generates a total of 75.5 square miles within the annulus. Table 3 shows the 1990 population density for this annulus. The projected densities for l all the projection series are well below 100 persons per square mile, and the criterion is satisfied. 1 Rate of Growth of the Annulus. The population within the annulus e should not be expected to increase more than double the original population during the life of the plant. This criterion is interpreted to mean that the population density of the annulus should not exceed 200 pe rsons per square mile (twice the allowed 1990 population density of 100 persons per square mile) over the life of the plant. Examination of Table 3 for the exclusion area to 5-mile annulus shows that none of the projection series population densities for year 2020 exceed 200 persons per square mile. It is concluded that the ACNCS popula-tion distribution satisfies the rate of growth criteria for the ~ 0- to 5-mile annu1us. Maximum 22-1/2' Sector Population. No more than one-half of the allowed number of persons in the zone should be permitted within eny 22-1/2' sector. This criterion is interpreted to mean that: 1. For 1990, the maximum number of people allowed in the annulus should not exceed 100 persons per square mile. Therefore, one-half of the allowed number of people corresponds to an annular density of 50 persons per squar4 mile, or 3,775 pe rs ons. l , -.. - ~

- _ _ _ _ - ~ =-. --. _ -. r I 1 2. Over the life of the plant (2020) the maximum number of people allowed in the annulus should not exceed a population density of 200 persons per square mile. One-half of the allowed, number of people in the annulus corresponds to an annular density of 100 persons per square mile, or 7,550 persons. Table 4 shows the comparison of the maximes sector populations for each projection series with the criteria. None of the projected populations exceed the criteria; consequently, it is concluded the sector population criteria are met. The criteria for the 0- to 5-mile annulus are met by each projection series presented. S-to 10-Mile Annulus - One of the 5-to 10 mile annulus criteria is that at the beginning of plant ope ration, 1990, the annular population density should not exceed three quarters the average population density of the region where the reactor is to be located, or 150 persons per square mile, whichever is greater. The term " region" Nas not defined, and the 150 persons per square mile was therefore used. Table 3 shows that the maximum 1990 annular population density projected by the projec-tion series is 69 persons per square mile. The second criterion is that no more than one-half of the allowed number of persons in this annular ring should be permitted in any single 22-1/2" sector. The allowed number of persons in this ring is about 35,320; therefore, no more than 17,660 persons should be in any 22-1/2* sector. The maximum 22-1/2" sector population for the projection series occurring in 1990 is shown on the follwing page. l l t f

I Maximum Sector Population Sector HGAC 6,200 NNW TWDB 3,670 NNW Rice Centei/D&M 6,770 NNW None of the sector populations exceed the criteria. 10- to 20-Mile Annulus - The population density at startup of ACNGS should not exceed 400 persons per square mile, and no more than one-half of the allowed number of persons in this annular ring should be permitted in any single 22-1/2* sector. Examination of Table 3 shows the maximum 1990 population density is 100 persons per square mile (1972 HGAC). Fur'ther, the allowed number of persons in a single 22-1/2* sector is 188,400. The maximum 1990 sector populations are: Maximum Sector Population Sector HGAC 23,000 ENE TWDB 8,500 ESE Rice Center /D&M 21,500 ENE None of these populations exceed the criteria. Summary Given that none of the population projections (1972 HGAC, 1977 TWDB, or 1980 Rice Center / Dames & Moore) exceed any of Regulatory 4.7 or NUREG-0625 criteria, it is concluded that ACNGS has an acceptable population distribution. . l

Pega 1 cf 2 TABLE 1 POPULATION PROJECTION COMPARISON SY YEAR OF FROJECTION 1980 Annulus (Miles) HCAC TWDB Rice Center Rice / Dames & Moore 0-5 3,020 2,110 2,260 2,260 5 - 10 9,740 7,260 8,860 8,860 10 - 20 48,980 31,840 34,540 35,710 20 - 30 128,900 74,400 127,300 151,800 30 - 40 609,610 536,440 890,340 965,600 40 - 50 1,101,700 1,155,700 1,107,220 1,123,700 0 - 50 1,901,950 1,807,750 2,170,520 2,287,930 1990 Annulus (Miles) HGAC TWDB Rice Center Rice / Dames & Moore 0-5 4,490 2,220 a,a20 3,630 5 - 10 16,310 8,290 13,100 14,430 10 - 20 93,760 36,400 48,410 52,970 20 - 30 279,300 84,900 188,700 240 ?90 t 30 - 40 927,080 658,400 1,193,800 1,362,500 40 - 50 1,385,600 1,457,000 1,310,170 1,344,100 0 - 50 2,706,540 2,247,210 2,757,510 3,017,730 2000 Annulus (Miles) HGAC TWDB Rice Center Rice / Dames & Moore 0-5 5,060 2,450 4,120 4,530 5 - 10 22,800 9,580 17,340 18,470 10 - 20 116,900 43,100 62,140 64,390 20 - 30 377,300 101,100 249,000 303,800 30 - 40 1,128,200 810,800 1,510,600 1,600,800 40 - 50 1,617,600 1,817,100 1,485,190 1,556,100 0 - 50 3,267,860 2,784,130 3,328,390 3,548,090

I 4 Page 2 of 2 1 TABLE 1 (CONT.) 2010 Annulus (Miles) HCAC TWDB Rice Center Rice / Dames & Moore 4 0-5 5,740 2,710 4,830 5 - 10 30,650 11,130 21,210 10 - 20 139,700 51,900 68,010 20 - 30 499,100 120,200 344,100 30 - 40 1,342,300 1,000,900 1,718,300 40 - 50 1,892,900 2,235,000 1,663,900 O - 50 3,910,390 3,421,840 3,820,350 2020 Annulus (Miles) HGAC TUD3 Rice Center Rice / Dames & Moore 0-5 6,680 3,000 5,120 5 - 10 36,500 13,060 23,930 t 10 - 20 158,500 62,900 72,610 20 - 30 631,800 147,300 382,100 30 - 40 1,484,400 1,238,100 1,861,000 40 - 50 2,212,100 2,772,500 1,758,000 l 0 - 50 4,529,980 4,236,860 4,102,760 i

Page 1 of 3 TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF POPULATION AND POPULATION DENSITY PROJECTIONS BY ANNULUS t' 0- To 5-Mile Annulus i Year HGAC TWDB Rice Center Rice / Dames & Moore 1980 3,020 2,110 2,260 2,260 ( 38) ( 27) ( 29) ( 29) 1990 4,490 2,220 3,330 3,630 ( 57) ( 28) ( 42) ( 46) 2000 5,060 2,450 4,120 4,530 ( 64) ( 31) ( 52) ( 58) 2010 5,740 2,710 4,830 ( 73) ( 35) ( 62) 2020 6,680 3,000 5,120 ( 85) ( 38) ( 65) 5-To 10-Mile Annulus Year HGAC TWDB Rice Center Rice / Dames & Moore a 1980 9,740 7,260 8,860 8,860 ( 41) ( 31) ( 38) ( 38) 1990 16,310 8,290 13,130 14,430 ('69) ( 35) ( 56) ( 61) 2000 22,800 9,580 17,340 18,470 ( 97) ( 41) ( 74) ( 78) 2010 30,650 11,130 21,210 (130) ( 47) ( 90) 2020 36,500 13,060 23,930 (155) ( SS) (102) NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are Population Densities (number of persons per square mile). i

