ML19347C092
| ML19347C092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1980 |
| From: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347C090 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-801006, NUDOCS 8010160569 | |
| Download: ML19347C092 (112) | |
Text
.. _ _
Before the United States Nucicar. Regulatory Commission 4
Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Ilouston Lighting 6 Power Company, et. al.
South Texas Project Units 16 2 Amendment 3 1
I Ilouston Lighting 6 Power Company, an applicant in the above captioned proceeding, for itself and for the City of San Antonio, l
Central Power G Light Company and the City of Austin, hereby files l
Amendment 3 to the Environmental Report - Operating License Stage.
Amendment 3 consists of updated information, including revised project cost and schedule.
i Respectfully submitted, 1100STON LIGilTING G POWER COMPANY
//
h re-Exe tive "ce President LjsotoaeoS(,9
STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF llARRIS G. ' W. Oprea, Jr.. being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is Executive Vice President of fl0USTON LIGilTING G POWER COMPANY, an Applicant herein; that the foregoing. amendment to the application has been prepared.under his supervision and direction; that he knows the ' contents thereof; and that to the best of his knowledge and
. belief said documents and the facts contained therein are true and correct.
DATED: This day of
, 1980.
Signed:
[
[
rea, W G. h Subscribed and sworn to before me dayofhG this c
, 1980.
L/<L st./
/
Notary Public for the State qf Texas My commission expires 6-J8-[/
_l
l l
1 i
t
/.
. Instructions for incorporating Amendment 3:
In general, amendment pages will replace existing pages that l
have the same page numbers.
In some instances, a different number of pages will be added than are deleted. Affected pages are:
l j
Remove Insert l
l Table of Contents v, vi v, vi thru thru vii, viii vii, viii xiii, xiv xiii, xiv i
thru thru l
xvii, xviii xvii, xviii I
I t
Chapter 1 1-1, 1-11 1-1, 1-11 thru thru l-iii 1-111 1.1-1, 1.1-2 1.1-1, 1.1-2 thru thru 1.1-25 1.1-31 Figures 1.1-3 Figures 1.1-3 thru thru 1.1-8 1.1-8 i
1.3-1 1.3-1 Figures 1.3-1 Figures 1.3-1 thru thru
~1.3-2 1.3-2 l
Chapter 3
_3.3-1, 3.3-2 3.3-1, 3.3-2 thru thru 3.3-3 3.3-5 Figure 3.3-1 Figure 3.3-1 Figure 3.4-2
. Figure 3.4-2 l
l (Continued) 1
Remove Insert Chapter 4 4-1, 4-11 4-1, 4-11 4.1-1, 4.1-2 4.1-1, 4.1-2 4.1-7, 4.1-8 4.1-7, 4.1-8 thru thru 4.1-8a 4.1-Sa 4.1-12 A.1-12, 4.1-12a 4.1-14
- .1-14 Figures 4.1-1 Figures 4.1-1 thru thru 4.1-2 4.1-2 4.3-4 4.3-4 Chapter 8 8.1-1, 8.1-2 8.1-1, 8.1-2 thru thru 8.1-13 8.1-13 8.2-1, 8.2-2 8.2-1, 8.2-2 thru thru 8.2-7 8.2-7 Chapter 9 9-1, 9-11 9-1 9.1-1 9.2-1 thru 9.2-3 l
Chapter 11 11.1-2 11.1-2 11.2-1, 11.2-2 11.2-1, 11.2-2 11.3-1 11.3-1 l
Chapter 12 12.1-2 12.1-2 thru thru 12.1-3 12.1-4 12.2-3, 12.2-4 12.2-3, 12.2-4 12.3-1 12.3-1 0
STP ER CONTENTS (Continued)
(')
V Page CHAPTER 7--ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 7.1 Plant Accidents Involving Radioactivity 7.1-1 7.1.1 Introductior.
7.1-1 7.1.2 Meteorology 7.1-1 7.1.3 Dose Calculation Methodology 7.1-2 7.1.4 Accident Discussion 7.1-3 7.1.5 Summary of Environmental Consequences 7.1-17 7.2 Other Accidents 7.2-1 7.2.1 Chemical Accidents 7.2-1 7.2.2 Failure of Cooling Reservoir Embankment 7.2-1 CHAPTER.8--BENEFITS AND COSTS 8.1 Benefits 8.1-1 8.1.1 Primary Benefits--Energy Sales 8.1-1 8.1.2 Other Social and Economic Benefits 8.1-2 8.2 Cost s 8.2-1 8.2.1 Internal Costs 8.2-1
('~')s 8.2.2 Temporary External Costs 8.2-1 8.2.3 Long-Term External Costs 8.2-4 CHAPTER 9--ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 9.1 Introduction 9.1-1 9.2 Benefits of Operating the South Texas Project 9.2-1 CHAPTER 10--PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.0 General 10.0-1 10.1 Cooling System 10.1-1 10.2 Makeup Water Intake System 10.2-1 10.3 Discharge System 10.3-1 10.4 Chemical Waste Treatment 10.4-1 10.5 Biocide Treatment 10.5-1 10.6 Sanitary Waste. Treatment 10.6-1 10.7 Liquid Radwaste System 10.7-1 10.8 Gaseous Radwaste System 10.8-1 10.9 Transmission Facilicies 10.9-1 10.10
. Other Systems 10.10-l' 10.10.1 Emergency Generating System
'10.10-1 l
-.v-v Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER CONTENTS (Continued)
CHAPTER 11--
SUMMARY
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 11.1 Introduction 11.1-1 11.2 Economic Benefits 11.2-1 11.2.1 Primary Benefits 11.2-1 11.2.2 Other Social and Economic Benefits 11.2-1 11.3 Economic Costs 11.3-1 11.4 Environmental Benefits 11.4-1 11.5 Environmental Costs 11.5-1 11.6 Net Effects of South Texas Project 11.6-1 11.7 Conclusions 11.7-1 CHAPTER 12--ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATION 12.1 Introduction 12.1-1 12.2 Agency Approvals 12.2-1 12.2.1 Federal Agency App ovals 12.2-1 12.2.2 Texas Licenses, Permits and Other Approvals 12.2-2 12.2.3 Local Agencies 12.2-4 12.3 Transmission System Controls 12.3-1 CHAPTER 13--REFERENCES 13-1 APPENDIX A--ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX B--BASIC DATA FOR SOURCE TERM CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C--RESPONSES TO NRC JULY 5,1978, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPENDIX D--RESPONSES TO NRC OCTOBER 9, 1978, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION O
vi Amendment 1, 11/22/78
r STP ER TABLES
.Q Number Title Page 1.1-1 Characteristics of the Electric Loads of the STP Participating Utilities 1.1-11 1.1-2 ~
Past and Forecasted Annual Peak Demands, Interruptible Demands, Firm Purchases and Sales, and Energy Consumption 1.1-12 1.1-3
~ Forecasted Monthly Peak Demands 1984 and 1986 1.1-17 1.1-4 Fbrecasted Monthly Energy Loads 1984 and 1986 1.1-18 1.1-5 Installed Generating Units 1.1-19 1.1-6
. Planned Generating LCapacity Within the Electric
-Reliability Council of Texas 1.1-24 1.1-7 Planned Generating. Capacity -for the South Texas Project Participants 1.1-29 2.2-1 Towns and Cities Within 50 Miles of South Texas Project-2.2-6
()
2.2-2 Schools Within 10 Miles of South Texas Project 2.2-13 2.5-1
' River Water Temperature:
USGS Gage Colorado River Near Wharton, Texas 2.5-3 2.5-2 Little Robbins Slough:
Changes in Drainage Characteristics Due to Reservoir Construction 2.5-5 2.6-1 Joint Frequency Distribution--All Observations 2.6-2 2.6-2 Joint Frequency Distribution--Extremely Unstable (A) 2.6-3 2.6-3 Joint. Frequency Distribution--Moderately
. Unstable (B) 2.6-4 2.6-4 Joint Frequency Distribution--Slightly Unstable (C) '
2.6-5 2.6-5 Joint Frequency Distribution--Neutral (D) 2.6-6 2.6 Joint Frequency Distribution--Slightly Stable (E) 2.6-7 0\\
- (._/
vii Amendment 3, 10/10/80
.s h -
)
STP ER TABLES (Continued)
O Number Title Page 2.6-7 Joint Frequency Distribution--Moderately Stable (F) 2.6-8 2.6-8 Joint Frequency Distribution--Extremely Stable (G) 2.6-9 2.6-9 Wind Speed Persistence--All Observations 2.6-10 2.6-10 Wind Speed Persistence--Extremely Unstable (A) 2.6-11 2.6-11 Wind Speed Persistence--Moderately Unstable (B) 2.6-12 2.6-12 Wind Speed Persistence--Slightly Unstable (C) 2.6-13 2.6-13 Wind Speed Persistence--Neutral (D) 2.6-14 2.6-14 Wind Speed Persistence--Slightly Stable (E) 2.6-15 2.6-15 Wind Speed Persistence--Moderately Stable (F) 2.6-16 2.6-16 Wind Speed Persistence--Extremely Stable (G) 2.6-17 2.6-17 Wind Direction Persistence--All Observations 2.6-18 2.6-18 Wind Direction Persistence--Extremely Unstable (A) 2.6-19 2.6-19 Wind Direction Persistence-Moderately Unstable (B) 2.6-20 2.6-20 Wind Direction Persistence--Slightly Unstable (C) 2.6-21 2.6-21 Wind Direction Persistence--Neutral (D) 2.6-22 2.6-22 Wind Direction Persistence--Slightly Stable (E) 2.6-23 2.6-23 Wind Direction Persistence--Moderately Stable (F) 2.6-24 2.6-24 Wind Direction Persistence--Extremely Stable (G) 2.6-25 2.6-25 Meteorological Data Recovery for the STP Site 2.6-26 O
viii
STP ER TABLES (Continued) k
)
m Number Title Page 3.9-7 Summary of STP Transmission Route Vegetation f rom Tie Point to Holman Substation 3.9-12 3.9-8 Intersections of Transmission Lines and Rail-road Right-of-Way 3.9-13 3.9-9 Summary of Degrees of Visibility from Fre-quently Traveled Public Roads 3.9-14 3.9-10 Transmission Line Visibility (Highway Miles)
Resulting from Intersection with Public Roads:
Site to Blessing Substation 3.9-15 3.9-11 Transmission Line Visibility (Highway Miles)
Resulting from Intersection with Public Roads:
(
Site to Holman Substation 3.9-16 I
3.9-12 Transmission Lines Running Parallel to Fre-quently Traveled Public Roads 3.9-17 l
4.1-1 Results of Construction Sound Level Survey, l
r~'s, November 1977 4.1-13 I (_,/
4.1-2 Comparison of 1976,1977 and 1978 Traffic Counts 4.1-14 4.2-1 STP Route Sections 4.2-4 l
l 4.2-2 Acree'e of Woodlards Affected by Transmission l
Gorridors 4.2-5 i
4.2-3 Summary of Land Classification Along the Modified Transmission Line Routes 4.2-6 i
4.3-1 Major Construction Materials 4.3-4 l
l 5.2-1 Expected Concentrations of Radioactive l
Materials in Environmental Media from Liquid Effluents of 'ha South Texas Project 5.2-4 l
l 5.2-2 Expected Maximum Offsite Concentrations of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous Effluents from the South Texas Project 5.2-5 5.3-1 Summary of Calculated Liquid Pathway Doses 5.3-7 5.3-2 Predicted Doses to the Population Within 50 Miles of the South Texas Project 5.3-8 I
)
%J xiii Amendment 3, 10/10/80 i
STP ER TABLES (Continued)
O Number Title Page 5.3-3 Summary of Calculated Gaseous Pathway Doses 5.3-9 5.3-4 Appendix I Conformance Summary Table 5.3-10 5.3.A-1 Calculated Annual Average Radionuclide Concentrations in the STP Cooling Reservoir and in the Colorado River 5.3.A-6 5.3.A-2 Averata Peak adionuclide Concentrations for Flow zo Relief Wells Under Operating Conditions 5.3.A-7 5.3.A-3 Estimated Seepage From the STP Cooling Reservoir 5.3.A-8 5.4-1 Cycle Makeup Demineralizer Waste Flow Composition 5.4-4 6.1-1 Water Chemistry and Physical Parameters, Major Field and Laboratory Studies 6.1-62 6.1-2 Water Chemistry and Physical Parameters, Minor Field and Laboratory Studies 6.1-63 6.1-3 Water Quality Parameters and Methods of Analysis 6.1-64 6.1-4 Major Ecological Characterization Survey Measurements 6.1-66 6.1-5 Minor Ecological Characterization Survey Measurements 6.1-67 6.1-6 Schedule of Gear Utilization (X) for Sampling of Fish and Associated Organisms at Each Sampling Station (STP 1973-1974) 6.1-68 6.1-7 Water Quality Parameters and Methods of 6.1-69 Analysis 6.1-8 Meteorological Instrumentation for STP Onsite Meteorological Program 6.1-70 6.1-9 DELETED 6.1-71 6.1-10 Vertical AT Stability Categories 6.1-72 6.1-11 STP Terrestrial Sampling Schedule, 1973-1974 6.1-73 O
xiv
STP ER TABLES (Continued)
Number Title Page 6.1-12 Number and Location of Vegetation Sample Plots and Season of Sampling 6.1-74
-6.1-13 Mammal. Sampling Locations, Habitats and Dates 6.1-79 6.1-14 Summary of Locations and Numbers of Bird Study Areas 6.1-81 6.1-15 Specific Bird Census Techniques by Taxonomic Group and Season 6.1-84 6.1 Preoperational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 6.1-85 6.1-17 Detection Capabilities for Environmental Sample Analysfs 6.1-90 6.1-18 A-Weighted Sound Pressure Levels for Common Situations 6.1-92 6.1-19 Aquifer Test Summary 6.1-93 6.2-1 Operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 6.2-13 7.1-1 Accidents Analyzed in the Environmental Report 7.1-20 7.1-2 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Individual Dose Calculations 7.1-22 i
7.1-3 Decay Constants, Average Disintegration Energies, and lodine. Inhalation Dose Conver-sion Factors 7.1-23 7.1-4 Primary.and Secondary Equilibrium Activities 7.1-24 7.1-5 Activity Release to the Environment for Class 3.0 Accidents 7.1-25 7.1 Activity Release to.the Environment for Class 5.0 Accidents 7.1-26 7.1-7
' Activity Release to the Environment for Class 6.0 Accidente 7.1-27 0
xv Amendment 1, 11/22/78
STP ER TABLES (Continued)
O Number Title Page 7.1-8 Activity Release to the Environment for Class 7.0 Accidents 7.1-28 7.1-9 Activity Release to the Environment for Small Primary System Pipe Break, Class 8.1 7.1-29 7.1-10 Activity Release to the Environment for Large Primary System Pipe Break, Class 8.2 7.1-30 7.1-11 Activity Release to the Environment for Large Steamline Break, Class 8.5 7.1-31 7.1-12 Summary of Doses Resulting from Accidents 7.1-32 7.2-1 Chemicals Stored Onsite 7.2-6 8.1-1 Estimated Annual Generation and Sales Derived from South Texas Project 8.1-5 8.1-2 Estimated Annual Generation and Sales Derived from South Texas Project (00A) 8.1-6 8.1-3 Estimated Annual Generation and Sales Derived from South Texas Project (CPS) 8.1-7 8.1-4 Estimated Annual Generation and Sales Derived frcm South Texas ?roject (CPL) 8.1-8 8.1-5 Estimated Annual Generation and Sales Derived from South Texas Project (HL&P) 8.1-9 8.1-6 Estimated Revenues Discounted to Year Site Begins Commercial Operation 8.1-10 8.1-7 Estimated Additional Property Taxes to Be Col-lected from the South Texas Project Site 8.1-11 8.1-8 Estimated Annual Dollar Value Added in Manu-facturing Industries Made Possible by Sales to Manufacturing Originating in the South Texas Project Station 8.1-12 8.2-1 Calculation of Present Value and Present Value Annualized of Total Generating Cost Associated with the Generating Station 8.2-6 8.2-2 Revised Projection of STP Construction Work Fo rce 8.2-7 9.2-1 Fuel Cost Comparison, With and Without STP Units 1 and 2 9.2-2 xvi Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER s
TABLES (Continued)
' Number Title
- _Page, l
9.2-2 Operating and Maintenance Cost Comparison,
With and Without STP Units 1.and 2 9.2-3 I
10.6-1 Comparison of Principal Contaminate Concentration in Plant Effluent 10.6-2 11.1-1 Cost Description of Facility and Transmission l
Hookup 11.1-2 12.1-1 South Texas Project Licenses / Permits and Status 12.1-2 5
APPENDIXES 2.4-1 Radioactive Liquid Sampling and Analysis A2-13 2.4-2 Radioactive Caseous Waste Sampling and i
Analysis A2-15 2.4-3 Liquid Waste System Location of Process and Effluent Monitors and Samples Required by Technical Specifications A2-17 i
{s]./
2.4-4 Pressur;. zed Water Reactor Gaseous Waste i
System: Location of Process and Effluent Monitors and Samplers Required by Technical Specification A2-18 i
2.4-5 Gamma and Beta Dose Factors for South Texas Project A2-19 3.2-1 Operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program A2-23 3.2-2 Detection Capabilities for Environmental Sample Analysis A2-29 5.6-1 Format for the Annual Summary of the Envi-ronmental Radiological Monitoring Program A3-8
)
5.6-2 Reporting Levels for Nonroutine Operating Reports-A3-9 B-1 Spent Resin Sources to Solid Waste Pro-cessing System B-10 B-2 Demineralizer Operating Parameters B-ll B-3 Activity of Spent Resin Input to SWPS B-12 h.
V.
_B-4 Activity.in Concentrated Liquids Input to SWP B-13 xvii Amendment 3, 10/10/80 t
I
STP ER FIGURES Number Title 1.1-1 Areas Served by the Participating Utilities of the South Texas Project, the Texas Interconnected Systems, and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 1.1-2 Major Transmission Network of the Texas Interconnected Systems 1.1-3 Annual Peak Demand Growth 1.1-4 Comparison of Planned Capacity and Predicted Load for the City Public Service Board of San Antonio 1.1 Comparison of Planned Capacity and Predicted Load for the City of Austin 1.1-6 Comparison of Planned Capacity and Predicted Load for Central Power and Light Company 1.1-7 Comparison of Planned Capacity and Predicted Load for Houston Lighting & Power Company 1.1-8 Comparison of Planned Capacity and Predicted Load for the STP Participants 1.3-1 DELETED 1.3-2 DELETED 2.1-1 Region Surrounding the South Texas Project 2.1-2 Immediate Environs of the South Texas Project 2.1-3 Aerial Photo of Site and Surrounding Area 2.1-4 Site Layout and Surrounding Areas 2.1-5 Site Boundary, Restricted Area, and Exclusion Area 2.1-6 Abutting and Adjacent Properties and Nearby Developments 2.1-7 Site Development Plan 2.2-0 Area Residences Within 4 Miles Off-Site of the Plant Boundary 0
xviii Amendment 3, 10/10/80
- - - - -. ~ _
l STP ER CHAPTER l--PURPOSd 0F THE PROPOSED FACILITY CONTENTS Section Page 1
1.1 Need for Power 1.1-1 1.1.1 Load Characteristics 1.1-2 l
1.1.2 Power Supply 1.1-3 1.1.3 Capacity Requirement 1.1-4 1.1.4 Statement on Area Need 1.1-8 j
I 1.2 Other Objectives 1.2-1 1.3 Consequences of Delay 1.3-1 1
1 l
i i
4 j
l 1-1 i
- - -.....,.,, - ~ _
STP ER TABLES Number Title Page 1.1-1 Characteristics of the Electric Loads of the STP Participating Utilities 1.1-11 1.1-2 Past and Forecasted Annual Peak Demands, Interruptible Demands, Firm Purchases and Sales, and Energy Consumption 1.1-12 1.1-3 Forecasted Monthly Peak Demands 1984 and 1986 1.1-17 1.1-4 Forecasted Monthly Energy Loads 1984 and 19P-1.1-18 1.1-5 Installed Generating Units 1.1-19 1.1-6 Planned Generating Capacity Within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 1.1-24 1.1-7 Planned Generating Capacity for the South Texas Project Participants 1.1-29 O
O l-11 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER FIGURES (7 ~,)
v Number Title 1.1-1 Areas Served by the Participating Utilities of the South Texas Project, the Texas Inter-connected Systems, and the Electric Relia-bility Council of Texas 1.1-2 Major Transmission Network of the Texas Interconnected Systems 1.1-3 Annual Peak Demand Crowth 1.1-4 Comparison of Planned Capacity and Predicted Load for the City Public Service Board of San Antonio 1.1-5 Comparison of Planned Capac'ity and Predicted Load for the City of Austin 1.1-6 Comparison of Planned Capacity and Predicted Load for Central Power and Light Company 1.1-7 Comparison of Planned Capacity and Predicted Load for Houston Lighting & Power Company 7__
(
i
\\- /
1.1-8 Comparison of Planned Capacity and Predicted Load for the STP Participants 1.3-1 DELETED 1.3-2 DELETED
- O
\\s_-
1-111 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER CHAPTER 1
,-m
\\
]
PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY The participants in the South Texas Project (STP), and their portions of ownership are: Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P)--30.8 percent, Central Power and Light Company (CPL)--25.2 percent, City Public Service Board of San Antonio (CPS)--28 percent, and the City of Austin (C0A)--16 percent.