Page 2 of 3 l TABLE 2 (CONT.) 10- To 20-Mile Annulus Year HGAC TWDB Rice Center Rice / Dames & Moore 1980 48,980 31,840 34,540 35,710 ( 52) ( 34) ( 37) ( 38) 1990 93,760 36,400 48,410 52,970 (100) ( 39) ( 51) ( 56) 2000 '16,900 43,100 62,140 64,390 (124) ( 46) ( 66) ( 68) 68,010 2010 139,700 51,900 (148) ( 55) ( 72) 2020 158,500 62,900 72,610 (168) ( 67) ( 77) 20- To 30-Mile Annulus Year HCAC TWDB Rice Center Rice / Danes & Moore 1980 128,900 74,400 127,300 151,800 ( 82) ( 47) ( 81) ( 97) 1990 279,300 84,900 188,700 240,100 (178) ( 54) (120) (153 ) 2000 377,300 101,100 249,000 303,800 (240) ( 64) (159) (194) 344,100. 2010 499,100 120,200 (318) ( 77) (219) 382,100 2020 631,800 147,300 (402) ( 94) (243) NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are Population Densities (number of persons per square mile). e w~

Page 3 of 3 TABLE 2 (CONT.) 30- To 40-Mile Annulus Year HGAC TWDB Rice Center Rice / Dames & Moore 1980 609,'.10 536,440 890,340 965,600 (277) (244) (405) (439) l 1990 927,080 658,400 1,193,800 1,362,500 (422) (300) (543) (620) 2000 1,128,200 810,800 - 1,510,600 1,600,800 (513) (369) (687) (728) 1,718,300 2010 1,342,300 1,000,900 (611) (455) (782) 1,861,000 2020 1,484,400 1,238,100 (675) (563) (847) 40- To 50-Mile Annulus Year HGAC TWDB Rice Center Rice / Dames & Moore 1980 1,101,700 1,155,700 1,107,220 1,123,700 l (390) (409) (392) (398) 1990 1,385,600 1,457,000 1,310,170 1,344,100 (4 90 ) (516) (464) (476) 2000 1,617,600 1,817,100 1,485,190 1,556,100 (572) (643) (525) (551) 1,663,900 2010 1,892,900 2,235,000 (670) (791) (589) 1,758,000 2020 2,212,100 2,772,500 l (783) (981) (622) NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are Population Densities (number of persons per square mile). h

TABLE 3 ANNULAR COMPARISONS OF POPULATION Exclusion Area to 5-Mile Annulus Population Density (#/sq mi) Year HGAC TWDB Rice / Dames & Moore 1990 60 30 48 2020 89 40 68 5-to 10-Mile Annulus Population Density (#/sq mi) Year HGAC TWDB Rice / Dames & Moore 1990 69 35 61 2020 155 55 102 10- to 20-Mile Annulus Population Density (#/sq mi) Year HGAC TWDB Rice / Dates & Moore 1990 100 39 56 2020 168 67 77

\\ 4 x TABLE 4 SECTOR ANALYSIS FOR THE EXCLUSION AREA TO 5-t!ILE ANNULUS 1990 Maximum Sector Projection Series Sector Population C rite rion* HGAC SE 2,160 3,775 TVDB SE 1,180 3,775 Rice Center / Dames & Moore SSE 1,130 3,375

  • The population which corresponds to 50 persons per square mile for this annulus is 3,775 persons.

2020 Maximum Sector Projection Series Sector Population Criterion

  • HGAC SE 2,920 7,550 TWDB SE 1,560 7,550 Rice Center / Dames & Moore SSE 1,500 7,550
  • The population which corresponds to 50 persons per square mile for this annulus is 7,550 persons.

...4 ,e-, .m.. --y ,.,-.w.---

I sis s'Ials e,e 33 i ~ '.s = 3a ~ o .,j,',, 8 2. ur G !;e -! d : = $ #35 51 ES ada

  • 5
  • !!:3 i' ! ;[3 E $. hw j

3

5l;%

j-i,g~aa< $ cf i d ipil a ., !E i. 0 c= d , "d => s a

s..u a
b. {:'I IL;,

s~ s o.. as { j 'N,. 37 o m if j $ j") 5 552"* D i.! jgi . 2ls-aa !v $jI i a-9 p8 364 gi I-a sEs i s- .s go I 5s e.j !*:i ! 8-j 5 .l*- * 5; 1sy El's 8T g , *c p

' E
  • u

},w e R= -r g -8I-a i p a

  • g r

. $ER 5 4 ~{ -!_ f q~a I s. -gs. u -e ]5 - 38y'8 f 1 8 1 g., h28 3;.y-iiaS iiIs! _3't _, l

- m m3_-

. E,',. !! = r f I 9 a * '* '* 5 . !-!13 .. O 35 Is$e 3 II .E.; 1 i 5$s!! Ii

  1. N 12 I

ma.l . v==, k'56 4 l \\ , n L %(y %e l ~ m 4 . Ac,1. 4,. ? .- f s' f j WN _m _ p! l -._ "..e ~4 t N '( ~ .r g m ,f. LaJN. 1 (f;j g y,'~ Q, f f { < N e ' g( /",- y V, z% ~_ J - ) !~ tl M

  • e

<l i y % + Mi-,

  • \\. %,;j

[ "\\ \\ V /. ^ i 2; t; -; n 1 c $)., .af}: s4 \\ =J e r, W' 9 w y r e m e )z -.., e x J l.?, l w) )- ^ ~. Q.R T 4 1, ~ L, i 5 s 'c e *Jan..\\

  • .~{

' s 2; (1 \\ } / g ,'t; .\\ / \\,. ,f V/ \\. 1 s2 i L1 e } ' f. "/ [ \\ hsk.. i pqp k, -/ 7- ,~ ' X[' A.*% sKd,F, _W,cW ~g \\ t 6 q,,,:, w.. M 9 asa 4 Ms s - i m b '. ~. y,% ff f, f 9 nan 4 nas.f ggg LQ.. x;p - 1,? j \\ / s ig 4,,~, ~R23 J;} u ,n s s ....A s 8_ y jR ' W,. / /' '..~.ya, j-% g 2;% }< ~ 4 g 4 ).'/33*A,/ .iq. a.oo / ~ ass /eh:28 .f. m, s,'e"**a'.> -E / n 7 ~. j. ...x p s,, m., a.. ) #,, ,f." , " ~ / A j' /.

%s l.

-st-ens - m;, <,.. ~ ., e .M Iu Q j' %15i r.q : yn a as2 y a * - e ws,- t,, zzy

" Q

&; <A> % ,.5 '- 1

., m*,y

> (r

f..n ',, a,,

"W / /p . e -: \\

y,;

Q nsa. - i ^\\, .up,.A.,%f'uf, 'Q-y '~ l . sua ,, ? I ?a/ s &,. _..y e g_, t , ^. j..iQ ' ' s'/ _ '.-j W, ~, ' j ', N, ase.d '~ nr ',/ :== \\ ng' '; gag '\\ m [ ___,I / b N p M N f y$ '*d z Q -f _ [ t'z V,/n. 1., ' / /,~ me e- \\~$' g jm, . - 4.. /, /,. / 's + y r-j .e<n o ~ w[ f(,.,,, f/ ~ '1\\ / fkt Q~' y'L Q [-[, ' i.-.~ : 4s ~ \\ /\\ % </ .,-h ', ',., N [fi . p (~ =3 n .5 - m - p\\i ~ f - --r _,,,,enr, gn ~.a l / / w p\\ \\- y s gg a f - agg g)- .2 j i f ~ a. ') k j '- / m n ,m / t. _r \\ ,g ~ ~ f ? u, s' r p s (

  • j

~1 1 7 ;3 s -C' i g, g .. m, - s N;-. - ' z 3 ~ f, ;( { l' i / 1 1 I d.

s

  • m i2 3:, a: a:

gg 1_. . _E i [. 4 g f eE E g g' e e 3 9 6 7 9

c. S _i s; m'!-

=g = E8 ~. E _

  • 3 5'
M 9 I

i.* 3S 3F f a i;s! 2 Ma ~ ~ 5 ',., s a; I li;t gid. I; i s _ um s o,, : o w er 5.: 4, ; asi: s =>

  • i M Q 4.9

,i Is o = ~.. - a I,.' S S% I j ~ j *" 3 E *- - i* a $j G S. " =l t s. ml 2 5 jj i -a: s 1:a I rs ~t- "o

s s

"g u-t' av r_s

  • l's.
i c

')aIk ,I

  • k.$ $

s $ t' g 3" E .I ' li.s t; 3-=g 1 in. .*t 5 .v_ _ g,-:_ +0 '.r- $6 1 ~. gig 85 =

E

'{i a8 2 2 5 ma__g

g s'5 9

= i f 1 ! : ! a_ :;

-:p

_rs- 'g 1 s.:-s 5'5' -3 lu$ r$ O!Gl 3' 9. ? a e i 3rS 3 t I m* l, = ! r l 2 -'dR ais: i ~,-1 ,i e; s* / 7 / 3 (m . ht m-Ohp w, -w " _- A. ~,E * { ,,,fg .3 .N. . (j;y uN, \\>- ,f* y s = ,. c {. i i 3 ~ . f 1 t V ~/ .s s., y m s< \\ y'M A s s . >; ;~~ s \\ l t- \\ l' -% N w r' s cz e t r-O f l I s N.$5 '3,'

  • ^,

,L.. m i ? ) ? ' 'J k s;Ml

p, S ' ;t.

m.<) - =,. l '\\ 3.L, 1, \\ e,rs _ /* - 4 - :,. pgge w ,1 y --r u k E %g y / , s d'b:, 1 m m: .m s Y! K N,,j f.', 'x/ 7 % X'E j-%' 'tN.f -t M t 4, ERER f,,- s N,, 's_mEEEf s gggg,j' j Egg' i' .// A .N \\ 2g [ v y-h1 y m.; ~

./"""p..... -

l $ssa Y.8Eng ,N k h3[ y' .,, a,.ywe me-m 4; + j' ^ ^ .a59 .3, u,em~.4n. >g_....., f./, rq.m..,......<,..,. ~ x i -; a /,M j .c ,assh ,p Lyg,, [ Z '.,7,, l $;$ & _ W & w ' ? * "E,,: -l.

f.., c

~ ~ " ' N . oe, ' s. m,.~,.. , t <_ ...t ,s nuna c., g,, ' x .y f, x \\, J. s arte.xg gess y 2...-, s,<-. / s 'ec.]. 3 N s ge, -? / ~s py., L ;. .N,. /y" x i- ~~-r - ' 'g: ,/ m s 1 ~ \\,,, a', Jm s. z.... E%ER ' p * *,f". v.- , - %. ~t,.f. /,_ '_., .s,r. .s~ [ . {( M - ~ \\: ,\\ ,,. x ? </ .*.e,2 N b w w-' 9,'=. i.s ., h ) _h. ~ . / / i f'-#>* f. 4 w l f ,,x j'e j sf ~-- / EGE2 /^ 3Rgg [ / - 3 +7 g /"' Z )# ;, J / i m' 4 5 .,i i: sEEE s s ),, - ,g e ( P i\\' C f g, l t 1 = e r x n s em. v 4 .a . sy 3 3 z D

    • ~.Q,,

y .l -, 3 ~ ~ - g ~ l 1 48

!.s t re 58 t b< z r! aj = g. g r 3, t =

2.. :: : s 3:e 3., : ' 3 a; si a; v :.

m 4 j m s-3 5 is ej, ap , _;m m M. _a_., .o,

2. a a g

!~, o,.. aw- .pg ,~ e= lu. E. i b. 1~ r s:, e 4: .i Fi E=E l'. ! .s = 6 o su.: !-fl 5;5 -c :- 3 cr. 4 so lm yp = < gg g .-i d ::= .I . :? 3, I o. =s-3 -g ljl liEE l5 'ir d I;!-j ,i i ^ sarl agg qll. Diff !!' ;[:

i '

,,a i m1.a s n -i s: .bi s a_<a: !a > s try> rn's gsg.g e *~ e

s a

<5::; I

E

!!5, } y. al !-y n, _ 0 ta .m s .e a sca,r a= .- i W Yhw h M %e < / \\ I ~, \\ i s -u o r y,e,< z.. V '$ s N u) \\

i j
  • . ht. ~ t y n. ~%

i w - g, v cw x '(e, ww.- l 1 S t-s i, u h j l h-vd I \\ w

/

~9 a p ,3 - 1, b ' _M ,/j' C L. ,t, %vp .s~. / ~ y.,, .\\ y 2 -l. s -- @1. V P ) ! NIL / .A' q -y/ I. 'e i., p-# iREE '. k 'j-y l *x.., \\" ik y a i + ..i) ~;' ! ,?: 1 s;ke fl ^l e s~ h- ..\\ A =. t u. / k 5 + - [A / \\ j!$$ 7f ,h jfER ~ \\,.. z.,, .s _ c w' A a m,f.j ,/ 7,m- / s m, y, w, r z w ~- / ],/'- gg ,.N ,[ 'q,

/]

e ,e ,c , ' ~ - - 2 U1, 'z ,1 y . ~ - /1 EEEA ff ' \\ % t gs 5 '.*p., 3 h[, ,-,E.Dgg *,' ,s N G 7 gy.ps,/ ..4' /% U.. 2. = s 3. ~ ~- 'E23 /....'***r %'e'.< 4e e \\x '^- [. 4

  • E

^ '^ w $>p [ ,23?g.'/ M '/' ,h' Ti 3 '. f7 SERR g es,( -; }- 9 i _E$ i ~.tf', _ i -t ~-~f i ' s ~,N,

l..

-t A s ..f ^ 1 s 76 ~3.(sS L e. N'.\\ ',((\\ ' 9 ' + f' y~ ~-. L l' ,,'N 15W43 l ^ ,~4 [, N - ./ fW. ' \\ ' ._ x-L- t { - 7, 2 i %.,g ! <gg-f- 1

S ciF,kfj-SSES-SE Q. SU N

.? }g.sg L- ., e. $R ' 5SES. 'pE63 o=er's . E,. - r, a . -- -%[$ i 5_ s w.07.- . N, L >~ " 3 - ~ --, hh, a,2a A 'r p ,,, w ,,- e s. (C ~ / / \\.',Lm=;,qg @,t? g & / /, O }

ssssj

' y-:.L-9/p< Ny,;,==, / ~ W~ .. sp '2 % 1 : /- .4 s l ->: f <x.y / '\\ {,^ ~ \\ I + y _ P W99 <-llm~ } -' i V/ R,cfg,.y 'y, =g w enmooy d s - - nr .s .L-x.-u-s'

    • esc

<v ,s 2 -- 1 /, 5DW $ g g / $Ot%,.. l \\ 2 c e-as

v K,

-'/ zenc t - s ~ ~. -,33' s 3 ', y s [ f d p ,Q z\\/[k,, nxe 'N% N-2 .f ~ \\ [',' - ~DM. . W'.? * -), [5 'y' y ~p;g' - irn a_,.. / p.,s v m 9' s x / / N ~ .i - \\ '/ %+ - ~g '+ s -~. 4 0 g, ,9 ' 3 ~, ' ' m, .- N ,1 ~ 7 9 (, 8 ,,,,,.,,,,a, .) s. N i' ~ ^ f~,

  • 4

-p# - ~ r r-3' _v yx ' ~ ' ~ ~ f ff~ 7, pss p 3r.ca < ,l j 3x t- g, ,K l ,.m s t me t (. .k. - .i s s .~ 7. g g g g e.

rs ra. t= lds 3: i _. -Si R 2] e- -. m g 2 i* s. L 52 y. r_ a re. s.