The City of San Antonio owns, and, through the City Public Service Board of San Antonio (CPS), a municipal board, operates the San Antonio public utility electric system.
The City of Austin (C0A) owns and operates Austin's electric utility system.
The participants in STP propose to operate the station in order to help meet projected increases in electric demand within the areas served and to replace older fossil fueled facilities which historically have used natural gas as fuel. The National Energy Policy, as codified in the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, essentially forbids construction of power plants fueled by gas. The Act also limits the amounts of natural gas 3
that can be burned in existing plants through 1989 and generally prohibits further use of natural gas as a primary energy source to generate electricity thereafter.
1.1 NEED FOR POWER The Texas Interconnected Systems (TIS) maintains its interconnected trans-f3 mission network to neet any requirements for the temporary exchange of
(,,)
power between TIS members. Members of the TIS other than the four participants are:
1.
Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) 2.
Texas Power & Light Company (TP&L) 3.
Dallas Power & Light Company (DP&L) 4.
Texas Electric Service Company (TES)
'5.
West Texan Utilities Company (WTU) 6.
Texas-Municipal Power Pool (TMPP) 7.
South Texas and Medina Electric Cooperatives (STEC/MEC)
The outer beundaries of the areas served by the members of TIS and the members of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) are shown on Figure 1.1-1.
The major transmission network of TIS is shown in Figure 1.1-2.
TIS and ERCOT are described in Section 1.1.4.
The areas served by the members of TIS and ERCOT are located within the Federal Energy Regula-tory Commission (FERC) Power Supply areas 37 and 38.
b
\\j 1.1-1 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER Section 1.1 discusses presently projected load demand and current load forecast methodology of the STP participants.
1.1.1 LOAD CHARACTERISTICS A general description of the electric loads of the participanto, including a discussion of the relative consumption among user classes and the char-acteristics of the area and load served is set forth in Section 1.1.1.1.
Section 1.1.1.2 presents the past and forecasted electric demand and consumption for the participant s.
1.1.1.1 Distribution of Electric Consumption Among User Classes The nature of the load servcd by the participants has not changed signifi-cantly from that discussed in the Environmental Report--Constrt. tion Permit Stage.
00A and CPS continue to serve centers of commerce, education and administration and have a proportionately larger amount of sales going to their residential class of customers.
HL&P and CPL serve important commercial and industrial centers with CPL also serving a large agricul-tural area.
The average distribution of sales among the customer groups is provided in Table 1.1-1 along with the size of the service area population and demand growth statistics.
CPS sells electric power to customers in 24 incorporated municipalities in Bexar County, Texas, the largest of which is the City of San Antonio. CPS sells power on a wholesale basis to the municipalities of Hondo, Floresville and Castroville. The area served by CPS and the wholesale customers served by CPS are the same as the area and wholesale customers served when the system was purchased by the city in 1942 from an investor-owned ut ili ty.
CPS also supplies electric power to eight military instal-lations within Bexar County. The largest industrial users are cement plants.
CPL supplies power to customers in 44 counties, including 105 incorporated connunities and 107 unincorporated communities.
Corpus Christi, Laredo, Victoria, Harlingen and McAllen are the largest cities served.
The principal industries in the heavily industrialized districts near Corpus Christi and Victoria include metal refineries, chemical and petrochemical plants and oil refineries. Other industries are food production industries including ranching and cattic feeding, grain and citrus production, fishing and cotton growing and ginning.
HL&P supplies power in a 5,000-square-mile area on the Culf Coast of Texas which may be roughly described as the Houston-Galveston-Freeport Gulf Coast area.
HL&F serves customers in all or part of 12 counties; it serves customers under franchises in Houston, Calveston, Freeport, Baytown, 3
Pasadena, and approximately 150 smaller cities, villages and communities.
The total population served is 20 percent of the Texas population. Major industrial and commercial activities include chemical industries, oil refining, primary metal production, hospital and health services, and food and beverage industries.
O 1.1-2 Amendment 3, 10/10/80 t
STP ER
,/")
COA supplies customers in a small, he?vily populated area that occupies
'd-about 40 percent of Travis County and a portion of Williamson County.
l3 Austin, Texas, is the state capital and the site of The University of Texas at Austin which has more than 40,000 students enrolled. This university produces electricity and supplies a large portion of the needs for the main campus area. As the campus expands, COA serves more and more of the newer complexe s.
The administrative and educational activities in Austin contribute to a relatively large office work force. The service area has had a rapid increase of light industry including office equipment and electronic equipment manufacturing.
1.1.1.2 Past and Forecasted Annual Electric Demands In Table 1.1-2 annual peak hour electric demand and annual electric energy consumption are tabulated for each of the participants.
The annual system peak hour demand listed is graphically ptasented in Figure 1.1-3.
Included in Table 1.1-2 are the actual and projected annual firm purchases and sales by the participants.
Actual values are provided for 1963 through 1979 and forecast estimates l
given in 1980 through 1988. Forecast monthly demands for 1984 and 1986, 3
the first year of commercial operation of each unit ao currently scheduled by the participants' Management Committee, are provided in Table 1.1-3 for each utility involved in the project.
Table 1.1-4 consists of the corresponding 1984 and 1986 forecast monthly electric loads.
l3 (O)
Interruptible electric demand at the time of system peak is also listed in Table 1.1-2.
Only CPL and HL&P serviced interruptible load with total interruptible demand in 1979 of 393 Mw, which was about 3.38. percent of the CPL and HL&P combined peak demand.
It is anticipated that this load will 3
be 419 Mw in 1980 and 409 Mw by 1983.
1.1.2 POWER SUPPLY Installed and planned generating capacity for the STP participants and the other systems in ERCOT is reported in Tables 1.1-5, 1.1-6 and 1.1-7.
Table 1.1-5 tabulates installed generating capacity for each of the STP participants by site and unit and also lists fuel and generator types.
Planned capacity between December 31, 1979, and July 1988, is presented in Table 1.1-6 for all the members of ERCOT; Table 1.1-6 also enumerates the proposed unit sites, capability, fuel and generator type.
Table 1.1-7 notes only the changes to capacity planned by the participants. On the basis of the current schedule adopted by the participants' Managenent Committee, STP Units 1 and 2 are shown in Tables 1.1-6 and 1.1-7, elsewhere in this chapter, and in Chapters 8 and 9 as being plant.ed for commercial operation in 1984 and 1986, respectively.
3 Table 1.1-2 reflects : an agreement between HL&P and COA whereby HL&P has contracted to purchase 500 Mw of capacity from 1980 through 1985; an agreement between HL&P and the Brazos Electric Co-Operative whereby HL&P has contracted to purchase 100 Mw of capacity in 1982 and 1983; an agreement between HL&P and CPS whernby HL&P has contracted to purchase 1.1-3 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER varylng amounts of capacity, ranging from 200 Mw to 500 Mw between 1982 and 1987; and an agreement between CPS and STEC/MEC whereby CPS agreed to sell 3
varying amounts of capacity ranging from 80 to 108 Mw during the period 1979-1980.
In addition, HL&P is presently negotiating for the purchase of additional capacity during the 1982-1987 period.
Table 1.1-2 does not reflect these negotiations nor agreements for the exchange of economy energy between HL&P and TP&L and between C0A and TP&L.
Since none of the agreements represents a firm long-term addition to the capacity of any participant's system, the agreements do not reduce the need for the STP units.
1.1.3 CAPACITY REQUIREMENT Sections 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2 and 1.1.3.3 provide discussion of the load fore-cast methodology of each of the participants, reserve margin responsibility and the effects of STP on capacity requirements, respectively.
1.1.3.1 Methods of Load Prediction Each participant in STP makes its own load prediction and the methods employed by each are set forth below.
CPS 3
Currently, the CPS peak demand forecast is directly tied to the forecast of annual net kwh generation for a 15-year period into the future. The genera-tion forecast is prepared initially and includes consideration of many factors.
It reflects historical trends, an assessment of the economic nature of the area served, and the changes occurring in population, birth rates, family size, housing patterns, life-style, and in energy use per customer. National and regional growth expectations, local contacts with commercial and industrial customers and contacts with local residential builders and developers assist in determining these factors.
The local economic expectations are estimated from factors which may affect comm'r-cial and industrial growth and housing requirements.
Use per customer reflects the expected customer response to higher bills and a gradual improvement in operating efficiences of electrical appliances and equipment. CPS feels that for its service area there is currently no reliable method to quantify the reduction in power d3 mand resulting from conservation programs which could be implemented by regulatory bodies or by other voluntary action of the public.
Upon completing the net generation forecast, CPS forecasts annual peak demand for the month of August (month in which the annual peak demand customarily occurs) in the following manner. The relationship between kwh generation and load factor is developed from historical data.
From this data, the theoretical lowest load factor (which results in the highest demand) f or any given net kwh generation is derived. The forecast peak demand for future years is then computed f rom the estimates of net genera-tion and load factor. The compound growth rate of peak demand for the 10-l3 9
1.1-4 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
l STP ER year period 1979-1988 is thus determined to be 6.23 percent.
The projected l3 (x) growth rate is continuously reviewed in light of actual experience.
The forecast of monthly peak demands at CPS is derived on the basis of the trends of the relationships between the historical monthly and annual peaks, the trends of monthly load factors and the forecasts of monthly net 3
l generation and annual peak. The technique employed to produce the monthly l
. peak demand forecast thus considers the changing relationships between the monthly peaks as well as between the monthly and annual peaks.
COA '
3 1
i City of Austin serves a commercial, educational, and administrative center.
l Prior to the energy shortage COA had forecast energy consumption and peak hour demands primarily on the basis of historical trends for the past 10 years. A normal: logarithmic growth behavior was presumed and a least-squares. regression analysis was used to determine the average predicted compound growth rate. Prior to the energy shortage, this method was l
accurately predicting growth rates of 13 to 15 percent.
l When-the energy shortage occurred, the price of electric energy increased rapidly and significantly. The price increase wss quickly followed by a i
significant conservation effort. The effect of the price induced conser-vation was large during the initial years of the energy shortage, resulting
.in a significant' decrease in the growth rate. After several years of very
-low growth, the conservation effort began to reach a saturation level.
O' This resulted in the load growth increasing. The major impact of the con-servation effort caused by the rapid and high increase in cost of energy appears to have occurred. Conservar. ion will continue to have an impact on energy usage, but it should be predictable from historic trends starting in the mid to late 1970's.
The growth rate of electric energy usage is expected to remain low through the early 1980's as the cost'of electric energy remains high during this l3 period. With the advent, in the mid-1980's, of low fuel cost generation, the price of electric energy will be stable relative to the rate of inflation.
During this period, the growth is expected to increase.
In the late 1980's and early 1990's the cost of electric energy will begin to increase and consequently _ the growth rate is expected to decrease.
To account for the effects observed during the energy shortage of price induced conservation, the COA' has revised its forecast methods.
The l
current forecast method is to look at historical data since the initial impact of the energy shortage. The historical data is divided into two temperature sensitive components-(heating and cooling) and a base load
-portion af ter correcting the historical data to normal temperature data years. Least square regression analysis is applied to obtain a trend. The trend is tempered by consideration of the ef fects of price elasticity.
This method results in a forecast of low growth rate in the early 1980's, l3 followed by a higher growth rate in the mid-1980's, and then lower growth rate in.the late 1980's-and early 1990's. These assumptions result in a
-s y/'
t 1.1-5 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER net compound rate in energy consumption of 5.95 percent over the next l' 3
years, 1980 to 1989.
CPL l3 CPL serves industrialized and rural areas.
CPL's predictions are made for a period of 20 years into the future; a more accurate 10-year expectation is estimated and a still more accurate 2-year prediction is made.
The pre-dictions are made on the basis of an analysis of historical date on each of several load classes.
The six classes of customers served on the CPL system are:
residential, commercial, large industrial, other industrial, street lighting-municipal, and other utilities.
Residential customers are single family dwellings, duplexes, and other units such as townhouses, mobile homes, or apartments which are individually metered and billed, including residential security lights.
The commercial class consists of businesses not engaged in manufacturing, centrally metered apartments and hotels and other miscellaneous customers including commercial security lights.
The industrial classes are composed mostly of manufacturing activities which physically change a product, although some exceptions are included such as oil pipeline pumping, irrigation and nilitary bases.
The street lighting and municipal class includes service to municipalities for their use in water and other pumping, street lighting, and miscellaneous loads and to other public entities for street lighting and water and other pumping.
In the other utilities class are sales for resale to seven Rural Electrification Administration cooperatives, two communities in Mexico and several connections to other municipal systems and other electric utilities for emergency, firm or economy sales.
For 10 year predictions, the industr.a1 load is estimated in conference with each large industrial customer, Loads from other classes are based on extrapolation of historic growth and on juogment.
In all cases, the his-torical data employed are the sales, the system peaks, the number of customers and the temperatures (to allow an accounting for the ef fect on system summer and winter loads of the air conditioning and heating components of the load).
In view of the fact that the more recent historical data base used to generate the forecast already includes a considerable amount of conserva-tion effect, any future, unlegislated conservation ef forts should have little additional impact on load projections.
HL& P l3 HL&P currently maintains a forecast of kwh energy sales and peak demands extending 20 years into the future which is reviewed and updated annually.
A separate forecast of kwh sales is made for each of 11 dif ferent groups of customers, grouped primarily on the basis of rate schedule.
For one of the forecasted groups, consisting of about 70 of the largest industrial customers, estimates are made individually for the first 5 years.
Estimates are based on data supplied by the customers and are modified using information such as specific market conditions and present O
1.1-6 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER
/
and future plant expansions.
In forecasting beyond 5 years, grcup fore-( );
casts are used. Estimates are made on the basis of the long-term trend toward increased electrical usage in local industry.
Relationships are then established between this trend and that of expected employment trends for the area.
For the public utilities class for the first 5 years, esti-mates of kwh use are obtained directly from the Community Public Service Com pany.
Extrapolations of the historical growth trend was used after 5 yea rs. For the municipal street lighting class, the number of lamps is derived fron the number of households and is then nultiplied by kwh u"'.
For the residential, commercial, and the small industrial groups, equations were developed which model sales for the various groups in these classes.
Although a large number of judgments, assumptions and statistical proce-dures are required to construct these models and projections, rela tive ly few elements are determinative of future increases in demand. The major elements of these equations are:
service area population, persons per household, price of electricity, price of gas, household income, and weather conditions.
The population forecast was constructed from a projection for the nation by the U. S. Census Bureau and assumptions as to the ratio of local. area popu-lation to U. S. population. Recent substantial revisions of population growth estimates in the Houston area since the 1970 census were incorpo-rated. A projection of futurc persons per household was also made, which when combined with the population, provides an estimate of the number of households for the area.
The number of households then provides the basis
(
)
for the number of customers in each customer group.
s_-
Household income is used as a variable to model residential Mwh sales.
In combination with the number of customers, household income captures part of the growth trend associated with acquisition and use of appliances includ-ing air conditioning and electric heating. The price of. electricity and gas are variables in the equations of residential, commercial and small industrial usage. The variables are used, along with household income, to capture variation in the growth trends associated with changes in the rela-tive cost of acquiring and operating electric equipment. Two weather variables, cooling degree-hours and heating degree-hours, are used in fore-casting for residential, commercial, and small industrial groups. The projections of Mwh sales are based upon average weather conditions.
Assump-tions have also been made as to what portion of new dwelling units will be multifamily versus single family units, and as to the breakdown of future individual versus master metered multifamily units. After 1977, it was assuned that all new apartments would be individually metered and would be included in the residential class.
In the forecast described above and submitted in this document, HL&P has dealt specifically with the conservation and price elasticity issues by including price and income as variables in the forecasting models.
The models explain virtually all the large observed changes in usage per i
customer which occurred in the 1973 to 1977 period in terms of responses to i
changes in price,. income, and weather conditions.
No residual historical m
i
\\
k.j 1.1-7 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER S
effect can be attributed to conservation or attitude changes beyond that indicated by these variables.
In obtaining peak demand, class contributions to system peak demand for the residential, commercial, and small industrial groups have been modeled as functions of class energy consumption, number of customers, peak tempera-ture, and degree-hours on the day of the peak demand. These equations model the effects on peak demands of changes in weather conditions, calen-dar month generation, and number of customers, and thereby explain the changes in demand growth rates.
The large industrial, government and municipal, and public utilities class demands have been estimated using typical load factors.
1.1.3.2 Reserve Margin Resporsibility The STP participants serve boti incorporated and unincorporated areas.
In many of the incorporated areas, franchise contracts with the municipality tequire the participant to provide adequate electric power to meet the demands of customers within such municipalities.
Texas law prohibits electric utilities from discriminating against any customer in a given class in the charges for electric power or in the service rendered under similar and like circumstances.
In order to discharge their responsibilities, the STP participants have endeavored to provide adequate generating capacity for their own systems, including as much installed reserves as each considers appropriate.
In addition, the STP participants are all members of TIS, which was formed to facilitate the interchange of emergency backup power among 1ts member systems so as to further assure reliability of electric service.
1.1.3.3 Effects of STP on Capacity Requirements The impact of the STP nuclear units on system capacity is reflected in Figures 1.1-4, 1.1-5, 1.1-6 and 1.1-7 for each of the STP participants.
Each figure represents the forecast annual system peak demands, forecast demands with a 15 percent reserve margin and expected on peak capacity both with and without the output from the South Texas Project. Figure 1.1-8 is a composite total of the four systems.
1.1.4 STATEMENT ON AREA NEED In this section the irterconnected systems and electric reliability council are identified and their purposes are described. The reserve criteria and asse s sment of adequacy of area-wide power supplies by the interconnected systems and the minimum system reserve capacities are presented.
1.1.4.1 The Texas Interconnected Systems and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas The members of TIS (identified in Section 1.1) provide about 80 percent of the electric power requirements within the State of Texas. The purpose of TIS is to provide interconnection of bulk power supply facilities for use O
1.1-8 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
~
'STP ER e[s
- in emergencies.to obtain maximum reliability and to facilitate capacity and 3
economy energy sales. The Administrative Committee and Technical Planning and Operating Subcommittees have" the following functions:
1.
determination of' spinning reserve requirements,.
2..
analysis of installed generating capacity requirements, 3.-
transmission system study, 4.
. investigation of interconnection requirements, 5.
investigation of transmission line loading under normal and abnormal conditions, 6.
review.of automatic under-frequency load shedding relays and settings,
~i-7.
adoption 'of : criteria for planning and operations, and 8.
determination of bias settings,
.i 9.
determination of transmission effects of wheeling power among 3
utilities.
ERCOT is the area representative to the National Electric Reliability 1
Council 1(NERC). As the area representative, ERCOT coordinates reporting functions for' furnishing information to NERC.
1.1.4.2 Reserve Criteria and Assessment of Adequacy of Area-Wide Power Supply.
The_ planning criteria of TIS are as follows:
Sufficient generating capacity will be provided, as practicable, to ensure a reserve of at least 15 percent of the forecasted maximum hour demand of 3
.the interconnected systems.~ Projected TIS planning will include simulated testing _to_ ensure that'the systems will not experience cascading breakup and collapse 4 initiated by the occurrence'of contingencies such as:
_1.
loss of all generating capacity tied to a common voltage at any generating station; i
2.-
loss of any two generating units; 3.
outage of any:circuitfor' generating unit during scheduled maintenance or any, other transmission _line or generating unit;
~ ~
4.
. outage of any single or double circuit transmission line, generating unit, transformer..or bus;-
i
~1.1-9 Amendment 3, 10/10/80 L
STP ER 5.
simultaneous outage of overhead transmission lines parallel to each other for a substantial distance having a spacing between circuits of less than the height of the structures; 6.
any fault cleared by normal operation of backup relays; or 7.
loss of any large load or concentrated load area.
O l
i l
1.1-10 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
1 TABLE l'.1-l'
_.t.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ELECTRIC LOADS OF.THE STP PARTICIPATING UTILITIES 1
. i (As of December-31, 1979) l Characteristics CPS CPL HL&P COA Approximate service area, mi4 1,556 44,188 5,000 415 3-
' Population. served-955,000 1,300,000 3,050,000' 409,915 4
.I Electric sales, Gwh 7,453 13,161 52,361 3,075 Distribution of~ sales Residential, %.
33 25 22 38 i
Commercial,-%
15 21 17 19 y -
Industrial, %
43 45 55 38' w.
Other, %
9 9
6 5
y-g.
1
'H M
Doubling time of peak. demand 12 13 10 12
- =
H
+
(Prior _to 1980) year Predicted annual growth rate 6.2 5.5 3.9 5.5a 4
f of peak demand.(1978-1988), %
i I
j g-
.aFor 1980-1989.
s
.g e
n i.