== = l:-

g r-Mp I g!

g 95 3 _I_.E a =~ 2 't

s

"l f a. m% 3 elif !s s. ! 4 r-a.- a h_ r = yri

e. r k

-8, 3:~ .g l !a la w I g! _3 - i.5__ 5E o_ l l~ L 3.

ai

= i g3 .= g.f1.5 h 87*- W - i 5;lg!

  • '**'C R*

5_1 < cp g 8 -.

  • 5 4 a
  • ia 3

I h g,.- .2 I gj E g o. g: 3-3] a.

_3,

c2.. ,_s.-

:

  • =.

1 ..8=- $3E_3 E ,I jgff g r I

jjit, W*4 c

,' 3 i,- g (m,3.n. .4g -r y1 . s

  • Ii 1

!g, -113- = s-c i. f.

==_gg 'L.: russ! ,s !s-k,j,.=;: i

..fi 2-s -

g 5 33; 3 "5 'O 0 0: sis: 9 a scs!). r, $ Il Il!!s'5f 1- --$kkb 3

  • i 3 e

s.

ai P !
: i g 3 g i e;ei_f

't l = p f. m; p ~w\\ (w 4Q ' / \\ i ,a w r- \\, ,s,. .i t.,u, urn ,i \\.

v. h(..

.v.-:w ~ s .5 i..a 1 'a,A" ,h "Y V i (f : 'D m j14 h*V f 2' ~g .( j

%.
:/* -

s' h,, \\; . 'q ~ ip 4' - y,'4 ,L shtj ///~_, ni 'z s s m 2 ~ jj v _' ' s .L .y 3 e I ~f '.,] - *, (, 3 ,i r \\ sr.i s.

1 Y

s_ e\\ ,,r ,q. ~.. : '\\ -u.. A \\ $n ' 3 \\' .s:. - . h.,\\ '- V 'r> 39,g j ' -y4 ~ ~g \\ ./ c [k 'f s k j w/. ,/." mw, y'p:rs.s k$ ~ N./4 :x ,p g / s.g,, ~:. m w 9y g 7 v s n y-yam / s w.s = / n 2a N r 'SR.R f ng32t#x .1g' s ai s y/ =* 9

  • ^

p-p g=7. ?,, y ) '7s{/ [g y. ~^7 s. ,e s.. sf.... e. 4'g g!' yg -~ g / -- -g c y a o e .%/. / 2.E,4 W.; ;y n 4y" .. W s '. Af' _ p % p ' A g"aa.,. Aps:.{ ~ ~ ' se.2 ]_x.F x _ _c/,

s., ~,

m. n ~ ~O / id / j L7 (~

q

'm. ;n 8 ss a ?.a '- - uA gas e gs;gs:.v,- a.. g:, g j ut; 7 y ~.< s - >r W ?,'t \\... '.,',n>~' a ' ' [* b jf ", /J /p?/DI b ya b.,y s'.R. s i i- { 5 , % ~,. : n b / \\ .Me g y ,es - g j =gg~ f# m ~l - ~ ~ ,-e y t, y m. ~g. a, .e 3Ad4gA, f NY 4.. /- s r s ./ ~ f* , R s.a. m. -4. ' 3 ' /,.af..o.,/k,,. s w. ? p,, s'a mn { ^ - / %'. S / j ,s p3 'f, s [ ~ L ~ y me,g f.,j /...,, - - s - /'s 22! gf 1 ~ j p, h /~ ,,,$*(-_ s. !' - y. sz. % N ' s'g y N W ^ \\ .-Zf,' x m 4 Y [(N' ,/ {A A 'N f * *,/ ~~ ~ ,.-z ' Q,- & lfg., _ ^ s y ^. ,' ' \\:s{ ~. ?. N ( fQ 5 n r-

r-

^ ~, n l: .r- ! l ,r ss gg Rf p - _f^

y

\\ . n, %- y y. r R. ~.<f 4 w, _s J .-, _= O 1 as s. \\ ,.l \\ it ,f 't G y \\ \\ df 9 M f ~ b ? /, x 2 %. v._ - ~ n m j g J g 3 i l 1 4 I ,p c

is g- ! ai 58 di E st a e e. e. 32

== s2 m; & z =

== o vr. = * =E ~ a- = a;

. 1 t :,:.

2,3., D; %

  • g!

g s 6 w, w -= y s a.] '

==g-- 4-E,,, E.1 $ ' {,,, f

  • 8 m

3 o. =. 8 5,3 7 a p' a :s 'II 555$ ll? ~ i hi 558 Ei s R j h co-

!c.

1, $1 !"p n 8 "'C~~ 4; a g:. . i s! Es o !2 3 8,., - i

='=

,d. fl! E *J1dg> 2 t. I = 3;y tu a i 5 ,ba 8j 8 ']i 3. =fr-

  • =

a>; r.S." l!., 5 , O. ',$ E - -13 l r,; u -il., pia his dge ~

,n 'i
3 i-e

-!f 1 ia !.l j g ;. i ca ! n:p ss! g i! I" * % i .g: -s

.::s st F

i = j j :{ ' " :' E i 3,, 3,W .) 1 ! 5 ;, 0 3 e-s sra!i s, i W il! ;r-e + -r l ,7-t =-a - ./ v _< g ;(e l / - - m pQ~b.,3 Q Q , " %e-- L 4 W s N I } 5 % ~s \\ L l

y. %

.a \\ .e" e i

e

> c 1. \\ n s., y 1 y ~ 3 ~'m / < s -' 7,, w i t i s,- -. -1 b

  1. '.c'~

\\,s ,'Nh w,,',c,- . 4., c i 3 ,\\.., 's t s.,',t ,'s.,' 4.M / tb-( c% 3 y m g Md.' *< s I' 3. sC '? y

y

!/ % M 1,l , z. jg,3 i. h, ",., $ w c x / o -uu vA " ^' / e .s \\ t ^,. u 4 p j 's - . s'\\ ,~ ~ l,

  • f)

.\\ f M -v' I s

  • ' ' tt

\\ ey.,. ~~ .l, \\ f./ '@U.J Rt \\ _ y-R 4 j \\ WS 4 y ' ^]. 'QWs m ,m y% XfixP: .y ..., m; ~ e / ,/ ' \\ 1 ,e~ ~u m.m

4. b,

\\ 'z/./ , _ ' A.3 -=. = 'h;.3' ~~--- y n, s a2 a. 13 I k' ~ x, w..,/ mA c s may ; s .-/ y y wn^- .N ge,,/ ',oo.e " W.o,. s j"',

  • s---

e a 4 k ~ E-N'Jg s V; % Lyj 6xwas. 9 -

a a. 3

~ ,/,. ,p e '- a N, t = A j s; i w % s N % '< - P /t '. I 'N %Q -}s /,A y.

.y 1
u. 1

- r~- .s ZG s px,., Nm+ s -f n _ "it.a sz g F...e==.. ; _ -sa;e-ays,s, pa Q-t Mg.g . tn -e: h h,\\* *. ?, W] h n. ? i f yl asz,/j u & ' w,sx i, ..m- . m ws ~.dW4 s' [i 7 'L. '. - M \\ {I,~. ; 1 ~ r; R

  • q.; g.e p p -

l -,ssn'. r \\ /. ?a s m m'~~~ ;.a m e N...f,/ :-+, f, 13 f ~ 0,: ~ .,JJV ?. I ,,4 . vs. v .a, ~ \\ ~ ' N an R f ~ ~n \\ g' p " ="'" r 1 / N., / r x s _ ' ~~ ~ j /, N / ,f, ' { '\\ N i 's'g {, j y g s-J; -Q ,Q... /-LL,/ s-c:; e c

s...,, ;
?w.

z

k _ ~ *. ;

./ ,. ? '\\ d, .. ~ ' [, , Mh,' -[f-., ,3. ,[ \\ J --.7 s y., ,2 o ,.__-- - p._.:: +., ~..w- ~. ,\\,, r> T v 7 s i j' ~ ~~

y. Q3,cf-M;~ ;,g _

xy w- - f n y 0' f ,c- } $\\ "_3., Jit f ' " ~oa r 3 f'* \\ d2 % / m' -- - _Z p'- {L -s \\ 1 C i;:c ~- s' t u i _4 y f -_. s ~~ _. -.tf -a s

r-3 m

3 3 ~ g e.

5:

s G i l, =e ' t 1 E

's s e g' IIs 1:#- -E i :, ! $ ' 3 ' 8.. v. 52 E, t .gg st.

  • I ' 3 1 ' ]

] "j ac f 3 a* '!!gi: l1 g !u I j 8 ~ 6e 8 8 iE m m !n 1; 'J- 05 % 'T I~ 3.!.l I i s 3

p. :1 t so. s.25 = =:

g i <6

"l.%

.p s a e ~~ ~ i 1.P I, =2 388 a: 3

  • f = o *f s

a el 1 s! ? I {.f S' wl.3 2 z

o "

5 a s e s.=<

9. !,!

l$ 5,,si ,.,i '.,! ! ji [rd - ') s! -~ _ ~ E I,ll a. } J. v r w n 3 ,, g = 4t 8 2* I i e r 2--

1. 4; gigs
..-. h,- -.-

=:g3 e r' g =< ra-_ 1 g,, j5 ,,-=4

! ag,

..i g. g'

3. a!a:

-g .py;. 7 /g n j3 1 ,, ;.g- .$..d W.g @a '*v,,., s s. .t a. p =,s -*k... _..fl I \\, ll . ~ ~'- <5 %.w .v,;w a +.. w.7. s':t: 4 + ? ^ r w . ~ /h

f1?WWm 0

'.ro' .a g Mi_4 Mg@eN D 4. il!! / s k Yc[ e-.l.l q a,= km ,/ w 'N SN' ' @ /e / w 6 ] / li m .? 2 ?M~ s \\ i .g W c m _.. / /( <, d, P',V icf {/- a ,~

r./y. = dr 3

!B! !.- i p a!e! -' t \\ / r~ '\\ "'t, ,/ ., j e t If 3 / op .g. a. \\ .2. e s x -\\ 82!! ~ / !!d.. N .(l !!?! ,i /kh,~g%/ 2 -3pg ? x d, H . h 1/ // w. w 'n z m -~ s -a /- g .nm __z ______ s ., ~ {- -- ; s, x ME! \\ 'ss s 7

ggg rm l,-

\\. s s -n suu. x .. \\z.-.U?$?*s, /*]lEEN / ,$by ~- - 8 x t IEEE ,, ' N'[ j' '\\(ssst g s*! *', ; g-{EE3 C' e 5 /gges / .s }e_ +" ,l,- {gg j. N N,.: ; '/ s -~ g a$ ^ ' ~ s' a n.v. v_u. w. '4 i i r" men m: z- ;-w - =an wne _{ _ . w / U2 ,;\\~ 5- / ~~\\ eg gy-sss 32:.y / j ? i. \\ g. s r N ,3go,./ ,Nx :,.gEa e-~~ s e - --= r [ ,6ghg/.sre\\,f * -. o gMh~cx IE$$ ~ ~ ljE3 - N - -x G,- :,4 t ' s x ffg3. i. J- ~!3g3 x

gss i

Q] 4 ~~et 3 f. s ~-- s t. ,/; .,=, \\ x e s N m \\ 25 1 HES-- msas \\ HE! \\ V.. x x nss e 5== -Pn 2 9_c N' g \\, s \\. 4 L (- agsg -~. s q e i. y ' ;.e g '- y i m r x ~ 1 1.91" pag 4 O. j g s g g,. i -C.m

  • i~

30 ,t 3- .4 3 z m 3 3 g 4

is I! II "'ll g;I 8 gi !8 =3 se 8s arj- ! 8I, i I' s w em o ge Ip! y] s I R-s2 ge e- -, :: ~'t

  • 889i E :' s

} z4 g at a: m 63-h~ { In! l j fj s.a 3.gif:!: 3 a -f w

  • !:.==E

!.i ; ; !l{[, - !:(i:5' Nil 5. j s}: )e 5:s !!!: .. d

-1

-5 u $_ #NE ._ m -. 3 1 &s o = es,4t.2 (({ I i a [t e= r c [ .ti e' f] W k.N E-So [ 3 N 1 ist j *i b,.. - 6 33 - a i \\ s;> >ll I'n!" l -

p. [,

+ f,;,t -

o r

1 Ya t s' n n' c. %j[? D, I ,. s ' E 5 E's $. E. - i \\f si' M ~~ .Jj y ; ;'3; - 3M[k J .E:ej_g:- g+ .- #p,4# f 4-g e o ~ ' ' s >%. Q. _. .e. L. ~. n.s _a w . &.#$?AlW 0 j'}{ ', 3 r . c.; Ii ^ i$ ) l7yg b J. ,'r. 'gy v " f j :_. i ggFE G_ -ee 7 % ccE-y s 35g5 -4.7 b-Os i W s x w n. ?4 4 ( z f-N g 4. g y " #4 / p m jg sw. ,n l ff. 'kI T hy ... ~ ,R.-,BR ', y-Ji&'>r

  • 'N

!!%i \\, ~--- gi 7' T = m-h c,. g n , l' 2 'K er E = u k /5!:!EE' / '-N O;>Il!s ~ sess 8 (F S 9 :: : / - Er z l'i SME l' /,H Z m'* ' N. ._-_--.--_-Q lDj i l 'im ---l ,.<,~3'sg \\ ff5 RFR *' k !SFB '\\ --(( , g. g \\ _,Fg r j i[ ascs s n \\ ~ _c p/ t x-, =- ...-\\

k. i \\

(EE/ -~, I$, J ' p !!!!-- NiMIO f /!s!! 4g 'v j5 s- " 8 s\\ N.2-!,g ,,---m f [' 3 .I g=[ ~ = mp u. ur. ~ 9 m. = =- mg g,r rim in! z np s. ~~-- ~- c Dg_ /fg g 'I \\ ggg / / yy regg g.I $hfEY.. $f I. / s s gggy M -aggg /. ~ ' ', - iyN -!His c:r.. x. = - g s m g [ ,'[ $b / 33EE; ' k ~:: p gt /- x \\ N g g-N = l., 1,. N ,q N m z t s ?#f b-i !D33 N Y. /^. 2 / ~ '!, UTIEE \\ ' ~~ IEP: x\\ -j x IEEE / / ,,7 q \\ i k II!! \\ 3565 IElb I.Mlf., p I \\ r / i nas 9

  • /
    )/

\\ 'N 5 s ./, z7 o g a hf ' .I ?!gg .,'s.a T ,0 .\\ } N-9 z m i s 3 i i e Oe

i2I S!!!G !!gi 5;3 : 3l; e

s r

8.!. =3 I'm i a 's ss v eo

i.i, P!