W j
i g.
i D
i 8
i
STP ER.
TABLE 1.1-2 PAST AND FORECASTED ANNUAL PEAK DEMANDS,
-INTERRUPTIBLE DEMANDS, FIRM PURCHASES AND t
SALES, AND ENERGY CONSUL:PTION 4
Peak Firm Annual Demand"
- Interruptible Purchase's (+)
Consumption Year Utility (Mw)
Demand (Mw)
Sales (-) (Mw)
(Gwh) 1963' COA 211 0
0 878 RL&P
~2,516 0
0 13,213 CPS 517 0'
-30
~2,463 CPL-801 0
+52 4,739 J-L 1964-COA 238 0
0 955 C
HL&P 2,757 21 0
14,368 CPS 625 0
-30 2,614 CPL 870 11
+52 5,120 1965' COA 275 0
0 1,039 HL&P 3,016 23 0
16,328 CPS 664 0
-30 2,804 CPL 904 10
+52 5,021 1966 COA 283 0
0 1,139' C
HL&P 3,336 2
0 18,258 CPS-759 0
-30 3,091-CPL 1,062 12
+52 5,714 4
1 1967 COA 320 0
0 1,293
}
HL&P 3,752
_144 0
20,427 c
CPS 840 0
-30 3,476 CPL 1,147-20
+52 6,200 1968 C0A 346 0
0 1,450-c HL&P 4,076 184 0
22,966 CPS-
-941 0
0 3,909 CPL.
1,225 83
-+52 6,938 4
' " Peak-demand values do not-include interruptible demand.
CPL values include-sales.
CPS'and COA' historical' consumption (1963-1979).for 12 months ending Dec. 31.
~
" CPS forecasts of consumption.(1980-1988_) for fiscal period Feb. 1 - Jan. 31, 3-COA. forecasts of consumption (1980-1988) for fiscal-period Oct. 1 - Sept. 30.-
CPL figures shown are' consistent _with FPC Form 12E termed." Net Energy for-Load".
~
_ kJ}
/
HL&P.Lfigures - shown as interruptible represent a_ single contract interrupted i
during a' limited number of hours.
4
-1,1-12 Amendment 3, 10/10/80 4
~
STP ER
~
[~'h TABLE 1.1-2 (Continued)
Q)
PAST AND FORECASTED ANNUAL PEAK DEMANDS, INTERRUPT 1BLE DEMANDS, FIRM PURCHASES AND SALES, AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION Peak Firm Annual a
Demand Interruptible Purchases (+)
Consumption 3
Year Utility (Mw)
Demand (Mw)
Sales (-) (Mw)
(Gwh) 1969 COA 438 0
0 1,723 HL&P 4,697 224c 0
25,921 CPS 1,107 0
-30 4,505
' CPL 1,412 61
+52 7,846 1970 COA 469 0
0 1,943 C
nL&P 5,067 162 0
27,741 CPS 1,144 0
-30 4,798 CPL 1,410 88
+52 8,169 1971 COA 541 0
0 2,243 C
HL6P 5,308 222 0
30,888 CPS 1,274 0
-30 5,308 CPL 1,514 140
+32 8,982 p't 1972 C0's 602 0
0 2,517
- U C
HL&P 6,010 228 0
34,468 CPS 1,364 0
-30 5,853 CPL 1,641 143
+37 9,791 1973 COA 632 0
0 2,588 HL&P 6,484 224c 0
36,694 CPS 1,415 0
0 5,801 CPL 1,723 160
-29 10,335 1974 COA 660 0
0 2,654 HL6P 6,930 220' O
38,191 CPS 1,412 0
0 5,775 CPL 1,802 140
-38 10,487
- Peak demand values do not include interruptible demand. CPL values include sales.
b CPS and COA historical consumption (1963-1979) for 12 months ending Dec. 31.
CPS forecasts of consumption (1980-1988) for fiscal period Feb. 1 - Jan. 31.
COA forecasts of consumption (1980-1988) for fiscal period Oct. 1 - Sept. 30.
3 CPL figures shown are consistent with FPC Form 12E termed " Net Energy for Load".
g'"S.
" HL6P figures shown as interruptible represent a single contract interrupted
()
during a limited number of hours.
- 1. ', -13 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER TABLE 1.1-2 (Continued)
' PAST AND FORECASTED ANNUAL PEAK DEMANDS, INTERRUPT 1BLE DEMANDS, FIRM PURCHASES AND SALES, AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION Peak Firm Annual a
b Demand Interruptible Purchases (+)
Consumption 3
Year Utility (Mw)
Demand (Mw)
Sales (-) (Mw)
(Gwh) 1975 C0A 681 0
0 2,780 l3 HL&P 7,252 213c 0
40,276 CPS 1,493 0
0 6,050 l3 CPL 1,844 79
-53 9,857 1976 COA 711 0
0 2,811 HL&P 8,019 200c 0
43,355 CPS 1,560 0
0 6,180 CPL 1,959 65
-68 10,481 1977 COA 774 0
0 3,076 C
HL&P 8,445 200 0
48,523 CPS 1,641 0
0 6,673 CPL 2,286 37
-76 12,100 1978 COA 763 0
0 3,253 V'
HL&P 9,114 248c 0
53,101 3
CPS 1,688 0
0 7,223 CPL 2,253 88
-79 12,776 1979 COA 743 0
0 3,246 HL&P 9,336 266c 0
55,057 CPS 1,707 0
-80 7,453 CPL 2,306 127
-43 13,161 1980 COA 800 0
-500 3,422 HL&P 10,150 280c
+500 58,379 CPS 1,851 0
-98 8,175 CPL 2,545 139
-41 14,097
" Peak demand values do not' include interruptible demand. CPL values include sales.
b CPS and COA historical consumption (1963-1979) for 12 months ending Dec. 31.
CPS forecasts of consumption (1980-1988) for fiscal period Feb. 1 - Jan. 31.
3 COA forecasts of consumption (1980-1988) for fiscal period Oct. 1 - Sept. 30.
CPL figures shown are consistent with FPC Form 12E termed " Net Energy for Load".
c gggp figures shown as interruptible' represent a single contract interrupted x
)
during a limited number of-hours.
,w/
l.1-14 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
. ~.
STP ER'
- TABLE!1.1-2 (Continued) s
.g PAST AND FORECASTED ANNUAL PEAK DEMANDS, INTERRUPTIBLE-DEMANDS, FIRM PURCHASES AND-SALES, AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION t
a Peak ~
Firm Annual
~
a Demanda.
Interruptibl'e Purchases (+)
Consumption i
Year-Utility (Mw)'
Demand (Mw)
Sales (-) (Mw)
(Gwh) 1981
' COA 831 0
-500 3,551 3
HL&P.
10,575 280c
+500 61,351 CPS 1,979 0
0 8,121 CPL 2,698 131
-55 14,641.
1982 COA 864-0
-500 3,738 C
HL&P 10,950 280
+1100 63,499 i.
CPS 2,157 0
-500 8,845 CPL 2,915 129
-60 16,179 1983
' COA
'912 0
-500 3,983-C' l
HL&P 11,375 280
+1000 66,021 CPS-2,339 0
-400 9,581 CPL 3,046 129
-68 17,013 1984 COA 964 0-
-500 4,250 Os HL&P 11,925 280c
+700 69,084 CPS 2,489 0
-200 10,217 CPL
'3,'184 129
-77 17,500
.1985 COA 1,020 0
-500 4,542 C
i HL&P 12,425 280
+1000 71,849 CPS 2,643 0
-500 10,813 CPL-3,317 129-
-83 18,251 i
- Peak demand values do not include interruptible demand. CFL values include sales.
i
- b. CPS'and COA historical' consumption (1963-1979).-for 12 months ending Dec. 31.
["
CPS forecasts.offconsumption (1980-1988). for fiscal period Feb. 1 - Jan. 31.
-C0A1 forecasts'of consumption (1980-1988) for fiscal period Oct. 1 - Sept. 30.
3
' CPL figures _shown=are consistent with FPC Form 12E termed " Net Energy for Load".
I L
C HL&P figures shown'as interruptible represent a single contract. interrupted during aflimited number of hours.
3
- %s
- 1.1-15 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
~
~
f
-e 9
4.--
ee v-A
<~we1p-vgi y==w.-s, erw--
-r-y--, w mm#-
ep-g*+m.mp~,=r-e=75, it T~f
--wr
STP ER.
T TABLE 1.1-2 (Continued)
'PAST AND FORECASTED ANNUAL PEAK DEMANDS, INTERRUPTIBLE DEMANDS, FIRM PURCHASES AND SALES, AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION Peak Firm-Annual Demand" Interruptible Purchases (+)
Consumption Year Utility (Mw)
Demand (Mw)
Sales (-) (Mw)
(Gwh)
I 1986 COA 1,081 0
0 4,854 3
c HL&P 12,900 280
+200 74,531 CPS 2,783' 0
-200 11,384 18,956 CPL 3,474 -
129
-93 1987 COA
1,145 0
0 5,185 C
HL&P 13,325-280
+400 77,123 CPS 2,928 0
-400 11,970 CPL' 3,633 129
-101 19,613 i
1988' COA 1,209 0
0 5,510 C
HL&P 13,775 280 0-79,755
- CPS, 3,088 0
0 12,653 CPL 3,765 129
-112 20,306
)
i Peak demand values do not include interruptible demand. CPL values include sales.
. CPS and C0A historical consumption (1963-1979) for 12 months ending Dec. 31.
CPS forecasts of consumption (1980-1988) for fiscal period Feb. 1 - Jan. 31.
COA forecasts of consumption (1980-1988) for fiscal period Oct. 1 - Sept. 30.
3 CPL figures shown are consistent with FPC Form 12E termed " Net Energy for Load".
" HL&P' figures'shown as interruptible represent a single contract interrupted during a limited. number of hours.
~
(
r()\\ '
1.1-16 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
....__.-.-.._._.._-.__._._.__.-....-.__,____.,__..._..._..___.m O
O O
2 TABLE 1.1-3 FORECASTED MONTHLY PEAK DEMANDS (Mw) 1984 AND 1986 1984 1986
' CPL CPS COA HL&P CPL CPS COA -
HL&P-
- )
'Jan.
2,296 1,156 591 8,675 2,504 1,293 662 9,350
. Feb.
2,190 1,137 554 8,250
.2,390 1,284 621 8,850 Mar.
'2,203 1,338-526 8,925 2,404 1,482 590
'9,600 Apr.
2,337 1,593 586~
9,200 2,550 1,771 657 9,925 May 2,741 2,066 721 10,675 2,991 2,312 809 11,525 June 2,964 2,249 855 11,800
-3,234 2,504 959 12,775 h
-[
N July 3,076 2,375 926 11,925 3,356 2,649 1,038.
12,900
' Aug.
3,184 2,489 964 11,925 3,474 2,783 1,081 12,900 Sept.
2,965 2,303 889 11,425 3,248 2,568 997 12,300 j'
Oct.
2,640 1,849 749 10,050 2,892 2,056 840 10,800 j
g Nov.
2,358 1.318 569 8,925 2,583 1,448 638 9,600 O
g.
Dec.
2,292 1,116 565 8,425 2,510 1,211 634 9,050 4
. $n.
I w
E; D
El 8
4 1
.m_
TABLE 1.1-4 FORECASTED MONTHLY ENERGY LOADS (Cwh) 1984 AND 1986 1984
~1986 3
' CPL CPS COA HL&P CPL CPS COA HL&P-Jan.
1,277 648 321 5,203 1,383 736 367 5,609 Feb.
1,260 596 270 4,718 l',365 666 309 5,074 Mar.
1,208' 668 28G 5,279 1,309 755 319-5,717 Apr.
1,278
,704 284 5,789 1,384 799 325 5,627 May 1,313 892 353 5,991 1,422 1,042 403 6,488 7
Jun.
1,488 1,075 425 6,488 1,612 1,213 485 7,009 1
4 7g Jul.
1,698 1,184 487 7,040 1,839 1,343 556 7,595 f
Aug.
1,803 1,259 484 7,038 1,953 1,461 553 7,585 Sep.
1,820 1,040 408 6,279 1,971 1,207 466 6,766 Oct.
1,610 802 329 5,721 1,744 914 376 6,172-I-
Nov.
1,415 657 294
~5,132 1,533 741 336 5,529 N
k Dec.
1,330 650 315 4,985 1,441 724 354 5,360 E
.t D
Total 17,500 10,175 4,250 69,084 18,956 11,601 4,854 74,531
?
O3R J
8
STP ER 1
i
(
TABLE 1.1-5 INSTALLED GENERATING UNITS
( As of December 31,-1979) et
~
b c
Station
- Unit No.
Capability (Mw)a Fuel Type 3
Central Power and Light Company (CPL).
~
Joslin 1
240 G/O
.ST-Nueces Bay 5
30 G/0 ST 6
154 G/0 ST 7-323 G/O
-ST La Palma
-- 4 22-G/O ST 5'
22 G/O ST
. 6 150 G/O ST 7
50 0
CT l
Victoria
153 G/O ST 6
221 G/O ST Laredo 1
32 G/O ST 3
2 32-G/O ST J
3 99 G/0 ST Lon Hill 1
69 G/0 ST 2
69 G/O ST 3 -
153 G/0 ST 4
242 G/O ST Bates
. 1 72 G/0 ST 2
104 G/0 ST i
' Davis 1-322 G/0 ST 2
329
-G/0 ST b'the capacity-indicated is the net summertime capability.
G= g0s, C = coal, O = oil, G/O'= gas or oil, C/O = coal or. oil, C/G = coal or gas, WH = waste heat (unfired)..
. turbine _ portion), CT =_ combustion turbine.
\\_/
1.1-19
- Amendment 3, 10/10/80 1
?
f p
-g-gy
(
a
.w y y*,
e--ea-
-q
- -%e w
- '=
geer i -
m+e pr i---e e4ii m<=
te e
a t
e
,tm e,
- y r-F9 t*f
~
I STP ER 1
TABLE 1.1-5.' Continued)-
L INSTALLED GENERATING UNITS 4 -
-(As of December 31, 1979) i.
Net b
c Station' Unit No.
Capability (Mw)
Fuel Typ 3
Houston Lighting & Power (HL&P)
' Greens Bayou 1
70 G
ST 4
2 70 G
ST 3-
.'.12 G
ST 4
112 G
ST 5
398 G/O ST Greens Bayou 73 56 G/0 CT 74 56 G/0 CT 3
81 64 G/0 CT 82 64 G/0 CT 83 64 G/0 CT f
84 64 G/0 CT I
I-H. O. Clarke 1
44 G
ST 2
44 G
ST 3
77 G
ST 4
77 G
ST t
GT1 13 C
CT GT2 13 G
CT GT3 13 G
CT.
-GT4 13 G
CT GT5 13 G
+
i GT6 13 G
CT 3
Deepwater HP 61d G
~7 167 G
ST Gable Street 6
26d G
ST 7
36d G
ST 4
- The capacity indicated is the net summertime capability.
G = gas,/C =. coal, 0 = oil, G/0 = gas or oil, C/0 = coal or oil, C/G = coal or: gas,.WH = waste heat (unfired).
[_
-ST = steam turbine, CC = combined cycle, CG = combined cycle (combustion c
1 turbine. portion), CT = combustion turbine.
df For~ emergency use only.
.. 8) s 1.1-20 Amendment 3, 10/10/80 2.
_ _, - _.., _... _ _ _ _ - _ _. _. _ _. ~... _... _
t 4 ':
l-STP ER f
TABLE 1.1-5 (Continued) jg INSTALLED GENERATING UNITS i-j
-(As of December 31, 1979) 1 3
1,.-
I Net Station Unit No.
Capability (Mw)"
Fuel Type #
f Champion-1 6
G ST 2
4 G
ST j
3 12 G
ST i
Webster 1-109 G
ST 4
I 3
2 109 G
ST i
3 375 G
ST GT1 13 C
CT l3 I
Cedar Bayou 1
750 G/0 ST 2
750 G/0 ST 4
3 750 G/0 ST W. A. Parish 1
169 G
ST t
2 174 G
ST 3
278 G
ST l
4 555 G
ST l3 1
5 660 C/G ST I
6 660 C/G ST GT1 13 G
CT 1
P. H. Robinson 1
441 G
ST i
2 441 G
ST 3
565 G
ST 4
750 G/0 ST GT1 13 G
CT l
' Sam Bertron 1
174 G/0 ST 2~
174 G/0 ST l
3-230 G/0 ST 4
4 230 G/0 ST 3
'GT1 23 C
CT j
GT2 13 G
CT i
4-
- The capacity indicated'is the net summertime capability.
4-G = gas, C = coal, 0 =-oil, C/0 = gas or. oil, C/0 = coal or oil, j
C/G = coal or gas,. WH = waste heat (unfired).
l
~
turbine portion), CT = combustion turbine.
j O
1 l
a 2
l 1.1-21 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
)
J-i n
---r,~
-, wn e r-,,
~
w., - ~,
,,-mr,--a------
,m-w,-,-
,we,-,,~,~~,-,,.-,
,,n,,.-
~,---nv-,-----,,,,
--s e-e~-
t
~STP ER n [0 N
TABLE 1.1-5 (Continued) l INSTALLED GENERATING UNITS
( As of December 31, 1979) 3 i
Station Unit No.
Capability (Mw)"
Fuel
' Type" T. H. Wharton~
-1
-71 G
ST 2
229
'G ST 3
81 WH CC 4
81 WH CC I
31 39 G/0 CG 32 39 G/0-CG 33 39 G/0 CG 3
34 39 G/0 CG 41 39
'G/0 CC 42 39 G/0 CG 43 39 G/0 CG 44 39 G/0 CG 51.
58 G/0 GT 52 58 G/0 CT 53 58 G/0 CT 54 58 G/0 CT 55 58 G/0 CT 56 58 G/0 CT O
GT1 13 G/0
.CT
-(d City Public Service' Board of San Antor.io (CPS)
Mission Road.
3 80 G/0 ST 1
Leon Creek
-31 59 G/0 ST l' 85 C/0 ST W. B.-Tuttle 1
59 G/O ST 2
80 G/0 ST 3
85 G/0 ST 4
140 G/0 ST Victor Braunig 1
200 G/0 ST 2
220 G/0 ST 4
3 390 G/0 ST The capacity indicated is the net -summertime capability.
4 b G= gas,C[= coal,;0_= oil,G/O= gas-oroil,C/0=coaloroil, 3
i' C/G = coal or gas,' WH = waste heat. (unfired).
' c'ST' =: steam turbine, CC = combined cycle, CG = combined cycle (combustion turbine portion)', CT = combustion turbine.
I 1.1-22 Amendment 3, 10/10/80 e
.e car---
-.,-e.w,3-,
%,p p y.w -, e
,.,_yw..,-
,,~~,---,e-,
we+-ww---
STP ER i
1
-TABLE 1.1-5-(Continued) l.
INSTALLED GENERATING UNITS i
(As of December 31, 1979) 3 i
Net Station Unit No..
Capability (Mw)"
Fuel Type" j
- 0. W. Sommers
-- I 400 G/O ST 2.
400 G/O ST J.. T. Deely_
1 418 C
ST i
2-418 C
ST l3 i
City of Austin (COA)
Seaholm 5
20 G
ST 6
20 G
ST 7
20 G
ST 8
20 G
ST 9
40 G
ST 1
l Holly 1
100 G
ST 2
100 G
ST 3
165 G
ST 4
190 G
ST Decker.
1 325 G
ST 2
400 G/O ST Fayette 1
275 C
ST i
i 4
I l
The capacity indicated is the net summertime capability.
_G = gas, C = coal, O = oil', G/O = gas or oil, C/0 = coal or oil, 3
i C/G =~ coal or gas, Wil = waste heat (unfired).
i
}
' ST'= steam turbine, CC = combined cycle, CG = combined cycle (combustion i
turbine portion),.CT = combustion turbine.
1 l
3 i
t i
1 1.1-23
' Amendment 3, 10/10/80
L
- O; i
TABLE 1.1-6.
PLANNED GENERATING CAPACITY WITHIN'THE ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS Capability
(+ added, Unit
-retired) 3-Utility" Station No.
(Mw)
Type Fuel i
[
1980 I
26 ST G
l3 TES-Unannounced retirement (Net)
CPL Coleto Creek 1
+ 550 ST C
LCRA Fayette 2
+ 275 ST C
j COA.
.Fayette 2
+ 275.
ST C
HL&P
. W. A. Parish 7
+ 570 ST
.C
{.
CPL-Nueces Bay 5
- 30 ST G
3
+
i CPL Barney Davis 1
+
8
.ST G/O
?
w
.m N
m.
5~
p 1981
+
j.
COA Seaholm 5,6
- 40 ST G
CPL Nueces Bay 5
+ 30 ST G
TP&L Sandow 4
+ 545 ST L
j.