E 31; g: !.

e 3 l

e- .. 3 r of a: m 1_.- -a 6 5. g g 2

-i--

N-

m =

o e = : r *7' .! mq s y4 a s: 1-y a :e - J sp m = = = > 5.}; 1 eo< e s si s: s a p( i i 5p; 53 3*C a s.5; i s-n; - ~"

! e sl,s, c?

3! =4

~,,~]=e-

[4 I k 3" Eo it!iji' I 1 wj3 Si is ~ !!li!h!! !! -jb~ ~ 4, ~ i c g 'gg;[!'![

M L

-Xg j e,: 1 a, n

1 :;g a

i ~- y1 ~ P: [< .? q/t.Q) t g;;i!,1! - @ c/,, ysft y - q@y, x 4 ,' g(5i p ~ ^ if P

  • e w

as? W ~ '_ h y,; ~ g w - '\\ a m.- .! 33 .a. c-w .m 2 3x

e.

e r, e nos e - ~/ ^ # g. ~ -w. 1 ..~ / g W. m l,clIEE $.Hn. i !!!! l x, ar.sg ,a ~" s -z / ~~ c.e e. j / \\ in i 1 n \\ ( !!!! blE F

ggg m,, g c

\\ g_ig\\.1 /g g / y z ~.. _z __ ___ __4 e n s i ,, 1$ss ma x ,E[ rt i i,,,, / =,. g

i. -e i

I i..- 5 ~. w s !U(,yiEEE,/ -~,' ipi \\ ,gg, I,II n =!!!-- .V. h /!!!H -, <;i.,en A\\ 8-d .~

,, L--

~--- a i o , e* 8 -{- ,y m_ <e . Jgggs t -N Vl/ ~,--n* ~!R32 gggg n 1 A i e =s aJgg5.. J l..!$2[' 1 5 !!$$5 [383 g 133[ 2 e, mm ~--

  • /l \\

2 MRI // \\\\ ME 1 .d.s, igi s 7 mrP 1A \\s!3h s = - an s, / r f- .gg,[3g,, l/$$55 II!!kN I'$ _gg [ f ~"i,

age i

\\ ,/

==< .s g,s .ggy s e sus. / / .w -.K 3 c-- m m i. x m s ie tens b,_. z. / s

  • ggg I -112B

??85 5 ~ ~~ lili \\ N s t 1, \\. / i - -- \\ .!M 3.pa.n.. /.. \\ !ast i 3:!. 1rre t x a 14 r-- i x i u \\ \\ m l z. / i i .\\ p -9 ( a, ~) l 1_3g[-- 5, / ( ^13 g- \\ y z o3 3 g l

E w m 2 as 3 - 25 g cm a g Isa l g d' 'I' h ' l,s j!. l 5! .- I!!.S; 2. (($ X$ g ?> C s I ~l 1 4 EE, 55 j-3s n I,il ll .s. d: $oE T'Y,U' I ii w-1-- $5hp $. rt 1 '$:.. bN " ), It - 5I ny;{in ") 3 rqr 1 e .,1 g^,:= = n i ~ 'E,. 4 g j 'N s g h of, ,/ s' ,M !5 5 5-s j. ,t y:4,h,4 i W Y 5.,Qk a, x 2a. c ne - 7dh' ,L !h f -'f. pc % & E. T... s ~ 5 g', f .-[ [#hf s 3 -!e -#, [ LJ f \\ 7 QdNI d , ',, / - 1\\ i- )%;, ] / I; o r-x 2 ,a, ~- f

    • u u.

,.,/m-x s ~ , gg 'a. !.h,b !_ ka 'h ' %,.f \\ / / ~,

$ 7 gt

'q / M ]%@ ~/ Ir : s x s 's A; ni !! 8 = .n; / \\ irg /y m/ s x l 'f 'N ,.g ~'eb Ei s> m

  • ^

z N.i'i i 'N ~ " e m ,.M e _ _z - - - - - - - - -,' 53.5 i /i i 'e * .- a -a s / ( a 'i ... g g f Ig g <N j!!.{ \\ x \\jg.3 if.@7 - g ggj.)[ /-' Etr P~ s.x ! ' r

=-

g ;s,r ,u..

g. j!b!

/

  • Q i

3 s f-y- n p

l,,N' b-k!-\\p,,( %-'p~ }l
~d'

~ ~

  • ~

?@.E '~ ~ ty y ^ N' r

  1. k![ Nji !

$jEM-gJfia*i g $$.E i% 4E ' i[ ! m z v. e-

33.,/ \\ s sN w

w me 37., 4 0 ' P. /. {\\ s / t N Y{ ?, h/ ig's!* 'I rg!.g / I - aJ x 2 s= s j0! !,/ s;.g\\ v \\ra' . 'N-N !![I r s / -w x = ~ .h [7a, ~xr. i YEh y / i - e e i c, at. = .in-m w,- s y i = ~ z ", -'/ p,l N ' 4, 'x y /- m g / ,si,/ \\ 'h M x i Il E \\ I '* \\

  • gy,g

!!! ! /..."h g $3 'N .\\,,- _.p a ) s s ,1 \\ .\\ c x "r ,e -is;.g. b - IB ! ~ ! j+s

t.r~
s. 4,1

,/ r~ s i* i ' l'., f. 5: \\ .m a N a m t. u y, ,j s e j l'W A. 5 na y z m3 3 g 4

b.E n !]} ' {! 81 =o ls Hi i -!i.l. IN !.s ~ , e, ~,~e v s,s, ",I 8 1i ml ' !; g: s ,t gl g i _. 2 si ,g ,, o r ::: = ..6 ! I!!. 3 -l 3 g-3"; s =f w 88-It.3 3'8 - ~' 8 Mg..s z*- t' see s

P i l1 M,S g o $_

.s $ _ g, ,5 !, s g, e ..4 a t z a; _,o m ~ s ja I i, I 2' g5=

f.,

_- 3 _-

  • h, e jo a

-l,a, 8 p: s /. N, =3 - . u n- , k]h[s~ - .D 1} ,3-I-l'l <ig81 1 E. 4 5-22 ,7 .gg jpg gili,ih;'.;s a: I tji' 1.,..' ga ,:.5sula.el 4_ q m~

=

r i =

=}_h.{b y

.,; pg - = - - ,.W 3,.- b S T 5, en P h. / 's s g d,. - g' ,e Ng.5^5 3, ~$3Egi e s;

g. -

..i \\, d,

  • d

-j.' 4, ~ M{S@hE .f$ $5:!'!! ~ -l* "^ a g&c. i M'Q,h?s - v ~ "'d y W p.:* D.4G f y f@h 2 - p:n %.,3 -,J b 44 o .,g.; T h,

?

I %g Q%yMk, Lyn }~ g iNihy%j a l i y ( [ O W P + fl / m je z " N ,a 6.O \\ 1:d A+ .2

  • ~

2 g ,r g .; g 4g ...A j y f_ \\ ER. [ [ ". A, l$i ! l* ~ -

  • ou

!{ w [ g, fi i / \\ '\\ < 1 3 =

r f

7 n = 3 l ' fig i f_k' R W !g g t 1

  • ,8,R g iA a

i e d h,; - - \\ 18 y M s:e = a / 11 W! g ~ ,E / < --(A ' W /d a i 1 Z 'N k-m / i ? / m _ __z 'i* a a

s.

s'. -fi j !p,,,M. __ gL g f e f i IA ! a 's x ga ;agg/g<g/ / v, s rs J L j re, g:#, N n 2 *%

  • m-
  • = -

[ :4 ' Q.5 ', ;$? $ .F. [l '~ /l

== C h w^a,./.- z g gj;' ~e .i 1 j\\ a 1a y s p 1 -C-1 = ~ ~ X- . ~ -. s KN '. - 2 - En g~' .i_ 3=r ,~ 03 .e l 33.3 Eig gM-.1j Q-. f *t g " sp:,R .!.[ ^^ 'jg:,5 {ELl m s~ ~ 4 - 7' M. ',,, z \\,~ 2 N,. / E:.3 / t 7 3 ;'* - ', / .f -{ -13:.3 s t g s jf. g Eq L' ig R =E s y s, s3,.[ 3_x. / ~-. s s - ,gg i! E /'e- ~,, r3 s = Q3.3-e'.o\\!g!L s a, em '%~. '?Nh. IEEE ]. n. p p)/~ ?R. S I { g'. B N ' - 95 2 $3,h ' 5 y - 2 .an.. \\ 3 il 's a s I'. \\ O. 'x z '. 's jli ! pf.g \\ ~ig;.3 -Q 's s i. ' ~ 4,~ 3 x \\ \\ '"!E'h Y Y'/b. -$1 E~' j _E '- ^*~ r - ~ ~ g- ] il, \\ ,'m n g .g Z e 3. ~ h h- \\ 's' 4-4f33 g g- ,s s b y-na \\ g z m3 3 3 S.