3 j
1982 F
g TU-
. Comanche Peak 1
+1035 ST N
b 1
m i
S
u i
b ST = steam turbine
=
go N
c g-G = gas, G/O = gas or oil, C = coal, L = lignite, N = nuclear i'
i S
i i
i
,m
,.m i
)
i
)
i
)
\\,/
Q TABLE 1.1-6 (Continued)
PLANNED GENERATING CAPACITY WITHIN Tile ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS Capability
(+ added, Un.1 t
-retired) 3 b
c Utility Station No.
(Mw)
Type Fuel 1982 (Continued)
TMPP Comanche Peak 1
+ 115 ST N
TES Unannounced retirement
- 45 ST G
3 TMPP Gibbo~ Creek 1
+ 400 ST L
N 1983
'o y
E U
TES Unannounced retirement
- 22 ST G
TU Comanche Peak 2
+1035 ST N
3 TMPP Comanche Peak 2
+ 115 ST N
HL&P W. A. Parish 8
+ 540 ST C
1984 DP&L Unannounced retirement (Net)
- 103 ST G
k TES Unannounced retirement (Net)
- 150 ST G
E South Texas Project 1
+1250 ST N
3 P,
Q ST = steam turbine o
N C
8 G = gas, G/O = gas or oil, C = coal, L = lignite, N = nuclear
_ ~. _ _. -.. -.. -.
... _.. -.. - _ _ ~.. _ - -. _.. -. - _... _., _... ~.
/"
f~)
V TABLE 1.1-6 (Continued)
PLANNED GENERATING CAPACITY WITilIN Tile ELECTRIC
. RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS Capabilit y
(+ added,.
Unit
-retired).
a b
c i ~
Utility Station No.
(Mw)
Type Fue'l i
1985 COA
'Seaholm 7,8
- 40 ST G
DP&L-Unannounced retirement
- 115 ST G
3
- 176 ST G
TES Unannounced retirement
- 228 ST G/O IlL&P Unannounced retirement j.
d TU Martin Lake 4
+ 750 ST L
-TP&L Twin Oak 1
+ 563*
ST L
)
~ -
IIL&P -
Limestone 1
+ 700 ST L
m
'H W
- C h
1986 m
e
- o DP&L Unannounced retirement
- 145 ST G
TES Unannounced retirement
- 175 ST G
TP&L Twin Oak 2
-+ 563 ST.
L I
i 4
m b
a ST = steam turbine i
a
}
- G = gas, G/O = gas or ' oil, C = coal, L = lignite, N = nuclear
~
rt
,i d
.u Joint. ownership by TP&L, TES and DP&L 4
i R
- Joint ownership with an industrial customer of a 750-Mw
- t. nit wO i
N
)
00 O
i
.._.__.._.-,v.
....m.....~.__
_m_..__...___.._._.._..-.__...
O O
T
' TABLE 1.1-6 (Continued)
PLANNED GENERATING CAPACITY WITilIN Tile ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF-TEXAS Capa bilit y~
(+ added, Unit-
-retired) b Utility"
' Station No.
(Mw)
Type Fuel" 3~
l 1986 (Cont ~ nued)
South Texas Project.
2
+1250 ST N
ilL&P Limestone 2
+ 700 ST
.. L 1987 1..
.i DP&L Unannounced retirement
- 87 ST G
I CPL Victoria' 3
- 38 ST G
i
?
CPL La Palma 4,5
- 44 ST G
l
.7 CPL Laredo 1,2
- 64 ST G
tj TP&L Unannounced retirement
- 70 ST G
l WTU Oklaunion 1
+ 307 ST-C j
CPL Oklaunion 1
+ 135 ST C
.TU Forest Grove 1
+ 750 ST L
i llL&P Undetermined
+ 700 ST L
i.
LCRA Fayette 3
+ 400 ST L.
l t
y a
i
-TU = Texas Utilities o
i 4
g ST = steam turbine on G = gas, G/O = gas or oil, C = coal,.L = lignite, N = Nuclear C
w
~
c d
i e
o s
H O
i i
N 00 O
i
,\\
(
)
( s)
(v) v-s_
TABLE 1.1-6 (Continued)
PLANNED GENERATING CAPACITY WITilIN Tile ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS Capability
(+ added, Unit
-retired)
Utility" Station No.
(Mw)
Type Fuel 3
1988 IIL&P Allens Creek 1
+1130 ST N
DP&L Unannounced retirement
- 115 ST G
TP&L Unannounced retirement
- 110 ST G
CPL Lon 11111 1
- 69 ST G
N y
WTU Abilene 3,4
- 26 ST G
y WTU Lake Pauline 1
19 ST C
WTU Concho 3
- 15 ST G
TES Unannounced retirement
- 240 ST G
TU Unassigned
+ 750 ST L
TU Unassigned
+1200 ST C
WTU Karnack I
+ 109 ST L
CPL Karnack 1
+ 211 ST L
IIL&P Undetermined
+ 700 ST L
TMPP Unassigned
+ 400 ST L
k
" TU = Texas Utilities b ST = steam turbine w
O C
?
G = gas, G/O = gas or oil, C = coal, L = lignite, N = Nuclear O
8
_ m.
'[\\
\\
i i
TARLE 1.1-7 i
I PLANNED GENERATING CAPACITY FOR THE SOUTH TFXAS PROJECT PARTICIPANTS 2
Capability-(+ added,.
Unit
-retired) 3-h c
Utility-Station No.
(Mw)
Type Fuel 1980 L
CPL Coleto Creek 1
+ 550 ST C
HTAP W. A. Parish 7
+ 570 ST C
COA
.Fayette 2
+ 275 ST C
j CPL Nueces Ray 5
30 ST G/O 3
l-CPL Barney Davis I
+
R ST G/0 1081 l.
l CPL Nueces Bay 5
+ 30 ST G/O 3
- m r
i' COA Seaholm 5,6
- 40 ST G
+
h m
1982 3
[
~
t l
1083 l
HL&P W.
A. Parish 8
+ 540 ST C
" The capacity indicated is the net summertime capahility.
.{
3!-
i i
I ST = steam turbine.
f a
U l
' G = gas, C = coal, O = oil, L = lignite, M = nuclear, G/O = gas or oil, C/O = coal or j
oil, C/G = coal or gas, u
O-r D
f '
3 i
o j
i O
1
..~. _._.. _
[~'
g
.s
(
. TABLE 1.1-7 (Ccntinued) i PLANNED GENERATING CAPACITY FOR THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Capability
.(+ added, Unit
- retired) 3 Utility Station No.
(Mw)#
Type Fuel 2 -
1984 d
l South Texas Project 1
+1250 ST N
t
[.
1985 H
3 y
COA Seaholm 7,8
- 40 ST G
m g
HL&P Derating
- 228 G/0 g
HL&P Limestone 1
700 ST-L i
4 1986 j
South Texas Project
'2
+1250 ST N
4 HL&P Limestone 2
+ 700 ST L
f I
k
" The capacity indicated is the net summertime capability.
f l
b i
-g ST = steam turbine.
c G = gas, C = coal, 0 = oil, L = lignite, N = nuclear, G/0 = gas or oil, C/0 =. coal or g
oil, C/G = coal or gas.
s Ok O
4 E
I l-t
t O
O O
TABLE 1.1-7 (Continued)
PLANNED GEFERATING CAPACITY FOR THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Capability
(+ added, Unit
- retirgd) b c
l' Utility Station No.
(Mw)
Type Fuel 1987 CPL
.Oklaunion 1
+ 135 ST C
CPL La Palma 4,5
- 44 ST G/O 3
I CPL Taredo
'1,2
- 38 ST C/O HL&P Undetermined 1
+ 700 ST L
1988 i
d d
H CPL Karnack 1
+ 211 ST C
co s
CPL Lon Hill 1
- 69 ST C/0 b
COA Seaholm 9
- 40 ST G
m t
I HL&P Allens Creek 1
+1130 ST N
l HL&P Undetermined 2
+ 700 ST L
i i
" The capacity indicated is the net summertime capability.
4 b ST = steam turbine.
i f
" C = Gas, C = coal,-0 = oil, L = lignite, N = nuclear, C/0 = gas or oil, C/O = coal or j
g oil, C/C = coal or gas.
d
'g Joint participation in CSW Generation Unit.
i 1
w s
a;
)
2 i
o 3
i
25.0 i
l l
O ACTUAL ESTIMATED I
20.0 a2 6
_J 15.0 B
/
H
$2
/
/
a
/
w p/
C-
,s O
/
g 10.0
/
_J
<t d
o s
/,s/
/
t 5
/
\\
5.0
/
,/
- - 3 ~ ~
' /
-- ::~.
- ~ - - - - _.....
_,3,__.,__...-.-.-.--.*~~_,__.._.
0.0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 YEAR
--- HL8P-HOUSTON LIGHTING B POWER t
f
CPL - CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 1
--- CPS -CITY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO i
6
-~
COA -CITY OF AUSTIN j
AMENDMENT 3, 10/10/8 0
- TOTAL SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS Ia 2 i. c
. (
ANNUAL PEAK DEMAND GROWTH FIGURE I.1-3
.-1
3.8 7
3.6 5
/
2
/
y 3.4
,/
~
d
/
8
- 3. 2
/
.J
,/
g 39
____.,r _ _ _ _ _ __ 7_ ;
9
/
O
/
/
,/
2.8 2.6
/
/
/
/
f g
2.4
/
/
/
a d
2.2 h
/
.J
- / s*
/
j 1
2.0 1'8 i
i e
i i
i i
I 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 YEAR
--- PLANNED CAPACITY EXCLUDING STP PLANNED CAPACITY INCLUDING STP
PREDICTED PEAK LOAD PLUS 15 % RESERVE
-- PREDICTED PEAK LOAD PEAK LOADVALUES PLOTTED AT SUMMER PEAK CAPACITY INCREASES PLOTTED ATSUMMER PEAK AMENDMENT 3,10/10/80 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS Ia 2 O
COMmRISON OF PLANNED CAPACITY AND PREDICTED LOAD FOR THE CITY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO FIGURE I.1-4
2.3 i
i i
i I
I l
1 h
i 2.1 i
s 1
~
Q' l.9
---i_____.__ _..
a wg 1.7 5
w E
j g
1.5 i
b 1.3 o
o a
E l.1
/'-
n z
V j
a.
0.9
/.
1 O.7 I
i 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 07 88 YEAR
--- PLANNED CAFACITY EXCLUDING STP PLANNED CAPACITY INCLUDING STP
--- PREDICTED PEAK LOAD PLUS 15 % RESERVE
-- PREDICTED PEAK LOAD PEAK LOAD VALUES PLOTTED AT SUMMER PEAK CAPACITY INCREASES PLOTTED AT SUMMER PEAK AMENDMENT 3, 10/10/80 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS I a 2 O
COMeAelSON Or elANNED CAeACl1Y AND PREDICTED LOAD FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN FIGURE I.1-5
O V
4.6 t
4.4 l
3:
i 2
4.2
,o l
--7 4,o j',,,,
,f' 3.8 mg 3.6 p, '.
g
_ _F
/,,
3.6
/
0-1 d
32
/
?-
/
3.0 j'
b 2.8 -/
O
/
w z
2.6 l
z
(
h 2.4 [
2.2 2.0 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 YEAR
--- PLANNED CAPACITY EXCLUDING STP PLANNED CAPACITY INCLUDING STP
- --- PREDICTED PEAK LOAD PLUS 15 % RESERVE
-- PREDICTED PEAK LOAD PEAK LOADVALUES PLOTTED ATSUMMER PEAK CAPACITY INCREASES PLOTTED ATSUMMER PEAK l
AMENDMENT 3, 10 /10/8 0 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS Ia 2 O
COMeAsiSON OP elANNeD CAeACl1Y AND PREDICTED LOAD FOR CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY FIGURE I.1-6
L 17.0 i
i i
i i
i i
i 16.0
'y
- s l
~
',e ',,-
"o 4
a' 15.0 g
a a
/
I i
w 14.0
/
I g
7 7'
W
/
~,
- /,
a.
130
_/
y f
/
,/'
y'l
/
12.0
/
./
a W
l I.O,/
./
<r N
/
10.0
/
/
9.0 i
i i
i i
i i
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 YEAR
--- PLANNED CAPACITY EXCLUDING STPS PLANNED CAPACITY INCLUDING STP"
- - - - - PREDICTED PEAK LOAD PLUS 15% RESERVE
--- PREDICTED PEAK LOAD PEAK LOAD VALUES PLOTTED AT SUMMER PEAK CAPACITY INCREASES PLOTTED AT SUMMER PEAK
- INCLUDES PLANNED CAPACITY AND AMENDMENT 3,10/10/80 CAPACITY PURCHASED FROM OTHER UTILITIES. (SEESECTION l.l.2 AND SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT TABLE I.1-2)
UNITS I a 2 O
(,/
COMi%RISON OF PLANNED CAPACITS AND PREDICTED LOAD FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY FIGURE I. I-7
28.0 i
i i
i i
i i
26.0 3:2
' ', ~.. '
)
1
.n Q
24.0 d
.. g i
I a
l- _ _ _ J a
s
.. r o
22.0
~
(" - - - -
/./
i 5
l y
c----
/,
/.
a g
20.0
/
/
./
0 2E
/
I8.0
/./*
g
/.-
'/./
/ */
- './.*
z O
z
\\J E
16.00
,/., -
l
/
14.0 I
I I
I I
I 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 YEAR
--- PLANNED CAPACITY EXCLUDING STP PLANNED CAPACITY INCLUDING STP
PREDICTED PEAK LOAD PLUS 15% RESERVE
--- PREDICTED PEAK LOAD PEAK LOAD VALUES PLOTTED AT SUMMER PEAK CAPACITY INCREASES PLOTTED ATSUMMER PEAK AMENDMENT 3, 10/10/8 0 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS Ia 2 COMFARISON OF PLANNED CAPACITY AND PREDICTED LOAD FOR THE STP PARTICIFANTS
(
FIGURE I.1-6
STP ER 1.3 CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY-i
(_)
Delay in the completion and operation of STP will result in the necessity of developing additional electric generation from fossil fuels to dependably supply the predicted increase in demand on the participants.
The STP participants have undertaken to supply reliable electric service in various Texas municipalities (Section 1.1.3.2), and delay in the completion 3
and operation of STP will compel efforts to provide such service by utilizing non-nuclear steam electric generating alternatives. Generally, during the period in which the STP units are expected to come on line, it is anticipated that gas and oil will not be available in sufficient quantities to fuel additional generating capacity comparable to STP Units 1 and 2.
The use of coal-fired or lignite-fired generating units would require locating and contracting for supplies of such fuel and the scheduling of construction of coal-fired or lignite-fired steam generating facilities. Such projects would require many years to complete and are, obviously, not a desirable method of compensating for substantial delays.
To the extent possible delays cannot be ameliorated by power from alternative fuels, then the reserve margins of the STP participants would be decreased as indicated in Figures 1.1-4 through 1.1-8.
These figures include 1984 and 1986, the years in which STP Units 1 and 2 are scheduled for commercial operation.
If both units of STP fail to supply any power in 1986 then the reserves of the utility systems of the STP participants would be seriously diminished. The consequences of reduced reserves could result in power outages and disruption of the activities which depend on this power. The range of power consuming activities in the areas served by the p-~s g
)
STP participants were discussed in Section 1.1.1.
G The economic consequences of delay would be serious. A delay in operation after the financial investment had been largely or wholly made in STP would be a very serious financial burden on the utilities and indirectly on the electric consumers. Additionally, power outages would be expensive, the expense would be distributed among the electric users.
In summary, the utilities would endeavor to provide power from alternate means; if the endeavor failed, reserve margins would decrease and the probability of power disruptions and curtailments would increase.
(.
i 1
'J 1.3-1 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
O 4
TlilS FIGURE IIAS BEEN DELETED.
O STP ER Amendment 3, 10/10/80 l
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT
""'Ts i & 2 lO INPUT-0UTPUT DIAGRAM FOR 1981 FIGURE 1.3-1
l
- O i
i i
i s
i O
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN DELETED.
i l
l 4
STP ER Amendment 3, 10/10/80 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 O
INPUT-0UTPUT DIAGRAfi FOR 1982 FIGURE 1.3-2
STP ER m
3.3 PLANT WATER USE Most water used by the plant is for heat dissipation. A cooling reservoir serves as the primary heat sink.
The cooling reservoir and associated facilities are discussed in Section 3.4.
The circulating water pumps take water from the 7,000-acre cooling reser-voir and pump it through the main condensers. There the circulating water receives the heat load given up by condensing steam. The heated water returns to the reservoir where it cools, primarily by evaporation.
Auxiliary water from the main reservoir is used for mechanical equipment cooling and sealing in the turbine-generator building. This water is supplied by the open-loop auxiliary cooling water pumps. After passage through the turbine auxiliary heat exchangers, the heated water returns to the cooling reservoir.
A major portion of the seepage water from the reservoir is collected by approximately 670 relief wells located around the reservoir at the landside toe of the reservoir embankment. The relief wells have been designed and located to discharge into existing or proposed site drainage ditches.
1 Flows from the relief well system are described in detail in Section 5.3.4.
Q321.01 A typical relief well installation is shown on Figure 3.3-2.
The two units of the plant have an essential cooling pond (ultimate heat sink) which serves as the essential water supply. Details of this pond are found in Section 3.4.
Water is drawn from the essential cooling pond by the essential cooling water pumps, and is distributed to heating, venti-
)
lating and air conditioning systems, the diesel generator heat exchanger, the component cooling water heat exchanger, and other miscellaneous coolers. The heated water is then returned to the essential cooling pond.
Water flow paths to and from the essential cooling pond and the cooling reservoir are shown on Figure 3.3-1 and quantified in Table 3.3-1.
l3 Service water taken from onsite wells is treated with sulfuric acid prior to demineralization (described in Section 3.6).
It supplies water to several of the plant closed-loop systems, the fire protection system, and l
the makeup demineralization system. Well water for the laundry and for sariltary and drinking water requirements will be flitered and chlorinated to meet Texas Department of Health standards for potable water supplies.
l1 Treatment of the sanitary waste is described in Section 3.7.
Closed-loop systems using this service water include the primary, secon-dary, component cooling, and safeguards systems. The raw water is filtered and demineralized prior to use in these systems. After filling the systems initially, small quantities of water as needed will be required on a continuous basis to replace leakage'and draining of equipment as shown on Figure 3.3-1 and noted in Table 3.3-1.
The fire protection tanks are normally filled with service water; however, provisions are made to obtain emergency makeup water from the cooling reservoir.
For potable uses, water f rom the service water supply is filtered and chlorinated.
Figure 3.3-1 shows the flow paths of the service water and Table 3.3-1 provides yearly 3
average flows.
V 3.3-1 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER Radioactive ligttid waste from leaks and equipment drains is collected and processed in the radwaste process system. The radwaste process and condensate polishing systems are described in Section 3.5.
3 Forced evaporation at normal maximum power levels (based on an 80-percent capacity factor) is approximately 19,300 gallons per minute.
i t
O l
3.3-2 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER TABLE 3.3-1 e
a PLANT WATER USE FOR TWO UNITS (Flow in gpm)
Figure 3.3-1 3
Line Number System Flow 1
Well Water Supply 133.6 l
2 RMS Seal Water 128.0 3
Water Treatment 5.6 h
4 Fire Protection Tank 0.0 t
5 Potable
.6 Sa Sewage Treatment
.5 4
Sb Leaks
.1 j
6 Demineralization 5.0 7
Secondary Plant Use 2.8 7a Intermi ttent Systems 0.0 7b Condensate Polisher 2.8 8
Reactor Plant Use 2.2 9
Building Drains 2.9 10 Radwaste 2.2
- All values and loads are based on an expected average year.
b As required.
3, :-3 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued) t
)
PLANT WATER USE FOR TWO UNITS (Flow in gpm)
Figure 3.3-1 80% Capacity 25% Capacity Line Number System Factor Factor 6
5 3
11 Discharge to Reservoir' 1.81 x 10 4.5 x 10 12 Auxiliary Cooling 23,600 23,600 6
5 13 Main Condensers 1.81 x 10 4.5 x 10 14a Well Water Supply 0
0 (Alternate) 14b Makeup From Main 550 550 Reservoir 15 Blowdown to Main 360 360 Reservoir 16 CWS Seal Water 150 35 rT 17 Main Cooling Reservoir
'\\_,)
Makeupd 18 Main Cooling Reservoir Blowd ownd 19 Diesel Generator HX 30,000 30,000 HVAC HX CCWS RX Miscellaneous HX 20 Rainfall ECP 104 104 21 Evaporation ECP 310 310
" All va. lues and loads are based on an expected average year.
C Contribution f rom lines Sa, 9, and 10 is approximately 5.6 gpm.
d The operating mode for reservoir blowdown and makeup is discussed in ER Section 3.4.2.
j-k._)
3.3-4 Amendment 3, 10/10/80 i
i
STP ER TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued)
/m\\
U PLANT WATER USE FOR TW3 UNITS (Flow in gpm)
Figure 3.3-1 80% Capacity 25% Capacity Line Numbtr System Factor Factor 22 Evaporation Main Cooling 39,200 25,000 3
Reservoire 23 Rainf all Main Cooling 15,30C 15,300 Reservoir 24 Seepage ECP 135 135 25 Seepage Main Cooling 3530 3530 Reservoir
" All values and loads are based on an expected average fear.
" Includes gross natural and forced evaporation.
O l
i O
3.3-5 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
o 3r t
C T
0 C
8 E
/
M J
A 0
Og R
1 G
R I
/
A 0
Pg D
1 1
N "w
I Sy S
3 O
E T
U 3
A 3
C r
EK R
E TN X
E R
9 OA G'
t T
E t
RT A
P T
W I
n
,Eg F
E -
T e
Rt H
AN m
F T
L d
M P
n U
E T
e O
m S
Y
+
S S
A R
E E
RS T
M E
+ OU S
E T
T A
T A
T P
C W
S W
AN 9
Y D
EA S
G G
+R A
N >
LP R
R I
iL E
H A
IS 0
T 0
L W O C G
P T
NI E
N T
E T
A N A
S O
L N P U
E M
C D O R
N C N
I O
C O
TI C
S A
S
- W Z
W P C I
C C C O
+E L
A R
N MI ED
)
E T
A N
R L
L N
E AO2 l0 x
T 0
1 Ru F
L f
IN A
2 Y
(
A R
O A
E P
RS C
i S
X T D
I R
O X
AU N
O+O P
H A H.
T A
A C R N N R
V A E C
A D
E V N S
C L t
S c
MI fP G
H
/
IN t
O E
L S
I E
U i
lIi B
D 7
M T
L I
N AG E
T TINO E
M 0 F
A NLN T
N EOO A
R SOP S
E E
C R
E 9
T T
RL N
R E A O
E g
A -
k" I
R T
T T
WY A
E A
h OU E
G IV R
W L
O A
R L
P P
L P P
O A
O E U E
WS T
V D
E E
S A
?
a' R
O v
L
-pll O
R C
l, GI L
O L
NN A
V I l R F
At G-N 0E I
M 0S A
CE R
R L
d Y
L PPU S
R T
q S
E N
R I.
E T
L E
E E
A
+AMW B
G NS AM r
G I N W
T T
1 N
AE L
A O
E XI MD R
L P
SE L
UL E
N S
E R
W AO O
WAT T
O C
C EA C
S W
/,
b d
d
{
R L
,li ll II E
l A T l l l l l
g E M
S l
i4 d
4 ii i
4 k
4 l lI I li l
1II
- ACCESS
[#/
l!ll
~
- ~1 M
ACCESS I l k lI ROAD l
1 l
l'li (tuf
(
le-p g
}
i i
II
,l_L.-____,
,________i Wr 4
j !' ! r !,w ! !w- !'! r! h-ar-*
l GANTRY CRANE II U M I E I E I E E El Tr-srRvicE AarA
- ry'g,4 ' I' g y rf KJ~-~~-
r i
IW 5 E'##
g:
3 ed.t_.l.___.L _ _I.2_4-:.h 4-d N::ld__I__.
- AnymeA"' " ^^ -
WTrim_
i x
M.
===y_g *
~
w+. m 3 x ;==g=r ;;
i dS liiif N 2:3M: SMS '
su se 45F
~
li f=r m - += s
--c m
mg m p n x
x.m m
~
r=:i.hYibf=Qpr-pg ggjgjfg1ggfgiggaEEgg 3:
.sf--id5E7N MMdMTShfiiME&hi. S.i
- .=
"+'
fsg=q y
' ; p olm IAm1: 4takfi,"ine4thlmlwM 'j k
m
- w@w*e1 em;unitmCAGWPMENT B k
p: g u U rinmunan unren ammus meu cAuTaycRmed REFUSE RT
- j J
ggyy lpd==L J
... p.1 7MMR oo PERMANENT g 3.jje M---} m My g..j L, 3..._11.
m. jl.. 4m{
cone #"
{ ] 2h-q o a o to o a c3 c-t s ta uts cd t=3 ca cm ca to ta a ca m 5 c
@g., -
,,, _ _ n_ _
_1_~. -Ww
-TRASH RAKE
[.Ebiib[b hbN[b bb k 3 bb kASH kS M=N E d w F r=F O m v=5=u w 4 =arin w in c uol
- oss o m s
- mt j-' --fiM4 y
[
}
k}}} }[_j _ =! ^
==, n. - - - - - = =..
==- = _ m & ::: =t&2=~,Q( ~ ~ ~ ~ 5'D'4h-1A?4 h?===1 E' ~L=F =~;' 4':5.55?T'MEki b:b f $ ?bb'. Y5NWbYh 5h$l???lTh$N T.: 'L^. ---.;;p_sn m=ng:_ au yn ggsm=- :=-= =- gggg [ 4['r .. N hl .bNb ^ NbE255M~[M355hI[M-h ^ W JN? ]$5&? Y~ ??$$5 N 1En$$$i? W ' N&K =*~=5% <y I l
- ,mm3 t
5 I STP ER
- jf_3SL, 12 4 _
66 l g y 4 TRY CRATE [sanygy l l aousec,roR m -CHAIN LINK ELECTRICAL j w)Rt E FENCE EQUF'WENT b 3CREEN 4 ASH f TRA3M RAAE O EL 2'O TOP OF *ER h CEL 210 _ pm i f EL H2 2 'ia 134 sypass npt -STM SLOT N -138KU TPANSFORMER j - $)- M H ganar m 87N- ~I S y L EL H _'
- ELHooT. _.._^4 JL_.. - -
gklf6L__ + 100* DIA Y: l
- g P M E FISH
~ 4 E 2n,,/ SW'" J (Tautec l- .r ~ EL Heo) \\RPRAP WATER SCR.EN q SECTION A-A i - AUXILIARY TRANSFORMER l / T1>1 =.. y / !l N =y l w ,. = L..) PERMANENT m. p -{ I$],[ COFFERDAM g CELL d H[h C _ TRASH RAKE. nhei UNITS 1 &' 2 i -:y w _..= _p_.-
;=79 :. y a ; 12
- g,,j g
- Mh i
RESERVOIR MAKEUP l @h m - - - " h m = =_.+.wz2 J FACII.ITIES i 2:=.=s c = : g u s s a = ss= i I FIGURE 3.4-2 i .c 41 Amendment 3, 10/10/80 D** 9 T.. 9 l dW w.- 's fd aa
STP ER ChAPTEk 4--ENVIRONMEhTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION, 7_s ' PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION (%, Y CONTENTS Section Page 4.1 Site Preparation and Plant Construction 4.1-1 4.1.1 Land Resources 4.1-1 4.1.2 Water Resources 4.1-9 4.2 Transmission Facilities Construction 4.2-1 4.2.1 General Overview 4.2-1 4.2.2 Effects of Construction on Plant and Animal Life 4.2-1 4.2.3 Ecologically Sensitive Areas 4.2-1 4.2.4 Number and Length of New Access and Service Roads Required 4.2-2 4.2.5 Erosion Directly Traceable to Construction Activities (Power Transmission Facilities) 4.2-2 4.2.6 Effects on Agricultural Productivity 4.2-2 4.2.7 Mitigating Measures to Limit Environmental Impact During Construction 4.2-7 4.3 Resources Committed 4.3-1 4.3.1 Plant Construction Material Commitments 4.3-1 [si 4.3.2 Land Commitments 4.3-1 4.3.3 Vegetation and Wildlife '4.3-2 4.3.4 Commitment of Water Resources 4.3-2 ) i m w/ 4-1
STP ER TABLES Number Title Page 4.1-1 Results of Construction Sound Level Survey. November 1977 4.1-13 4.1-2 Comparison of 1976,1977, and 1978 Traf fic Counts 4.1-14 4.2-1 STP Route Sections 4.2-4 4.2-2 Acreage of Woodlands Affected by Transmission Corridors 4.2-5 4.2-3 Summary of Land Classification Along the Modif *.ed Transmission Line Routes 4.2-6 4.3-1 Major Construction Materials 4.3-4 0 0 4-11 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER \\ /~~x CHAPTER 4 I N.J' ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION, FLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION 4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION Any construction activity, regardless of the size or the extent of mitiga-tive measures employed, will result in some degree of environmental impact or change.- The impact may be temporary or permanent. Temporary impact implies that some form of restoration of the area is possible; permanent impact implies 'a change in the area for the life of the f acilities. Environmental impact may be further classified as adverse or beneficial. It may be beneficial to the extent that the change creates an improved environment. It may be adverse to the extent that irretrievable or irreversible changes have occurred which make the resulting environment less desirable. The intent of this section is to address STP construction activities, to identify mitigative measures, and to assess the type and extent of the resulting impact. The construction activities discussed in this section commenced in September 1975 following issuance of the Limited Work Authorization and will continue until commercial operation of Unit 2 in February 1986. Construction schedules for both units are provided are pro-l3 vided on Figures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2. p
- (,)
4.1.1 LAND RESOURCES The land resources affected by construction activity refer primarily to the nominal 12,300-acre site area. Site area construction will be addressed in terms of construction methods and mitigative measures as well as the effects on vegetation and wildlife. In addition to the site area, however, impacts resulting from construction activities must also include the effects on surrounding areas in terms of transportation, noise, aesthetic, and social impacts. The presence of construction workers and attendant equipment during the period of peak construction will also be examined. 4.1.1.1 Construction Activities and Mitigative Measures Construction facilities at the STP site are categorized as either station-related facilities or construction support facilities. Some standard construction practices which apply to all areas of construction are also . presented in the following discussion. ,o ( ) 4.1-1 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER 4.1.1.1.1 Standard Construction Practices 1. Runoff and Erosion Control During the initial phases of construction, existing vegetation was removed to facilitate the grading of the site to design elevations. The magnitude of clearing and grading activities required a significant effort to control runoff and erosion. Generally, surface drainage from cuts, fills, spoil areas, etc., was controlled and directed to appropriate treatment areas by ditches, dikes, or berms. Drainage ditches were excavated at gradients which made their sides less conducive to erosion. In an effort to further minimize the transportation of suspended solids to natural waterways, the following measures were implemented: (1) construc-tion areas were cleared of vegetative cover on an as-needed basis, (2) runof f f rom undisturbed areas was allowed to flow naturally, and (3) parking, shop, and storage areas and long-term construction roads were stabilized with lime, gravel, shell, and/or limestone. 2. Dewatering Because of the need to excavate below the natural water table, dewatering was required in the area of the power block, makeup structures, spillway discharge structure, circulating water structures, and major pipelines. Dewatering has caused drawdown in the pervious zone in the immediate area around each facility; however, it was limited to the shallow aquifer which is used locally ror livestock watering in areas offsite. Dewatering does not affect the shallow aquifer. Dewatering for Units 1 and 2 commenced in November 1975 and will extend through October 1980. Discharged water from this system is directed into l3 drainage ditches for use in dust control, embankment processing, soil-cement production, and well-jetting, while the remaining flow is directed into the Colorado River. The zone of dewatering influence has extended approximately to the site boundary. Once design and construction require-ments are satisfied, the groundwater around the f acility will be raised to normal elevations in a controlled manner. 3. Excavation Excavated materials were hauled to designated stockpile, spoil, or fill areas. Suitable material excavated from the power block and construction support facilities was used to build up the shop area, plant roads, and the railroad. The balance of the material was spoiled and graded while plans w.re made to seed the spoil with grasses to minimize erosion. Excavated material from the reservoir was used either to construct the embankment and dikes or spoiled. 4. Vehicle Washdown Wastewater from washing vehicles and equipment is normally collected in basins located in the concrete production area and in the reservoir and 4.1-2 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER -(~N these acreages are relatively minor percentages of the acreage under (,) similar use in the county. 4.1.1.2.2 Disturbance of Wildlife: Alteration and Loss of Habitats. Dis-ruption of the normal behavior patterns of f auna will occur as a result of the movement of men and equipment during peak periods of site preparatiod and construction. Noise could interfere with the nesting behavior, antipre-datory behavior, and general intraspecific auditory communication of some wildlife species (Ref. 4.1-3). Where possible, periods of peak co..struc-tion activity have been timed to coincide with less sensitive phases in the life cycles of the more'important animals on the site. The greatest effect on wildlife populations, however, is due to alteration and losses of habitat. Most losses of habitat have been in vegetative types typical of upland areas, principally cropland, pasture, and the interlacing system of canals, ditches, and sloughs. Minor losses have been experienced in the bottomland habitats, principally forests. 4.1.1.3 Effects on Local Populations Peak construction periods are projected to occur f rom the fourth quarter of 1979 through the first quarter of 1983, requiring a total peak construction work force of 4,650 personnel. The construction work force ia projected to 3 decline to approximately 3,000 by the fourth quarter of 1983, and from tL_n to approximately 1,300 and 650 personnel in the fourth quarters of 1984 and 1985, respectively. (D \\l Implications of STP construction on nearby populations and their environs are examined in terms of noise, traffic, impact on the educational system, impact on housing markets, and accessibility to natural or historic landmarks. 4.1.1.3.1 Construction Noise. Land surrounding the STP is primarily agricultural; within a 10-mile radius of the site, there are no incorpo-rated communities and the nearest unincorporated settlement is approxi-mately 3 miles southeast on Selkirk Island. The 1970 population figures indicate that only six persons reside within a 2-mile radius of the con-tainment structures. In an effort to identify the impact of noise from construction activities, a sound survey was conducted in November 1977. Sound measurements were taken at the seven locations shown on Figure 4.1-3. The results of the survey are presented in Table 4.1-1. 4.1.1.3.2 Traffic. FM 521 is a two-lane paved aighway that currently serves as the only access road to STP. FM 521 intersects with State Highway 60 on the east and State Highway 35 on the west. State Highways 60 and 35 and FM.521 serve as the major carriers of vehicular traffic to and from the site. Alternative routes to and from the site consist of several f a rm-to-ma rke t roads which allow access to FM 521. These alternative routes are FM 2668, FM 2078, FM 3057, FM 459, FM 2853. and FM 1095. p i V 4.1-7 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER Road traffic counts conducted by the Texas Department of Transportation indicate a significant increase in 24-hour annualized traffic counts over the roads in proximity to STP. The traffic counts are summarized in Table 4.1-2. Several measures have been taken to mitigate traffic congestion in the vicinity of the STP. A manually controlled traffic light at the main 1 entrance cases traffic flow into and out of the plant area. In addition, Q340.05 construction is scheduled on split shifts with staggered working hours between major site areas. The Texas Highway Department has installed traffic lights at the corners of State Highway 60 and Whitson and Marquite Streets in Bay City. A flashing signal t.as installed at the intersection of FM 2668 and FM 3057. Recent improvements to the road system include the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Baywood Drive and 3 Highway 60 in Bay City and Highway 35 and FM 457 (Ref. 4.1-11). Additionally, Highway 35 from FM 1468 east for approximately 3 miles has been widened to four lanes, and Highway 71 in Matagorda County has been strengthened and widened (Ref. 4.1-11). A survey conducted in August 1978 indicated that 52 percent of the employee cars driven te the site carried Q340.05 two or more passengers. In 1976, river traf fic consisted of 352 barges per year (Ref. 4.1-1), which served industrial plants upriver from the STP. Barge shipments to the STP during the construction period are expected to cause a minor inconvenience to people using the river for recreation or commercial fisheries. Rail traffic to the STP has begun and will continue through the remainder of the construction period. Inconvenience from the rai.1 road traf fic will be limited to the residents of Buckeye where the spur ties into the main line and along relocated FM 521 where the track crosses the roadbed. In both cases, the cause of the inccnvenience will be trains blocking cross-traffic. 4.1.1.3.3 Housing. A survey of construction work force personnel con-ducted in February 1980 indicated that approximately 73 percent of the respondents to the survey identified a place of residence in Matagorda County, with approximately 36 percent of these Matagorda County residents 3 having residency in Bay City and approximately 25 percent having residency in Palacios (Ref. 4.1-15). The Bureau of the Census estimated the popula-tion of Matagorda County at 27,720 persons for July 1, 1975, and 13,567 persons and 3,579 persons for Bay City and Palacios respectively for the same period (Ref. 4.1-5). Recent Bureau of the Census population estimates 3 report the July 1, 1977, population of Matagorda County at 30,998 persons, and 14,999 persons and 4,127 persons for Bay O m M Palacios respectively (Ref. 4.1-12). A survey of housing units in Matagorda County by the Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments conducted with the help of local officials identified a total of 5,316 housing units in Bay City and 1,237 housing unite in Palacios for 1976 (Ref. 4.1-6). The vacancy rate for these total units as reported within the same survey for these two jurisdictions was O percent. Within the rural area of Matagorda County, the same survey identified a total of 3,633 housing units with a vacancy rate of 4.6 percent. O 4.1-8 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER Surveys conducted during 1977, 1978, and the first part of 1980 indicate l3 7s ( ) that several new units of housing have been constructed, or are in the \\- # process of being constructed within the Bay City /Matagorda County area. The Deputy Tax Assessor-Collector of Bay City reported that in 1976 building permits were issued for 94 single-family homes and 306 apartment units, while in 1977 building permits were issued for 132 single-family homes and 180 apartment units (Ref. 4.1-7). For 1978, building permits for 147 new single-family homes, 18 townhouses, and 286 apartment units were issued in Bay City alone. During 1979, approximately 91 permits were issued for single-family homes, and permits for 53 multifamily units were issued (Ref. 4.1-13). Bcy City is the only governmental entity requiring building permits for construction. A survey of building contractors in 3 January of 1980 identified a significant number of new housing units to be constructed outside of Bay City. New housing appears to be keeping pace with the demand, although the housing market is described as " tight" (Ref. 4.1-15). 4.1.1.3.4 Public Education. In December 1977, the five independent school I districts within Matagorda County all reported additional capacity for new students. The Bay City and Palacios Independent School Districts combined had a capacity in 1977 to absorb approximately 1,000 new students. In the Bay City Independent School District, the largest school district 3 l within proximity to STP, as of October 1979, enrollment was reported to be 4,201, or an increase of 5 percent (201 pupils) over the period of December 1977 to October 1979 (Ref. 4.1-14). (v l l l l l l l l O . i ) \\_ / 4.1-8a Amendment 3, 10/10/80
I Ii O 1 i l r I 1. t l t i 1 i TilIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY l I LCFT BLASK r i T i 4 i i l i I 1 I .l t 6 1 1 i \\ O i I i
STP ER REFERENCES Section 4.1: i 4.1-1 U. S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 1976, l l Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1976 Part 2, Waterway and Harbors Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System, and Antilles, pp. 177. 4.1-2 -.1970 Census of Population - Number of Inhabitants, Texas, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 4.1-3 Memphis State University, Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animalo, prepared for the Environmental Protec-1 tion Agency (1971) pp. 13-206. i 4.1-4' Socioeconomic survey conducted during October 1977 by Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, Texas. 5 4.1-5 U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, i Population Estimates and Projections, P-25, No. 691., [ l April 1977, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. J 4.1-6 Houston-Galveston Area Council, Housing Conditions and Needs in the H-GAC Region, November, 1976, Houston, Texas. 4.1-7 Telephone convertition between Clinton Twilley, Brown & 3 Root, Inc., and Martha Erie, Matagorda County Deputy Tax Assessor-Collector, January 9, 1978. 4 j 4.1-8 NUS Corporation, An Assessment of Socioeconomic Conditions at STP, March 1978. 4.1-9 DELETED i ~ 4.1-10 Telephone conversation between Irv Samec, NUS Corporation, and H. Hausman, Texas Department of Highways and Public 2 Transportation, December 14, 1979. 4.1-11 Telephone. conversation between Irv Samec, NUS Corporation, and-Hartin Brown, Texas Department of Highways and .Public. Transportation, December 14, 1979.- 3 4.1-12 Telephone conversation between Irv Samec, NUS Corporation, and Helen Cater, U.S. Bureau of the Census, December 14, 1979. l 4.1-13 Telephone conversation between Irv Samec, NUS Corporation, 'and.Mrs. Edison, Bay City Building Department,
- December. 14, 1979.
b ' : \\g i E i 4.1-12 Amendment 3, 10/10/80 I r p
STP ER 4.1-14 Telephone conversation between Irv Samec, NUS Corporation, and Rose A. Baum, Bay City Independent School District, December 14, 1979. 3 s 4.1-15 NUS Corporation, Revised Assessment of Socioeconomic } Conditions at the South Texas Project, April 1980. i l i l 1 1 O l l l t O 4.1-12a Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER TABLE 4.1-2 COMPARISON OF 1976, 1977, AND 1978 TRAFFIC COUNTS 4 1976 24-hr 1977 24-hr 1978 24-hr* Annualized Annualized Annualized 3 Location Counts Counts Counts liighway 60 South of FM 2668 2,420 3,280 3,390 liighway 35 North of FM 521 2,160 2,890 2,900 Highway 35 South of FM 521 2,460 3,060 3,620 FM 521 and liighway 35 920 1,700 1,650 FM 2668 North of FM 521 870 1,230 1,190
- Data from Ref. 4.1-10.
l 4.1-14 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
t977 l E78 l 19 79 l 19tiO Ol Nl 0[ J l F !M! A!Ml J j J j A i S !O !N l0 j J j F iM i A ! Mi J ! J l A [ S l 0 l N i 0 ! J l F l M l A j M l J (_J ! A j L tmurmsen p. _ a==== =y=me t _. _ _,. _ g s =eso - i
- m..
mimaav eM ...~.m,-..-e uT*YN
- ';,*q"g'"*
g M ~I r -- 7 T j_ O' 3, p.ee _ = ee u e ...u 1 o-, 4,....i... -.... ,.4 . !] a _ T1..x e n23.f.