1 300 l 250 l 200 l > "i CE G. ? ug 150 l 55 HGAC o. Em eig 59 'E RICE /D&t /

  • 100 t

/ / / / + / / 50 TWDB 0-C 10 20 30 40 DISTANCE (MILES) FROM SITE FIGURE 11: CUMULATIVE P00LATION DENSITY,1990 l \\ a m m

i 300 HGAC 250 i _ 200-l >b DE G. j RICE /D&M 8g / z= SW 150 / Em / o $5 / ,/ 100- / l' s ~ / l ~ t } l l / ~ TWDB / i 50 I J lI .I / 0 0 10 20 30 40 DISTANCE (MILES) FROM SITE FIGURE 12: CUMULATIVE POPULATION DENSITY, 2020 l ommons a neoosee , _,.... _ _.. ~..._. _.., ~ _. _..

APPENDIX A THE RICE CENTER / DAMES & MOORE PROJECTIONS The publication of the 1980 Rice Center projections indicated to l Dames & Moore that a sophisticated model incorporating both demographic and economic variables in generating population projections was avail-able. The incorporation of the economic behavior of the study area into the projection process is important. The Houston area's population growth is primarily due to the inmigration of people, and inmigration to this area appears strongly tied to the economic behavior of the area. Thus, the model used in the 1980 Rice Center rep. ort was very attractive. However, the 1980 Rice Center projections were felt to be insufficient for the purposes of licensing for Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station because:

1) not all counties within 50 miles of the site were included in the projections; and 2) the projections were to year 2000 only.

Dames & Moore therefore contracted with Rice Center to extend the projec-l l tions to year 2020, to include the additional counties, and to incorpor-ate data which had become available since its work in 1978. Rice Center's model uses an input / output model to mathematically describe the regional economy. The model uses three analytical parts to describe the regional economy: l

1) First round or direct purchases.
2) Indirect purchases.

l

3) Induced purchases.

l The first component determines those purchases that are required as inputs to a production process. The modeling of indirect purchases requires that the purchasing patterns of the suppliers of direct pur-- chases be traced and quantified. Finally, the induced purchases of employees of firms involved in both direct and indirect purchases must be-A-1

determined. In effect, the input / output model describes the monetary flow of the regional economy. The input / output model is driven by linking Houston regional economic behavior to national economic behavior. Using data for the 1965 to 1975 period, an empirical relationship between national economic behavior and Houston's economic behavior was established. The model then assumes that this regional share of national growth would remain constant throughout the life of the projections. By entering the final demand characte ristics of the regional share of national economic growth into the input / output model, output levels by industry group were obtained. Employment is projected by using the output levels of various industry groups. To use the employment forecast to generate population forecasts requires the assumption that a ctrong economy with a growing job base will be an inducement to people to migrate toward the area for jobs and will be active enough to keep most people already in the region f rom leaving. The exact relationship between employment and population required demographic assumptions which included labor force participation rate, the unemployment rate, and the age distribution of the population. The economic analysis of the region establishes the population levels for the study area. Another model was used to allocate the regional population to census tracts. To accomplish this allocation, both objective and subjective criteria were used to establish attractive-ness factors for each census tract. These attractiveness factors were used to describe each tract's growth potential and ability to successfully compete with other tracts for growth. Rice Center used such factors as the character of the natural environment, proximity to transportation and major employment centers, and current development characteristics. Further data were obtained by using interviews with local government officials and business leaders. ) A-2

The reader is referred to Phase Two: Final Report, Forecast 2000: Population and Employment in the Houston-Galveston Region (February 1980) for a detailed description of the projection methodology used by Rice Center. One result of using the economic model to establish a population level is that the total population for the region is set. If one adds j population to a particular census tract, then population must be sub-tracted from other tracts. Thus, it is the geographical distribution of population which becomes a key. FIELD STUDY In order to check the allocation model used by Rice Center, Dames & Moore undertook an investigation to determine if,there were any physical or planning constraints which might affect growth in the area between the Allens Creek site and the Houston area. This investigation focused on the area around Katy and I-10. The possible constraints investigated i include: The transportation system. Infrastructure. Land ownership patterns. Development regulations. Floodplains and drainage systems. Aesthetic amenities. I l The purpose of the investigation was to determine if all important factors shaping future development in western Houston had been adequately considered in the Rice Center model. This determination was done by visiting much of the study area, by talking with knowledgeable local l officials and developers, and by reviewing in detail the assumptions and procedures used by Rice Center to make its population projections. l l A-3 ~

There are no significant constraints to growth in the area which have not already been taken into account by Rice Center. Development patterns in Houston are shaped by the private sector and respond primarily to market trends. Some physical constraints make it more costly for a developer to build in certain areas; however, if demand is sufficient, these obstacles can be overcome. PROJECTIONS AND POPULATION WHEEL ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY The sophistication of the Rice Center model and the currency of the data used in the model make the projections generated by Rice Center / Dames & Moore the most reasonable available at this time. The allocation methodology is based upon several steps: O to 10 Miles 1. Aerial photography of the area within 10 miles of the site was obtained in November 1980. The photography was flown in late October 1980. i 2. An mosaic of the photography was created. On the mosaic, the site, county boundaries, and census civil divisions were identified. 3. Using the 1" = 1,000' scale of the photography, a population wheel overlay was prepared for the mosaic. 4. Within the wheel sectors and census civil divisions, structures were identified. Structures which were obviously not dwelling units were not counted. However, where there was uncertainty as to whether a structure was a dwelling unit or another type of structure, the questionable structure was counted as a dwelling unit. I 5. The number of structures within a sector was then multiplied by a persons per-household factor obtained from the 1980 Rice A-4

Center study. This person per-househole factor varied by county. 10 to 50 Miles 1. A map of the area within 50 miles of the site was prepared. On the map, towns, census tracts, and counties we re identified. j 2. The population projections prepared by Rice Center for census tracts we re separated into urban and rural population whe re required. Note that for most of Houston and the study area, no such separation was required. 3. The area proportion of a census tract within a sector was calculated. 4. It was assumed that the rural and/or urban population of a census tract was evenly spread over the tract. Thus for the rural part of a census tract, the rural population was evenly distributed. I 5. These proportions were applied to the tract projections for each decade. By summing the tract populations within a sector, the l sector population for a decade was obtained. The results of this allocation methodology are shown on Figures 1 l through 10 and on Tables A-1 and A-2. t l t l l A-5

) Page 1 of 3 TABLE A-1 RICE CENTER / DAMES & MOORE PROJECTIONS 1-to 2-Mile Annulus SECTOR 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 N O 0 0 0 0 NNE O 0 0 0 0 NE 0 0 0 0 0 ENE O O O 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 ESE O O O 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 SSE O O O O O S 10 20 20 20 30 SSW 10 10 20 20 20 SW 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 10 10 20 20 20 W 10 10 20 20 20 WNW 10 20 20 20 30 NW 10 10 20 20 20 NNW 10 10 10 10 10 Total 70 90 130 130 150 2-to 3-Mile Annulus SECTOR 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 N 30 50 60 70 70 NNE 20 30 40 40 50 NE 10 20 20 20 30 EhI 0 0 0 0 0 E O O 0 0 0 ESE O O O O O SE O 0 0 0 0 SSE 10 20 20 20 30 S 30 50 60 60 70 SSW 20 30 30 30 40 SW 20 30 30 30 40 WSW 10 10 10 10 10 W 0 0 0 0 0-WNW 20 30 40 40 50 60 60 70 NW 30 40 NNW 30 50 50 60 70 Total 230 360 420 440 530 p. ,w 9 .w, p4. 9 g, ..-e r w+. 4

~ Pcg2 2 of 3 TABLE A-1 (CONT.) 3-to 4-Mile Annulus SECTOR 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 N 40 80 90 90 100 NNE 70 130 160 170 180 NE 30 40 50 60 60 ENE 20 20 30 30 30 E 20 30 40 40 50 ESE 40 50 70 80 90 SE 350 580 710 750 780 SSE 370 620 760 800 820 S 40 50 60 70 80 SSW 20 30 40 40 50 SW 10 10 10 10 10 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 W 10 10 20 20 20 WNW 10 10 20 20 20 NW 20 30 30 40 40 NNW 20 30 40 40 40 Total 1,070 1,730 2,130 2,260 2,370 4-to 5-Mile Annulus SECTOR 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 N 30 60 70 80 80 NhT 90 180 210 220 230 NE 20 30 40 70 40 ENE 30 40 50 50 60 E 70 130 180 200 220 ESE 50 70 90 90 100 SE 210 350 430 460 480 SSE 290 490 600-630 650 S 30 40 50 60 60 SSW 10 10 10 10 10 SW 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 10 20 20 20 30 NW 20 20 30 30 30-NNW 30 10 70 80 80 Total 890 1,450 1,850 2,000 2,070 l

Page 3 of 3 TABLE A-1 (CONT.) 5-to 10-Mile Annulus SECTOR 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 N 640 1,330 1,570 1,660 1,780 NNE 300 610 740 800 860 NE 170 310 410 460 520 ENE 220 440 600 670 740 E 920 1,880 2,560 2,870 3,160 ESE 710 1,020 1,270 1,460 1,670 SE 460 620 750 860 990 SSE 420 560 670 780 890 S 290 360 440 500 560 SSW 70 80 100 110 130 SW 70 60 70 80 90 WSW 10 20 20 20 20 W 10 10 10 10 10 WNW 30 40 50 60 70 NW 210 320 370 420 490 NNW 4,330 6,770 8,840 10,450 11,950 Total 8,860 14,430 18,470 21,210 23,930 I I t 3

o 0000000000000000 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000 0 6,9,4,0,3,1,8,8,4,0,2,4,5,3,1,3, 1 6,3,4 7,2,5,7,5,8,6,),2,5,6,7,4, 0, 2 2 0 02 5660077464226335 2 2 525429258311 9923 8 1 946 1 8 11 775221 2 5 1 3 176 7, 1 0000000000000000 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0,4,7,2,3,3,4,9,4,3,3,3,7,0,7,3, 9, 1,3,9,0,0,2,8,4,2,7,0,1,8,8,8,0, 1, 0 1 I 0 2 5548826453225225 4 2 41 533703531 1 8923 3 1 726 1 4 1 1 533221 2 6 s 1 3 s 176 6, u u l 1 l u u n n n n A 0000000000000000 0 A 0000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000 0 e 0 5,5,9,3,3,0,9,7,d,9,3,4,3,5,6,2, 1, 6,4,2, 7, 8, 9,4, 0, 0, 2, 8, 8, 2, 5,5, 8, 8, e 0 l 0 l 0 i 2 20429582121 1 8823 6 i 2 433446644311 5224_3 M 0 11 38021 1 2 5 M 1 615 1 _3 166 5, 1 0 0 3 5 1 o o t t 0000000000000000 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000 0 1,2,3,3,8,9,0,6,3,7,2,4,6,0,6,8, 1, 0 9 1,0,0,9,3,9,3,4,5,8,5,5,5,1,0,3, 1, 0 9 4 9 2 9 8354870821 17823 4 1 41 27 95532211 4224 0 1 1 1 484 1 4 1 0751 11 1 43, 2 1 55 1 SNO 0000000000i00000 0 0000000000000000 0 M 00000 0 0 0000000000000000 0 I 0 0000000000 5,1,1,9,8,9,5,0,8,5,3,1,9,7,5,2, 8, 3,9,2,8,3,0,5,3,1,6,2,3,1,5,6,0, 7, 8 T 8 9 C 9 E 1 391 38943! 21 1 31 1 4 8 1 8411 3329521 17623 3 J 242 5 5261 1 1 2 O 45 5, 1 R 1 P E R 2 O O A H E L 0000000000000000 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000 0 B S 0 0000000000001 000 1 8,6,4,2,0,5,8,8,3,9,3,1,5 8,4,2, 6, 0,9,9,6,0,3,6,8,8,1,9,2,0,2,5,2, 0, 2 A E 2 0 T M 0 A 2 2238581 331 13 1 1 3 2 2 61734047 171 23341 8 D 2 7 1 0896 2 4 6 159 8, / R 1 ET N E C 0000000000000000 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0900000000001 000 0 0000000000000000 0 E 1 4,3,2,3,6,8,6,4,9,7,2,1,5 6,3,8, 10, 4,7,5,4 6,5,0,9,7,8,7,0,8,9,1,3, 3, 1 0 C 0 I 2 2217601321 13 11 2 8 2 50468646131 22246 8 R s 2 6 s 1 941 5 2 3 1 u 59 7, u l l 1 u u n n n n A A 0000000000000000 0 0000000000000000 0 e 0 0000000000009000 9 e 0 0000000000000000 0 8,7,3,1,2,4,6,2,4,0,6,8,4,7,7,9, 5, l 0 0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,6,5,1,1,4 4,2,6, 3, l 0 0 i i 0 M 2 2237472321 13 1 1 2 4 H 2 4?024236121 12231 0 2 6 807 5 2 3 0 0 58 6, 0 4 2 1 o o t t 0000000000000000 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 00000000001 07 090 7 0 0 0000000000000000 0 5,4 4,5,2,1,8,7,3,2,9 0,4 2,9 3, 9, 0,5,2,6,6,3,9,6,3,9,4,6,1,5,4,6, 5, 3 9 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 21 361 221 3 1 2 2 1 47057 0251 8112237 2 2 5 61 64 1 2 6 3, 47 1 0000000000000000 0 0000000000000000 0 0 7 500000000807 22 0 1 0 0000000000000000 0 9 8 1,8,4,0,2,4,9,0,7 5,4 9 6 8, 7, 9,0,4,1,5,7,1,0,3,4,1,3,8,2,1,7, 6, 8 8 9 1 29I5221 I 3 1 5 1 241 1 1 3251 61 I I 236 5 9 3 387 2 1 1 6 2$ 9 R R l l O T NEEEEEEESWWWWWWW a T NEEEEEEESWWWWWWW a O C MNN SSS SSS NNN t C NNN SSS SSS NNN t E N E E S S W W N o E N E E S S W W N oT S T S -}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19343B848&oldid=4718450"