- ,y x.
a ne _& es s m. m. e ..,..n s. .g a_ y, y e e I *. O t I g / .3., q_,,_,. _ i m.,.m-.2,..m.,.. g. f m.e-en a7 an enn e 11
- i ma
=s '=.==*e an =.a w--
- *, am e u m mm.e. _ --, sam.s.n.e asser
.e
- 4...,,4 r.,s.. *
..m am a. .. an_a s.._. - _1'.*** ?M.** ' f l""*_*'fr?a. p. *m'*" ?" or a s_g
- ~
e.rwo mr., ec.e e.. .t 'a T. ...s m. _ m a.- _ r 1s' eaAi "'48
- " ' e4 %
_.e==._-.j - g*3. ' t, t,, ar I u-.e.nes c * - w r e_sen.e.a e om.. ar. s. m g. .--_.g y,, e .a-9 4 ea - s r ,,,,,,,,e. m- . a _... 3 l a 1, i iq, ' ....I... 1 1 _..._m " = ' - d*r .-....m..m,. O i, l +..... .e s. ( g m. u w.- a a msn 2.n eta,__t
- s. em A 6
..4.. i. me__ c.4, angere s a.=>f.,w g ams opers .m,. . -.... ~. -- ,.w...r....v.- --._,I .. g *' I ._._.mm....m. ,4 _ es=' ka ow .m .r rc 1 L - ' - r
- =e 1 -_. -.... ___.-.~.-.s C
_ n e s a - mas se.e.us e,s ee p.gg an,y s.. 2,,,_,,.. ' 1 w, .. w : a n .e." }$. q -r- .--..,...n. t_ .-.m. cm.....,....;... G.. .- _. _ _. -e.-.. .,m. .w 1- .. o e,..= - s =e se s em -E a 't**=c -. u a=== *;a s.se 2, ._....-..m. .u a e e __ _ n _A 2 Av Jet E kD**18'.d b f. 2.-- =".d a 94
- m. nasa..n/
r-e ._m. ..mLm.m Lm -gg g , 8C eta t serm e6st* a
- ^ " " "
v s ansmaana,ews ._..3._'.".* g &na.! **w= ,e e ni vn g,,
- 4.. _q mamme
. _ _ _. __.me>4mA y.^2 3s A s-=~ 3?, e d. ts..ns.np m 6 i .=ha. E' m_ -"'_..._.'_'*'p-- e ..___s'.~. .u* f."2M"hJ 'a' 89 BR M jjg#, -^* '--**'**"*8****"*' ^ " r..._._..% m 4 .'.A g,g m-..m_._3 ._.....r., _ _ eae,.as sum,.e. U.C -4 a R y a ,6.TaMh_am.asse *%__m{@ d5 E**. esAM 4 i '.W...i r i.. ....m, ty,,. - - - _'. cer..A._ 4 .*f"* **$?'8 AL I *8"'* 88885 3-"'*^-'*7_ M '.% r s,,>= -.. _ m . m.m .s_ g e6 esse e6=*a** mas an.eme er F-. - 5a*
- 5*La""**
'=*.ma e em e t MC*" a.?*_J'**' y= y ' = sat om as*fu e ~ J "* L**N*.2dL_ a 3, _ MCla' ar"k*1*sMiPJaa 85 a a ma a. A NJuwt % *WiaL. ate.' i g e + r=.v'-=tw a m 'v">e l'aa- _._saa= y== a.1 g gh +e o., amem s. Unr*=f 'afff.*. 6.Emr.af M.' = c **'! ***.sumemasepan' ehe MBe:aa.4 [ a . 'A.M:.g a a _ fags pge mengtaggauntapojan.gm egse=f=o g *.am sW_eione w* e.. ._.?3R une ur ma.ii _ I g o ve. s"*' '* t-a.m=
- as e ms a==
sunene e,mone 1 s t*! ".8888* *"*"%**W***_M ef' man *pierg, sen er nrpiagra .wie omr'eg. . 3.fo* *as n_wt r. r f .w b.=e ',?.*g*85.***'***"..**_*""'*'*
- 4. _ j 3.,
===m r y-I, w=.e *as e asee y , es==fi a _m__e_e es s .. * < < = ^ s.ow em ses 1 l i
- d
>r-d'*'"" " ' "7* tS'8'* ~ - s. e-o a <* m-,wnn t_. o %rna =me==nert" .J* d="r_* ~'"*W %,_, pus r.ne. '* *" 3..... Emwei t v==.w=mi .a= ra '* mN__ s _'m se r r rw .e_ o- =i % em-m.e, a s-.m e a r. ver.3. s.......... ns.s-n.. olo me,c.~ ~ s 2 "w "'-- GE Mmdim_yr..g,= r,,p s _ye wme_ e i _._.m g ,ut
- yk *j.
g,g am, e_ yy n, mm. e-ar, ne,5 ,._m Y. rer.y + an.g amr.si.fe*m we< = an;me_q,.'p . p> &- T., h,,h. p...., G is, e w.. .=. n,-, 'b- .s arm r, e .., - ~ ,-- - w.3 =muw / .. - - ".-p - m'"i m.2=U**Trr* g w f,,,g.mg, ^[Wi { '*"**"c*' atr y"p"* =**
- 2 e
.--a a
==
.e _ - - - - - = ~. 3 e. pe_ u wn.pu r 3 _casenv1.arw== m s , ' u n.ia-ema r sJe_sy =witm pN= =miger.s s j ..e a i g ' Mana*/R= MJ e *M M, e
- ie.
- s. m.e em une
@ d4As.neameh wNeJMas a2aed ur%, e =v. s ,a s _.lrm sk e a.aat. gsp, smug g p.re egewer s as t oeess.y g m.m
. ne g m g
_g g,g T tyM asM._MmL'.&huomM 't O namwn maruwwi p-~ y___.___ m ww -.i .maum e _"w u - -.=fm e rum.~r._pm.aw. ,8 L:'*I18".*~1 ** '59 pA ..g m ya#..,. - -.m. = c ,N .__.p .m.an. anas = - - - - - a g en.s ass ma m aa .=6a m _=*='=**'w. w ew e'.T ="._*r***"' _ __. _ry._ ._ _. _ _.+ * *
- rq-m% a esin L __
3 g. g p 3_ 7- . __4 _ --- -- m 7_ _ _m.,m o p, f m.. m. ._i p,. ...s, t p ma t a -.-_.9 mm.~_..-._... .m~. m ~. m_=.us.ana 6 ~.e _e: -rI m r. - - y... -__) - - m.,.._..m. m,... w. m _. -e ...e.._. K' --s __.._-.___,m,. .A m,. ..c.. o
- p.. g y
.m. ..,,,.m., a u,e. -q.ya y g;,7v.. - s ,.g... v w O i N ! D l J l F i M I A ! M ! J ! J l A i S l O ! N l D t J l F l. M I. 4 !. M i J i J j A i S I. O f N i D i J i, F I. M i A,I M j J [ J l A j ! ,l 1977 i 1978 1979 i 1980 =ra se. ar ecs ..r.w 4L"'*M E*efl%Whti %8'W '"4 "" h 15p Wm 8t.mt S Tine E teme*uese 1teachipr e tet _ ---h afx" dtV*'9t . _._. _ _. O NY. ~) -. - - e***'**"""""* '"*M"#***.***8"'+8*** P
- ~~~~=~ ~ *~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1 ../ ,...c. c. . g, ywa,.c;;,*= e -=== - - *u=-
===... ...r =
- y;r;/p""**"-
-=Aeoo a -.,.w.,..-,..en--uni.. u. Lep.t*A s
l G88 i L 82 i 1983 1 1984 p)lN 10 t J lF lC i A N j J l J j A! $ j O IN !D iJ ! F iM ! A iM ! J i J j A ! S IO I N ID !J lF !M ! A !M iJ ! J i Ai S !O lN i0 j J iF IM! A iM iJ 'J __.o____ _=.=.~.o.. ,() q gi Q,\\' ~ N O P vw - e r -- m_. -1 .......,~ n _4 6b D (- J a I I / l l e-.. ..w.r r. 4 y ,r,;*.; 4 l r { mu mm n.utsahma % y.. _ Z.O o y u m.,,, m, r7-a
- .-,;~ -,
I .r..~,... e. g W 'duu WD ~^ . -. = =..
- * ~
- _
_;m.-==._., e => m _sae % 'i _,_ g - t. g". "_.;.......,..... ' _.. 0-----*""*'"*~"~-"~'fr~-- s _ _ _ _,l. ,e + 7 ,y in L
- f _ f.. -=. w.~. 6. n m.... m t
. m.w --m s e ae _g _ _ _ l at tMMM 'L Q y _'1_ _... m t-y't w =2w.aue?= s? i _..__ '. 3 _. y - -... { _ 4.g .. A -(.. .... _.., f m.
- n o a.*a l
m - t 5 [ T'"*< ...._m _e-, _.=. J r e.L3 f ] 3
- =
1 e L___ i y ._ _ _ i __ m., i g f A 4. i
o>---
l . am r-- I w/ 4
- ,.,,,,...ca-----------
p. a..% - - u .m _____s ,a d, o~ m. i 1' \\l n. 9,j j,4,jb lll i p 2 g___u. 2 o ,j. - = =.. = = =9.,.,./ /// < wr p _ _ _____o ,t _= reag i- / ..._o M g --.- - - -- - y: I j, aa . i.' jaf,/ ( q _ we'*"e m',* w =as=____._.___p_ p i i 3 l h ' ' /O', ___ hf., r=* W_t== ^gi ____ ____. __. p.bs__ 3*=* w t*. m = - 1_____,___.____j_4 9.. ________h} U 6 _.___....__.__g.__=r_=a.~.=f=3u?-= _ _. 4 j
- 7 p--
n-m-4 - - - _.. _ _., ; i - 5 $.; - l -o , g,,_,
- e..,...,..
(f"- M" t ?'* 'Q. 'c. yy.-_ i.,.,,.. o., . _f .. y ____ e - w" s e==ch.,.*. * =.=__ re mm. y, g.-.m - n ___ ,..9. _2 _ __ 's l m_ 3 _g ,_s-----.:.m p_ i .gy_.._____- e r = *vn p___ _._ .__..a,,,, ____u,. ...,.-.%._me,, .w___-', e __2==n *=t _., i.---w=- O-r i _.....___.__w~.=
===1 ere =3r e nt r n. 4 [ uma t t i i i ,. p w mes:ra g _ _ _ = ' - va *= e. r= 0 _ _____ o A> A Q'.**i""*'-G,ij e _, t ... mv.s.. -* 4 _. ..,.rar.<=.ar @.; _ =! e - -i~- ~~t _ _ _ _ ;_ (f _, _4 !qa '?~%, __ s q _._..,' .,.m, 4 .-..c.. gm. ..e. r.., A =~ae.--... 7.____- -+.-__..Wm_ ..T:""*.J*i... ',...,.... r 8
- = ' * ~.
,d q -,,....,... - --~r----v i ..m o,. m g,g ' '. ,v fm m m. f,. _ ( _._...e aaan~ i*t m, m.*_______ 4 .i .i e.iems ..t_ s i W, - - _.- _ a __. w s.,.h a=~~
- p *
- e * -m % -
^ -. rw -.w.
**'a
,, me
- w _ _.=g 3 s-.
3 f 9 Mat t '**' ** **P * * 3 J .~tu_. _.. _ _, _ _ _ _ _. _.. _ e-_,_ 1__. - - _g.. J ...._m.y.__,: _...,_A___.___j_______9 T t .._.____A -~=**"--=*-*=~a='e=* a .s ea. _ *. & = '==~ _ _. _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. _ _ _ = __ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _A yd== ____-_-_._._-.7___ + '~ ~ n'm _ __ - p.. m.,,.O_. s. g-- -i .y. n r -c. _ __. _ _ 4. _.. _.. _ _.w__._____ J P W*'. ~ Le":.~. t L~'* W * " ""' ~, . v -,~m4 ~en e..., y AMENDMENT 3 Em *'em.- .._______.o___ 7.- q 10/10 / 8 0 %OiNjoiJjF;MlAjM!J!JiAj$ ! OjN{DlJiF,MiA.M: J!J: A!S;0iNiD!J F !M A!M !JiJiA'S!O]N D t 1 19 81 19 8 ? 1983 ~" ~ i SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT
- =
SCHEDUL - E O PWR r i UNITS 1 & 2 riUCLEAR UtilTS - UtilT 1 y i FIGURE 4.1-1
.,_,m.,., _,_.. _,.d, _ _ m m~7 -. 9 ,--.._4. 4_ _ _ _ _ _.., . Y.a< !._ m... _. _. m, I . 9 ) ; f _j i s. L$ f r.! r. ! U l ; .. u m.__.' V l _L.I M I_J m L t,_n.. _ a i 4 _.m._-._.,._ ..~_t. . m. r~. _ - r t 6t*,, Y,e .t. m . < e m.,, n,e., s- . 7. y) ~, >. _. _ _. O ,e,n,,,on g m.. ~- -... ~--..... ... ear s.a.i= ,.o.m...,r...,m.. we r.n ._a_-*. y_,.. .m.....D.....~_......__.._._.go., ..o -.a-- w.? L._'___y __ ~ -
w wm~.' mm[s.
c. C"~~~"''''''"*'.'.V*'"''li ' C "'*'s " N -' a 1 <+.e
- e. p e.u.ieq3..__..orws m u.o ~ ~ ~
q.e m.r._; m. 7.- w -m - m_o.~_.__. opa. i _g .o..... 7.-.......44...~ ,,, Jm_,,w,., p,,,py g y _
- p q - +.yf cpr
- 2 te.-_o.qcn.=~ 9.--o. -..
.....m_o. 1 w s ~n y < z
- y.
9, C uwm x.,m.au.w a0 -..... 7. 0..-. % ..,.. ~., a__pey _3e .t.. ,g g, y l ,g..~. w..~... g.9_.m ....n~.e ....en p eu.e A ds *T -.,.-. N * ** i **
- wm a
.s , 43 .c. s.. s.m e * 'm y .gs: e s 2.. .Q *a
- s. e i e..e.
_s A;earg g,.n = m.:f.3 t.L L*._.*g
- 151'1_f * =a '* *.
S'*** pgLL., g.,s .. -,..~ -.. 7 ~m p ..n t*g n. ~2 ~ ~1-m 4.g.* = * ** * .g) -.. 3 L m....- m. e r _ es.._ _. _.. _~__. 3f _y_._...._..,..... Q-., 7
- y..-.....-. -,.
......_......e..._ __ a t.n-6 a m 3- -. ^ e....% e.... r MM_h' ,.r .sr n.c M.*. 4 4 .e,c, h 4 m.,', m ,m y %_2nsuma-um a m _o.. u m. 2.m. r o......,
- .p
.m - ~. -.. mm.e .. y.,. ~ c g, ~ ~ v m.==- pp.... ..g~..c--s-., .,._..o s. _L ~., . L, .mm 3 C _ .._..C.'.-.."* . T. -p '" ' 0""'r*''O-n ~ a. O.- T.
- p. x.:n~x.~..:.-.. c x
..~9.; ,p w., .g._1, ~,.. n. g .o ...-_mme.w ~ ~. e. ~~~..7 4 n:. _.......,...4,.. . I. ~..,. c...._ g.Cy""~,.'._."..*."~"3.____,T--_----------, -e w.. O ,.o2u:.up-m p n - o - 3.2:o u e. - ~ w -~- ? _. .2-e .,.~-.,-....Or,-.n~..v .O--4.....,-.....c. = ,....,. ~ ,,4 , v,., ,C.,~../ en anatop a d d.t*38. N *M.L. D i re s i l
- w. me.r
.e, e s.e **..e j e A a' " " ~ ~ ~ ' ' C
- c -.-,1
- m. O. #
s g n.. .g y 4 7.,....c. c .,n..u .m ,e3, ,e.... n. g_,v. i .. O ' * "* C G I M, '~ W'"*~r" N **'""* .. m r. t" ...<..V, p'l 1 l ...y._ .m,'."m eC%.
- p...,
g _g,. 1 .:.m.. 3._____,s. O. ,,,, g< ... ~ ,t_.,, ..o....~.. .m mo r.. -a, .. v.... O,,,,_,___;. , *>r, a..~i.e.r..a m %- y c... -..... m. Q( u c _ p.- -.. .~".~s.% t**'*'*1** O^"".,..~-**~~".~.~='+='*.mei==n 3.m- -.w- - m- - _.- n ~.~-- p.
- e se
..,.,..u,... g ._,,._.. y, m.C'i.m'. '.'"' '* g*.. .'y;.y&,. ' C '* * ( ___.,_.._'~~Y.'~'~,','_'3_m _x_,__,
- m. e 7
._.u ..... }5,, _u _..., _,.,, _ s _ _ _ anQ_ - i 1 c. ~.-...J, L.s i . ~ ~, p. a -......Tp,O,,.___,,_, m. j 9 N - ..m...O j g. m.. ~. g,.. ~.. ~... ~...-.s.. w. m m.... N, ' ' *"v n, ~u m-. O.mw.mm. O. ,. g__ u -,-,. 3_..u w,..c... g,,,, m.- m m e.- -_ g_p,ma m_...-, 3...._,,; i yee ..u. s.=- a w.... g........-o...p,,,_,, g--...g.,..,...., y4.. ~..,. p ~*C_._.._.....~,..._..... y ss - *" "''=......... ..s........ ......._......._...,s_,,,,,___,,,",,',,,,..T____,,___ Ou-*
- ~ ~ "
"""O--J egne.m oo ~.. = wg e.c = .p.gn,. p. mew ....a, t - b.- g'--g.s.ays.4 . w;.. ian 4.. n a*.a..i s O,,, j 3 -m~4+ Y um m, m ...e a ya.***
- ay
......;en... .........C Min ws. arg.i e ung........__.'_"'_____...., ( g g g. ; ..e .4 o. = g q O .....u." ' ' * * * ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' C"*'.~.'.W..=*.y".r.O..l* l o .v.. l - - - - - -.--- -.c -. w.v.n. -. n.-.,.., ..auw. .. a - m a x..m r e r, e.g.c. 3. nef. r, r w iI,,,,*___,___.________,,__,
- -f
( j ' m. c *,..n.gn.m.. + m e, c. ,. e I..Y. .s~.. _ ........_____.S Y I 4 i na. i 4 m ort. g.g., t D"*D D [ DC b., "3 J l A l 5 l 0 l N l 0 I J l F l V l A l V l J I J l.A l 5 l 0 l N l 0 J [F l 9l A lw l J l J l A l 5 hl Nl0 JlFlU AlW}J}JlAlSl0 i9 ts i v.s o 9ei i982 am um ams .-~+ 9. m ma%..,f%.. _ _ _.,,,3- ,. =.,....... . m..,. ....,= n
- ,.n ~ -
7 .__ - _q'y: n:_u.9_ _._-- G. m,y, n. m, .a ma.m .. i.~.- A
-.,-,.3, ~ .,~,,..., _...,,. _}'. w4 w i4.. m. _._6.i 4__ - u_.s.>. ml.,. L .a t ' u _' L _' u, e ' >uJ.L_. ,Ir,.i t _,. f.. Y._L. _u. _ _a.,2 m'F V L?u i 10 _i__s t I J. s 1 4 _ -a in ' 'Q l N >0 t a D m q'D 1 L d o s '-f sj . SL A c ,e l - j _O 9__._*..- - : m. -.___._.n . e 2.u ; n Ar_T f y --_mei?* m. ..,... _ - _ _. _ _. Q -.O.,, -._._.- w y_- T q ~-~ L ' - ' = r p __ s
- n.,y ay v :.-~ 2-n.r:q. - y.
_.g_____ __4y e ._m.,.._,.. __. _.m ~...,.... s . f........ _....,. ~..._.___..__. ._p.., g ...cya _ -m r _o... # O r.. p -n - ~ m.= q =. c w s. -
- n. g.
i l l . w. - e v ; - - ~1. :. ---n. ~__7_; _f .. ~ ~. ~. i ':_-_3._.,.-.c..., ,y __.- y . w m-. 7.,3,j ---L. '. b ..m v i i N o ~- s, f, .m. _____-_._-.1i .} '[, l (_.m.c [ [., 4. a p._. g y-i o.__; av(e a.__..___., _.I..______ -} _m-~. .s o <.._ i ~ s g r g . g >, -s .s .b L. 3 ~.. ~. -,... . /,p r, 7 gym - i - A ~ m t r ff...- -... M; ] / 2.r.. )..- ' ", 7 / =,-, ;. .,h i s ,. _ _ __ o. _ _ ;p, m ._'__g g l '< ' lf = y ~..-- t 1 4_ t - ~., 7 e__.__7t_, __.___4,_- y.2 _ _. j g i m _. mm,.o_ _ _ ;4 _.' -~x 1 ~.. ~ _a_ 4.... _......
- mm.
q. g a - - __.- ,c, p 4 ._y e, 3. ...m .i i i l l l l l . _ _ _ _ ; d, ' i 4 ( 4 ) 1 4 . ;_ _ ___._ p _
- w.,
_,__o.._ {1 m,...~....~.. wm.;.,,. - w.p. ,4-..,... - g_ y j ~- p o_ _ _ _ _..__..,_____.___.____________.;_i__ l ___.' i l j d j 3 2% : w w --are g, _r.. +=_te._, l y;; y . a u~.,._ - o_- ;. ~ 7 - ~. n _. l l 6 i 1 i i ^*'"~"****'f.,M.mn.,_,,.,........' _ t. _ __..q_'..__.m-r --,_y- __g. a _.__f . a.Q _wm u.~~ :. - 3:? *Sm-p l i ~ i m,- -r w m a na ;- _.___.__o. .s i . ans_ t e s 1 i 3,.~ ~-{g 4......_,' j l T c;.'";".7.~'" ....p. _ _g, _ p .- m u.u_--c-m ~ o
- 2. -.,
- 7-
~ = :- ,-.w-xu g _-t.~,4 . ~,~. - ~.-~~-- -- n. y l l .3 s' .__, g _~ ~. t ~. nm m.m.m..m-o-o .2.....,_,.. i. - - ~ ~ v. i _,.; g ...n.._._.n....- 4, m_ m = -~ n T r ~. - m.m.m.z. - ~.u. =. c,, i e -ee__.o.___.__.._____________l__._____. l c
- ramme
. --o I. .__p _c _--o, t 4 ... a .m u,. -- -... a o, p _~ _.= p-c - -. = w. -~: ~ __.-c, m.~- o i ._._..--u-. 4 -mc t 4, g r-- m..- o I. s .---.-=w-
- a. :
o. r t Q t,. 4 _n...,o._:mmm. vqzy N_.._________.__..._.J.r-o.q; s 8 a n - N AMDOWENT 3 10 /10 / 8 0 Njr, s !. F l u i 4 I w ' s i ; a.i s 32c, !. N. o } ; i r i u i a : v i ; ; ; i. a i s.i o j u i o l a ! r l u ! a ! u i a i ; i a.i s l o l I .a l...... . l J.e ima a si
- s i
KEY ITEM CONSTRUCTION l SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ' scucoutt - tevet u noo PwR 9 UNITS 1 & 2 NUCLEAR UNITS - UND J FIGURE 4.1-2
STP ER TABLE 4.3-1 O) \\, !!AJOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
- 2 Lumber, ft 6,023,439 Rebar, Ib 126,738,358 l
Steel, Ib 39,238,000 i 3 Concrete, yd 594,653 3 3 Backfill, yd 28,820,314
- Quantities of other materials such as copper, lead, and plastic are used to a lesser extent. The materials listed represent the best estimates of the amounts of each required to complete both units.
/ (_-) 4 T O 4.3-4 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER , - ~ CllAPTER 8 BENEFITS AND COST 8.1 BENEFITS 8.1.1 PRIMARY BENEFITS--ENEP.GY SALES The South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, will supply 2,500 Mwe of reliable base-load electric power to meet the projected needs of industrial, commercial, residential, and other customers of the participating utilities. As indicated in Section 1.1.1.2, the current schedule adopted by the participants' Management Committee contemplates one 1250-megawatt nuclear unit beginning commercial operation in 1984 and 3 another in 1986. Each unit will generate 8,212 million kilowatt-hours annually at an assumed capacity factor of 75 percent. An assumed loss factor of 6.7 percent will allow 7,662 million kilowatt-hours to be available for sale each year from each unit or 15,325 million kilowatt-hours for both units. This is shown in Table 8.1-1. The relative shares of the participants in the project is as follows: City of Austin (COA) 16.0 Percent City Public Service Board of San Antonio (CPS) 28.0 Percent g (,/ Central Power and Light Company (CPL) 25.2 Percent Houston Lighting & Power Company (IIL&P) 30.8 Percent Total 100.0 Percent A projected proration of the kilowatt-hour sales for each unit of the STP is shown by major user classes on lines eight through eleven of Table 8.1-1. Each user class kwh is the summation of the energy proration of the four participants. A consumption allocation for each of the four participants is shown on Tabla 8.1-2 through 8.1-5. The average annual growth in the peak demand and the total net system gener-ating capability for the participating utilities has been projected in Chapter 1. The revenues resulting from the sale of this electricity constitutes a measure of the primary benefit of the South Texas Project. The projected amount-to be paid by users is shown on Table 8.1-6. That amount is $14.5 billion, discounted to the present value as of 1984, the first. year of operation of Unit 1. This amount is based on a forecast of a composite 5.87 cents /kwh in 1984 with this rate escalated for the 32-year period at 1.058 percent annually. A discount rate of 10 percent is used to convert 3 these annual revenues to present worth. The 10 percent rate is the estimated composite cost of capital of the participating systems. fs l \\ 8.1-1 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER 8.1.2 OTHER SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 8.1.2.1 Payments to Government Agencies A variety of taxes and franchise and other payments will be collected by the appropriate governmental authorities. Upon completion of STP, its 'otal value subject to property taxes is estimated at $1,133,965,000. Property owned by San Antonio and Austin, l3 which is 44 percent of the property value, is public property and therefore exempt f rom property taxation. In early 1978 Matagorda County, on behalf of itself, the State of Texas, and other political subdivisions for which it collects taxes filed suit asserting that the undivided interests owned by CPS and COA are subject to property taxes. CPS and COA requested and were granted a summary judgment by the state trial court holding the 3 interests of CPS and COA to be exempt. Matagorda County has appealed tha decision to an intermediate appellate court of the state. No appellate decision has yet been rendered. As shown on Table 8.1-7, maximum annual property taxes resulting from the STP are estimated to be $14.5 million. The net present life-of plant benefit of taxes will be $136.4 million. 3 Part of the revenues of the participants will be subject to state, city, and Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) sales taxes. The state sales taxes are $180.2 million life-of-plant benefit or $18.8 million annualized. 3 The city sales taxes are $77.5 million life-of plant benefit or $8.1 million annualized. MTA taxes, which are collected by CPS and HL&P, are s $15.0 million life-of plant benefit or $1.6 million annualized. The transmission circuits are described in Section 3.9.1. Those subject to ad valorem taxes are the circuits from the site to Velasco Subs tation, the site to Blessing Substation, and CPL and HL&P's portion of the site to Danevang Tie Point. The combined county ad valorem taxes on these transmission lines are estimated to be S11,677 during the first year of l3 operation. The combined school ad valorem taxes are estimated to be $37,390 during the first year of operation. l3 Franchise payments to inccrporated cities are estimated to amount to $129.9 l3 million for the life of the plant. The annualized or levelized payment is $13.6 million. l3 The State of Texas gross receipts tax paid by HL&P and CPL would amount to $74.1 million for the life of the plant or an annualized amount of $7.7 million. 00A and CPS do not pay the state a gross receipts tax. Total additional benefits to the municipal participants, including transfers of revenues to the general funds of San Antonio and Austin from the utilities systems in these municipalities, may he estimated to be a life-of plant amount of $557.2 million for San Antonio and $454.9 million 3 for Austin. Based upon revenues estimated in Table 8.1-6, the annualized O 8.1-2 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER
- or' levelized amounts are $58.2 'million for San Antonio and $47.5 million
-l3 for Austin. { 8.1.2.2 Payrolls'and Employment The~ operation and maintenance of.the STP will-require a presently estimated 252 permanent' employees. The net present life-of-plant value of wages will ~ amount.to $155.4 million. The levelized wage amount is estimated to.be -$16.4'million annually..For.the~first full year of operation of both 3 units,. the wages are estimated to be $8.86 million (in 1986 dollars). ~ - The STP will cause an increase in employment for the area over and above that of the permanent staf f employment..It is estimated that approximately 680 new permanent. service jobs will be created in the. region of the State 2 of Texas surrounding the plant (Ref. 8.1-1). The net present life-of-plant Q340.1% } value of the wages of these jobs amounts to S176.3 million or a levelized 3 annual rate of $18.5 million. e 8.1.2.3-Value Added in Regional Production The -installation of the.STP generating units will make available the power needed by regional' manufacturing' industry to provide for the production of goods amounting to an estimated $3.3 billion of value added each year. : The l3 determination of this value is described in Table 8.1-8. 8.1.2.4 Other-Benefits A) A visitors' center has been constructed at the site to provide the public .l 3 \\s
- ~
with information about the plant. The profile.of the plant can be clearly seen from th'e visitors' center and from relocated FM 521. The lowland l3 habitat between 'the reservoir-and the Colorado River will remain in its present natural state. s-I i a 1 8.1-3 Amendment'3,_10/10/80 (.
STP ER l' REFERENCES Q,' Section 8.1 8.1-1 Texas Department of Water Resources, The Texas Input-Output 2 Model, 1972, Feb. 1978. Q340.12 8.1-2 U. S. Department of Commerce; Annual Survey of Manuf acturers 1977; M71 (AS)-lP General Statistics for Industry l3 Groups and Industries M76 ( AS)-4P Fuels and Electric Energy Used by Major Industry Groups. t'3 V ( 3 l N._ / l \\ 8.1-4 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER IL TABLE 8.1-1 -ESTIMATED ANNUAL CENERATION AND SALES DERIVED FROM j. SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT OF THE FOUR PARTICIPANTS 7 - Line One Unit Two Units 1_ Capacity in: megawatts 1,250 2,500 4 2 Hours in one year 8,760 8,760 e-3 Estimated capacity factor in percent '.75% 75% ] .4 Generation taken Mwh (Lines 1 x 2 x 3) 8,212,500 16,425,000 5 Composite loss factor-from four 6.7% 6.7% 3 participants-6 Composite losses from four participants 550,041 1,100,082 7 Total-energy available'for' sale from . 7,662,459 15,324,918 ' four participants' distribution of energy j for the four-participants 8 Residential (440-FPC Class Code) 2,155,971 4,311,942 e.-() 9 Commercial (442.1 FPC Class Code) 1,341,260-2,682,520 i. -10 . Industrial (442.2 FPC Class Code) 3,671,968 7,343,935 i 11-Other 493,260 986,521 i i i ( )' 1 i A_. 3s 4 8.1--5 . Amendment 3, 10/10/80 s 54 < 4 -,4 y .,e c mw-,py .--un -r y-~e, --9,ww,,.m..y- --r-4e., y., g w- =* = ev v 5-"f--tm-yM* t's= '-t**Ne*
.- ~ -.-__.- .STP ER TABLE 8.1-2 Q: ' ESTIMATED ANNUAL GENERATION AND SALES- + DERIVED FROM SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ( COA) 1 s Line. One Unit Two Units 200 400 i 1 Capacity in megawatts 1 2 Hours in one year 8,760 8,760 i 75% 75% 1 3 Estimated capacity factor in percent j 3 4 Generation taken Mwh (lines l'x 2 x 3) 1,314,000 2,628,000 l 5-Estimated loss factor in percent 7.7% 7.7% I 6 Estimated losses in Mwh (line 4 x 101,178 202,356 .line 5) 4 7 Energy available for-sale (line 4 - 1,212,822 2,425,644 l line 6) proportional distribution of 3 energy by FPC revenue class -l 8 Residential (440 - FPC Class Code) 460,872 921,7.43 38% of-line 7-p -9 General-service rates 57% of-line 7 691,309 1,382,617 ~ a a. 1/3 estimated pro rata share-230,436 460,872 commercial ~ l' b. 2/3' estimated pro rata share-- 460,872 921,745 L industrial 10 Other 5% of line.7, 60,641 121,282 t i i
- O 1
l-. 8.1-6 Amendment 3,_.10/10/80
t. i _STP ER TABLE 8.1 ' s -? - ESTIMATED ANNUAL CENERATION AND' SALES DER 1VED FROM SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT i. -(CPS) Line One Unit Two Units i f.~ 1 ~ Capacity in megawatts-350 700 2 Hours.in one year 8,760 8,760 '3 Estimated' capacity factor in-percent 75% 75% 3 l 4 Generation taken Mwh (lines 1 x 2 x 3) 2,299,500 4,599,000 1 5' Estimated' loss' factor in percent 6% 6%' 6-Estimated-losses in Mwh-(line-4 x 137,970 275,940 i-line 5) ' 7. Energy available for sale (line 4 - 2,161,530 4,323,060 t-line 6) proportional, distribution of 3 energy by FPC revenue class 8 Residential (440 FPC Class Code) 33% 713,305 1,426,610 of line 7 1-9 -Commercial (442.1 FPC. Class _ Code) 324,230 648,459 i 15% of line 71 10f Industrial (442.2 FPC Class Code) 43% of ?ine-7 929,458 1,858,916 2 11-Other 9% cfLline 7 194,537 389,075 i i I. 4 8.1-7: ' Amendment 3, 10/10/80 E 't W g=4'T--*-"'-*'Tu-3 T-yT"11' '?N-'G T- '-9' W e-9V-+-NT-t'Wp'qgteev -e-g=wy,p d rett a g r e1 e gtedeg er --gy gwg*=++qu'y?ywg* p g-wegc= wg Tf
- gg Q g' t P"gl!'p
.STP ER: TABLE 8.1-4 ESTIMATED ANNUAL GENERATION AND' SALES DERIVED FROM SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT (CPL) Line One Unit Two Units 1 Capacity.in megawatts-315 630 2 . Hours in one year 8,760 8,760 3 Estimated capacity factor in percent 75% 75% 4 Generation taken Mwh'(lines 1 x 2 x 3) 2,069,550 4,139,100 3-5 Estimated loss factor in percent 7.2% 7.2% 6 Estimated losses in Mwh (line 4 x .149,008 298,015 line 5) 7. Energy available for -sale (line 4 - 1,920,542 3,841,085 line 6) proportional distribution of energy-by FPC revenue class -b V 8 Residential (440 FPC Class Code) 5% 480,136 960,271 of line 7 9-Commercial (442'1 FPC Class Code) 403,314 806,628 21%-of,line 7 10-Industrial (442.2 FPC Class Code) 864,244 1,728,488 45% of line 7 11 Other 9% of line 7 172,849 345,698 l O l 8.1-8 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER e-TABLE 8.1-5 ~~ ESTIMATED ANNUAL GENERATION AND SALES DERIVED FROM SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT (HL&P) Line One Unit Two Units 1 Capacity in megawatts 385 770 2 Hours in one yeac 8,760 8,760 3 Estimated capacity factor in percent 75% 75% 4 Generation taken Mwh (lines 1 x 2 x 3) 2,529,450 5,058,900 5 Estimated loss factor in percent 6.4% 6.4% 6 Estimated losses in Mwh (line 4 x 161,885 323,770 line 5) 7 Energy available for sale (line 4 - 2,367,565 4,735,130 3 line 6) proportional distribution of energy by FPC revenue class r(,y) 8 Residential (440 FPC Class Code) 22% 520,864 1,041,729 of line 7 9 Commercial (442.1 FPC Class Code) 402,486 804,972 17% of line 7 10 Industrial (442.2 FPC Class Code) 1,302,161 2,604,322 55% of line 7 11 Other 6% of line 7 142,054 284,108 ( t - Q_,) 8.1-9 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
.STP-ER TABLE 8.1-6 0 1 ESTIMATED REVENUES DISCOUNTED TO YEAR SITE BEGINS COMMERCIAL OPERATION . Revenues Discounted i Est. Avg. ' Net Sales, As Collected,
- Revenues, Year-Rate =d/kwh*
kwh x 106 $(000) $(000) at 10% _1984 5.87 -7,652' 449,172 408,338 1985- -6.22-7,652 475,954 393,350 -1986 6.51 15,304. 996,290 748,527 3 1987 6.98 15,304 1,068,219 729,608 -1988 7.45 15,304 1,140,148 707,942 1989 7.75~ 15,304 1,186,060 669,500 4 1990 8.45_ 15,304 1,293,188 663,610 1991 8.74 15,304 1,337,570 623,986 I 1992 9.21 15,304 1,409,498 597,765 i 1993 9.68 15,304 1,481,427 571,154 1994 10.28 15,304 1,573,251 551,415 j 1995 10.93: 15,304 1,672,727 532,982 l 1996 11.35 15,304 1,737,004 503,148 1997 12.07, 13,304 1,847,193 486,424 4 1998 12.71 '15,304 1,945,138 465,651 1999 13.36 15,304 2,044,614 444,968 2000 14.14 15,304 2,163,986 428,133 2001 14.78 .15,304 2,261,931 406,828 2002-15.56 .15,304 2,381,302 389,362 2003 16.40 15,304 2,509,856 373,074 2004 17.28 15,304 2,644,531 357,357 2005' 18.25 15,304 2,792,980 343,106 2006 19.35 15,304-2,961,324 330,715 2007 20.52 15,304 3,140,381 318,829 2008 21.76 15,304 3,330,150 307,360 .2009 23.07 15,304 3,530,633 296,239 7 2010 24.47-15,304 5,744,889 285,651 2011 25.95 15,304 3,971,388 275,389 2012 27.52 15,304 4,211,661 265,501 '2013 ' 29.19. - 15,304 4,467,238 256,011 2014
- 30.96:
15,304 4,738,118 246,850 2015 32.84-7,652 2,512,917 119,018 2016 -35.35 7,652~ 2,704,982 116,468 s
- Present Value. of Revenue Stream at 10% = $14,544,974 Levelized Value of Revenue Stream at 10% = $1,485,382 1
r 8.1-10 Amendment 3,.10/10/80 i .) L
I y 2' TABLE 8.1-7 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAXES TO BE COLLECTED FROM THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT SITE Estimated ~ Total Value-for Tax Evaluation Purposes '$2,024,938,000 Less:44 Percent'of'Value Exempt-Because of Public ownership $ 890,973,000 3' ~ Estimated-Additional'Value Subject to Property Taxes $ l,133,965,000 1979 Tax Rate 1979 Per $100 Assessment Tax Revenue Taxing Authority of Value*' Ratio %* Tax Rate x Ratio x Taxable-Value State of Texas $0.10 -24 272,152 7-County Special Ad-Valorem 5 '$0.30 24 816,455 5 Drainage District No. 3 $0.30 24 816,455 Matagorda County Ad Valorem. $0.97 24 2,639,871 Hospital District $0.42 24 1,143,037-3 Navigation District $0.10 24 272,152 Palacios Independent School District $1.25 60 ,8,504,738 . ro E. Total Annual Property Taxes 14,464,860 ft u Net. Present Value for Lifetime of $ 136,359,000 the Plant DR
- These rates and ratios are those presently existing and, therefore, represent maxima, since either or both will probably be reduced, thereby reducing the burden on existing taxpayers.
m., m.. .s 's t 5 TABLE 8.1-8 i~ ESTLMATED ANNUAL DOLLAR VALUE ADDED IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES MADE POSSIBLE BY' SALES TO MANUFACTURING ORIGINATING IN THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT STATION CPL HL&P CPS COA Total 'l. . Industrial & Commercial 8,386,561' 38,123,175 4,322,740 1,717,109 51,375,543 'Use in 1979 (Mwh) 3 2. Manufacturing Industries. 4,268,567 23,084,092 721,897 118,481 27,937,147 Use in 1979 (Mwh) 3. Percent of Industrial & 50.9 60.6 16.7 6.9 54.4 , Commercial Use in Manufacturing (Line 2/Line 1) 4. Industrial & Commercial 2,535,116 3,409,294 2,507,375 1,382,617 9,834,402 Annual Use Allocated m for STP (Mwh) Y. L 8 m 5 5. Manufacturing Industries 1,290,374 2,066,032 418,732 95,401 3,870,539 W Annual Use Allocated I. for STP (Mwh). e (Line 3 x Line 4) i l 6. Dolla r of Value Added in O.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Manufacturing Per Mwh Purchased (National g , Average in 1977)* l g-B l
- From Reference 8.1-2 d
u i fa. d I
..... _. _ _.. _. _. _ _ -... _, _. _.. _. _ _. _, _. ~. _.. _.... _ _. _. _ 7; g v i TABLE 8.1-8'(Continued) l ESTIMATED ANNUAL' DOLLAR VALUE ADDED IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES i -MADE POSSIBLE BY SALES TO MANUFACTURING ORIGINATING IN THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJF N-STATION . CPL HL&P CPS COA Total .' 7. - Dollars x 10 'of Value 1,109,722 1,776,788 360,109 82,044' 3,328,664 3 Added.in Manufacturing Associated with Mwh Allocated..to the STP (Line 5 x Line 6) i 4 i
- c j -
co en. + 1 l H M W
- xs a
g i a D + 1 CL. 9 t D rt 4 O HO N CD O 4 m
t .STP ER 8.2 . 1/"'Y '00ST' = b -8.2.1 INTERNAL COST l The~ cost of land, improvements, and construction for the STP project are 1 now estimated to be $2,700,117,000. ' An assumed allowance of $247,607,000 -for funds used during - construction brings the totaluplant cost to $2,947,724,000.- The' cost of thel construction of incremental transmission 3: lines ~ associated with the STP is estimated to be $64,133,000. The' ~ c allowance for interest during-construction is $2,924,000 resulting in a . total-of $67,057,000. Thus,- the total capital investment is $3,014,781,000.
- Allowance for funds used during construction is based upon an assumed rate l 3l which has been used to indicate.an average amount for interest during l
construction applicable-to the project, involving all of-the participants i and the entire construction period. The actual amount of interest capitalized will' be recorded in the records of the individual participants. ) I' and will vary among the participants based upon individual cost experience 1 l and internal policies. The total direct fuel cycle cost - for the STP is estimated to be $1,780,683,000 (- discounted to.1984 present.value. The levelized or annualized fuel cost is 3 j $180,080,000. l The' operating and-maintenance cost is estimated to be $441,187,000 (1984 l3 -s. present'value). The levelized or annualized operating and maintenance cost 1-is. $46,544',000. +J l3 .i - Operating' and maintenance cost associated with the transmission lines is estimated to be $8,601,000 (1984 present value). The levelized trans-3 mission line operating and maintenance cost is $907,000. The present value of the total _ generating cost, including the initial investment, fuel, and operating and maintenance expense, is $5.169,594,000. 3! The levelized amount is $542,661,000. The calculation of these amounts is shown in Table 8.2-1. The present value of the transmission and hookup: costs, including the investment costs plus the: discounted value of the operating and maintenance expense, is $75,658,000. The levelized amount is $7,942,000. 3: As discussed in Section 5.9, the: estimated cost of decommissioning is $49.1 million (in 1980 dollars).for the two. units. Annual maintenance and 3 1 surveillance costs are estimated at $94,000 per unit. 8.2.2 TEMPORARY EXTERNAL COSTS The STP construction work force is now' expected to reach 4,450 during the i L . peak period of construction. During the peak period.of' construction, 3' approximately 200 Houston Lighting. 6 Power Company personnel will be. employed at the site. Thus the total number of employed persons at the STP ) .v 8.2-1 Amendment 3, 10/10/80-
STP ER during the peak period of construction is expected to be approximately 4,650. A survey of construction work force personnel conducted in February 1980 indicated that approximately 73 percent of the respondents identified a place of residence in Matagorda County; approximately 36 percent of these Matagorda County residents have residency in Bay City and approximately 25 percent have residency in Palacios (Ref. 8.2-10). The Bureau of the Census estimated the population of Matagorda County at 30,998 persons for July 1, 3 1977 and 14,999 persons and 4,127 persons for Bay City and Palacios, respectively, for the same period (Ref. 8.2-2). A survey of housing units in Matagorda County by the Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments conducted with the help of local officials identified a total of 5,316 housing units in Bay City and 1,237 housing units in Palacios for 1976 (Ref. 8.2-3). The vacancy rate for these total units as reported within the same survey for these two jurisdictions was O percent. Within the rural area of Matagorda County, the same survey identified a total of 3,633 housing units with a vacancy rate of 4.6 percent. Surveys conducted during 1977, 1978, and the first part of 1980 indicate that new units of housing have been constructed or are in the process of being constructed within the Bay City /Matagorda County area. During 1979, approximately 91 permits were issued for single-family homes, and permits for 53 multifamily units were issued in Bay City, the only governmental agency in the area requiring building permits for canstruction (Ref. 8.2-11). A survey of building contractors in January of 1980 r vealed that a significant number of housing units in the Matagorda County area, for which building permits were not required, are to be constructed. The surveys indicate that the construction of new housing units within the area is keeping pace with the demand, although the current housing market is described as " tight" ( Re f. 8. 2-10 ). Access to the STP site is achieved principally via State Highways 60 and 35 and FM 521. During the period of the peak construction, traffic congestion on State Highways 60 and 35 could result. This potential traffic congestion would, however, be limited to peak hours of travel during the period of peak construction (Ref. 8.2-5). The survey of construction work force members in February of 1980 indicated an occupancy of 2.6 workers per vehicle, up from 1.5 workers per vehicle in 1977 (Ref. 8.2-1). Increased carpooling by members of the construction work force during the period of peak construction could mitigate this potential traf fic congestion. New traffic signals at the intersection of FM 2668 and FM 3057, Baywood Drive and Highway 60, and Highway 35 and FM 457 have been installed. Major repairs and upgrading have taken place on Highways 35 and 71. In January 1980, five independent school districts within Matagorda County all reported available capacity for new students, although limited capacity exists for elementary students. The Bay City and Palacios Independent School Districts combined had a capacity to absorb approximately 1,050-1,180 new students (Ref. 8.2-10). No additional school facilities have been or foreseeably will be required (Ref. 8.2-5). O 8.2-2 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
4 STP ER There are two hospitals in he vicinity of the' site: Matagorda General Hospital,- a. ll6-bed hospital in Bay City with a 28-bed extended care unit, ( 1 and Wegner General Hospital, a 43-bed hospital in Palacios. Other. major medical facilities in;the area include the Caney Valley Memorial Hospital .and the. Gulf Coast Medical Center with 82 and 95 beds, respectively (Ref. [
- 8.2-10).
Since 1977,-average occupancy rates at Matagorda General and j. Wagner General Hospitals'have increased; however, hospital administrators 3 reported in' February of.1978 that the average occupancy has been 50 and 70 percent, respectively (Ref. 8.2-10). Accordingly, = the expected STP labor - force is not anticipated to' place any significant pressure on these health facilities or services. i Bay. City has a sewage treatment plant with a capacity of 2.1 million gallons per. day and is currently planning to expand that capacity. Bay . City:has an ample water supply, including five wells and a one-million- . gallon ground storage tank, and is currently 'in the process of completing one new additional well. Palacios has a new waste water treatment facility currently operating at'50 perce'nt capacity, with the capability of doubling i this capacity without ' major new construction due to its design. Palacios has four wells'for water supply. Major jurisdictions (cities and towns) surveyed indicate the capability to. supply water and sewage treatment i services'to handle the anticipated additional population (Ref. 8.2-5). ~ Dataccompiled by the -Texas Department of Public Safety in 1977 indicate that the ratio of officers to one thousand population unit is 2.67 and 1.47 ) for Bay City and Palacios, respectively (Ref. 8.2-8). Local officials for these jurisdictions in 1975 reported that they would try to maintain a i i 'q ratio of one officer per one thousand persons (Ref. 8.2-9). Thus this L ratio has been maintained and it is not expected that the STP increase in-j work force will have a significant ef fect on police services. } Supplemental surveys conducted.during-the first quarter of 1980 have 3 confirmed that the primary effect of the increased work force at the STP has been and'is expected to'_ continue to be, on transportation and housing. These ef fects ' will -largely be temporary in nature for only the period of 1 peak ~ employment.at STP.; other services have adequate capacity to handle -the increased labor. force.. So ne additional hiring of teachers and ' = protective service workers may be necessary but would be-more than compensated for by the' additional tax revenue from STP. f Ad valorem taxes :are being and will continue to be paid by CPL and HL&P, 3 the privately owned utilities, during the construction phases. Taxing authorities receiving and due to receive taxes from the STP are the State i .of Texas,.Matagorda County, Matagorda County Hospital District, the-Navigation District, Drainage District No. 3, and the Palacios Independent ) School District. Total property taxes to be paid during the subsequent j construction period are as'follows: J !o 8.2-3 -Amendment 3, 10/10/80 y -w, , + .-,,,,u.--.,, ., _ n, -, c w _ 4, -~n, ~,n ,.-n
STP ER Tax Year Property. Tax Expense 1976 S 29,150 1977 423,140 3 1978 1,109,690 1979 1,781,238 1980 2,547,000 (E) 1981 4,307,000 (E) 1982 5,445,000 (E) 1983 6,695,000 (E) 1984 7,925,000 (E) 1985 8,915,000 (E) 1986 12,900,000 (E) 8.2.3 LONG-TERM EXTERNAL COSTS In accordance with the discussion in the Introductory to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2, pertaining to the " Applicant's Environmental Report-- Operating License Stage," this section is not addressed since no updating of the corresponding material presented in the Environmental Report-- Construction Permit Stage was necessary. (E) Indicates estimated amounts. 3 0 9 8.2-4 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER REFERENCES ,/-- ,,/ Section 8.2: 8.2-1 Brown & Root, Survey of Construction Work Force at STP, (July 1977). 8.2-2 U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates and Projections, P-25, No. 691., U. S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D. C., April 1977). 8.2-3 Houston-Galveston Area Council, Housing Conditions and Needs in the H-GAC Region (Houston, Texas, November 1976). 8.2-4 Telephone conversation between Cliaton Twilley, Brown & Root, and Martha Erie, Matagorda County Deputy Tax Assessor Collector, January 9,1978. 8.2-5 NUS Corporation, An Assessment of Socioeconomic Conditions at STP (March 1978). 8.2-6 Telephone conversation between Mr. Martin Brown of the Texas Department of Public Highways and Clinton Twilley, Brown & Root, Inc., January 5, 1978. (} 8.2-7 Telephone conversation between Hospital Administrators and \\_ / Clinton Twilley, Brown & Root, Inc., February 7, 1978. 8.2 Texas Department of Public Safety, Computer printouts prepared for the Criminal Justice Division by the Department of Public Safety Uniform Crime Report Bureau. 8.2-9 DiNunno, Joseph J., NUS Corporation, Testimony Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Matter of Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2_), (April 12, 1975). 8.2-10 NUS Corporation, Revised Assessment of Socioeconomic Conditions at the South Texas Project, (April 1980). 8.2-11 Telephone conversation between Irv Samec, NUS Corporation, 3 and Mrs. Edison, Bay City Building-Department, (December 14, 1979), i 1 \\_,/ 8.2-5 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP.ER ' TABLE 8.2-1 j-g CALCULATION OF PRESENT VALUE AND-PRESENT VALUE ANNUALIZED OF TOTAL GENERATING COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENERATING STATION Dollar outlay required to bring facility to operation -C- = y 0 Total operating and maintenance ' costs in year t - .= Total fuel cost in year t F = t l3 Discount factor = (1+1)~1, where 1 is -10.00% embedded cost of { V = y capital t 'GCp= Total generating cost - Present value GC, Total-generating cost - Present value-annualized- = 30 + t C+ v (Og + F ) = $2,947,724,020 + $441,187,000 + 1,780,683,000 GC = p 1 t t=1 Total generating cost, present value = $5,169,594,000 3 GC x i(1+1) = 5,169,594,000 x.1049717 ~ GC = a. p. -(1+1)30_y i i Total' generating ' cost,' present value annualized = $542,661,000 S I-L 1, : t i. i i s h' f LO { i 8.2-6 Amendment 3, 10/10/80. 2 a.....
STP ER TABLE 8.2-2 REVISED PROJECTION OF STP CONSTRUCTION WORK FORCE Month / Year Projected Work Force Size January, 1981 4,650 3 January, 1982 4,650 January, 1983 4,650 January, 1984 3,120 January, 1985 1,330 January, 1986 650 0 4 1 O 8.2-7 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
1 STP ER
- t..
l ' CHAPTER 9--ALTERNATIVE ENEEY SOU3CES AND -SITES I-I 1 CONTENTS 1!- I. Section Page-t i.- 9.1 Introduction 9.1-1 i 9.2 Benefits of Operating the South Texas Project 9.2-1 z I k 1 i t I a. { 1 i s !~ 1 .I' l- \\ !Le f 4 h 1-l 1 I i } } 1i i~ t' i p 1 9-1 Amendment ~ 3, 10/10/80 1: ' E.. - +I. -., h w.,,, ,',w-,..-.,,v..-,-...r,.v,-,~,,-.,m-w.--~,w-=-e~,...-rw-=**w=en*aee-+-e.,,m.w=a-sw-- v=.we -*== - --
STP ER TABLES Number Title Page 9.2-1 Fuel Cost Comparison, With and Without STP Units 1 and 2 9.2-2 9.2-2 Operating and Maintenance Cost Comparison, With and Without STP Units 1 and 2 9.2-3 i G O 9-11 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
t STP ER i CHAPTER 9 i~ ALTERNATIVE ENERGY-SOURCES AND SITES i
9.1 INTRODUCTION
The Construction Permit-for the South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, i was issued December 22, 1975. -As indicated throughout this Environmental Report, the STP presently under construction consists of the plant, site 3 j and heat dissipation system alternatives approved during the Construction Pe rmit review. Chapter 1 indicates that the.need for'the new generating l ] capacity to' be - provided by STP Units 1 and 2 still exists. 'The following section discusses the economic benefits of' operating the STP as an alternative to operating a fossil-fueled generating station. i 1 4 i T i i 2 l 'f i 1 L 1 1. ? i i 1
- i-l 1
i t 1 i i i \\ I t J t. i i I.'.' 9.1-1 Amendment 3, 10/10/80 E = N- -,e,.-, n-,. w,e,,, eww. nmv-,-,--.4. re,.,n-mm gw - w e < mm. w v- + =, s' < - rwe t r 9 s e s i n -- v s ' > ~ s~v=vww-s s~ s
STP ER i (~N 9.2 ' BENEFITS OF OPERATING THE STP , b# Once a power plant is constructed, the decision to operate it depends primarily on the costs of production--basically the costs of fuel and of operations and maintenance (0&M). Management in other words, in choosing whether to use Plant-A or Plant B to produce a given amount of electric energy, looks at their relative operating costs. Construction costs, now fixed, do not figure into this analysis. By this test of operating economy, STP compares quite favorably with the fossil-fueled units that would be needed to produce the same amount of electric energy. 3 As' indicated in Section 1.1.1.2, the current schedule adopted by the participants' Management Committee contemplates one 1250-megawatt nuclear unit beginning commercial operation in 1984 and another in 1986. During the five year period. of 1984 through 1988, alone, the participants in STP can reasonably expect to save about $2.85 billion by operating these nuclear units rather than fossil-fueled plants. As a basis for this determination, each participant in STP has analyzed the alternate facilities on which-it would be forced to rely in an effort to provide the electric energy supply for which that participant's share of the energy output from STP is planned and needed. In each case such alternate facility would be-non-nuclear; however, the fuel source and relative efficiency of these alternate facilities are expected to vary from participant to participant. As a result, the cost of producing energy from such alternate facilities has been considered by each participant. A } composite cost, weighted by the share of energy from STP to which the s_ / respective participant is entitled, was compiled and is shown in Tables 9.2-1 and 9.2-2. O&M costs for the STP nuclear units during the same five year period are projected to be $0.52 million higher than for comparably sized i. fossil-fueled plants. -The calculation of the O&M costs is shown in Table '9.2-2, which uses the same format as Table 9.2-1. However, since the net savings on fuel are significantly greater than the. additional costs of O&M, -the comparison of operating costs favors STP over alternatives fossil-fueled units. -() w 9.2-1 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
l s l v s TABLE 9.2-1 FUEL COST COMPARISON WITH AND WIT 110UT STP UNITS 1 AND 2 MBtu Fuel Cost (S/MBtu) Differential Fuel Cost ($1000) Year . Company STP 1 STP 2 Alternate
- STP 1 STP 2 STP 1 STP 2 Total llL&P 16,299,425 5.796
.473 86,762 86,762 1984 CP&L 13,335,893
- .220
.473 36,634 36,634 3 COA 8,467,234 2.696 .473 18,823 18,823 CPS 14,817,659 4.990 .473 66,931 66,931 Accumulated cost (1984) 209,150 = 209,150 llL&P 23,553,152 6.318 .532 136,279 136,279 1985 CP&L 19,270,761 3.450 .532 56,232 56,232 COA 12,235,405 2.912 .532 29,120 29,120 CPS 21,411,956 5.420 .532 104,662 104,662 Accumulated cost (1985) 326,293 326,293 g3 llL&P 26,697,952 16,316,563 6.823 .659 .529 164,566 102,696 267,262 1986 CP&L 21,843,779 13,349,915 3.690 .659 .529 66,208 42,199 108,407 W COA 13,869,066 8,475,137 3.145 .659 .529 34,479 22,174 56,653 CPS 24,270,865 14,833,239 5.780 .659 .529 124,291 77,889 202,180 Accumulated cost (1986) 389,544 244,958 634,502 HL&P 26,697,952 23,604,220 7.369 .790 .605 175,646 159,662 335,308 1987 CP&L 21,843,779 19,312,953 3.940 .790 .605 68,808 64,409 133,217 COA 13,869,066 12,262,192 3.397 .790 .605 36,156 34,236 70,392 g CPS 24,270,865 21,458,836 6.180 .790 .605 130,82L 119,633 250,453 Accumulated cost (1987) 411,430 377,940 789,370 llL&P 26,697,952 26,697,952 7.885 .867 .758 187,366 190,276 377,642 1988 CP&L 21,843,779 21,843,779 4.220 .867 .758 73,242 75,623 148,805 .'d COA 13,869,006 13,869,066 3.669 .867 .758 38,061 40,373 79,234 CPS 24,270,865 24,270,865 6.590 .867 ./58 138,902 141,598 280,450 g. 53 Accumulated cost (1988) 438,371 447,820 886,191 o;; 1984-c) 1988 Total accumulated differential fuel cost 1,774,788 1,070,718 2,845,506
- Alternate fuels: IlL&P - 011 COA - Coal / Gas / Oil CFsk - See/GRH CPS - @AR
p#'F- ) i / / TABLE 9.2-2 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST COMPARISON WITll AND WIT 110UT STP UNITS 1 AND 2 Mwh O&M Cost ($/Mwh) Differential ohm Cost ($1000) 3 Year Company STP 1 STP 2 Alternate
- STP 1 STP 2 STP 1 STP 2 Total
!IL&P 1,529,678 0.66 1.00 - 520.1 - 520.1 1984 CP&L 1,251,555 0.65 1.00 - 438.0 - 438.0 COA 794,638 2.32 1.00 2368.9 2368.9 CPS 1,390,616 0.53 1.00 - 653.6 - 653.6 Accumulated cost (1984) 757.2 757.2 HL&P 2,210,431 0.77 1.07 - 795.8 - 795.8 1985 CP&L 1,808,534 0.68 1.07 - 705.3 - 705.3 COA 1,148,276 2.88 1.07 2078.4 2078.4 CPS 2,009,483 0.57 1.07 -1004.7 -1004.7 Accumulated cost (1985) - 427.4 - 427.4 m Y
- w 3
IIL&P 2,505,571 1,531,287 0.76 1.14 1.14 - 952.1 - 581.9 1534.0 g 1986 CP&L 2,050,013 1,252,871 0.70 1.14 1.14 - 902.0 - 551.3 1453.3 W COA 1,301,595 795,474 3.08 1.14 1.14 2525.1 1543.2 4068.3 CPS 2,277,792 1,392,079 0.61 1.14 1.14 -1207.2 - 737.8 1945.0 Accumulated cost (1986) - 536.2 - 327,8 - 864.0 llL& P 2,505,571 2,215,274 0.81 1.23 1.23 -1052.3 - 930.4 -1982.7 1987 CP&L 2,050,013 1,812,497 0.72 1.23 1.23 -1045.5 - 924.4 -1969.9 OOA 1,301,595 1,150,792 3.39 1.23 1.23 2811.4 2485.7 5297.1 g CPS 2,277,792 2,013,885 0.65 1.23 1.23 -1321.1 -1168.1 -2489.2 g Accumulated cost (1987) - 607.5 - 537.2 -1144.7 HL&P 2,505,571 2,505,571 0.87 1.31 1.31 -1102.5 -1102.5 -2205.0 1968 CP&L 2,050,013 2,050,013 0.74 1.31 1.31 -1168.5 -1168.5 -2337.0 }d COA 1,301,595 1,301,595 3.72 1.31 1.31 3136.8 3136.8 o273.6 CPS 2,277,792 2,277,792 0.7') 1.31 1.31 -1389.5 -1389.5 -27/9.0 g C Accumulated cost (1988) - 523.7 - 523.7 -1047.4 fh 1984-o 1988 Total accumulated differential O&M cost -1337.6 -1388.7 -2726.3
- Alternate Unit s: HL&P - Oil COA - Coal CP&L - Gas /Dil CPS - 011
. ~... ... ~. _. ~ t TABLE 11.1-1 4 COST DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY AND TRANSMISSION HOOKUP I Generating Cost. ' Present Worth $5,169,594,000 3 1 Annualized $ 542,661,000 [ Transmission and flookup Present - Worth 75 658,000 .Costt . Annualized. S ,000 i Environmental Costs Units -Magnitude Section 1.5 -Radionuclides ' discharged.to water body {- 1.5.1 ' Aquatic organisms [ - Fish 'in the reservoir. mrac' tr 57.2 5.2 . Aquatic plants in the reservoir mrads/yoar 16.8' 5.2 Fish in the. Colorado River mrads/ year 1.84 5.2 ). Aquatic. plants in the Colorado mrads/ year 5.5 x 10-1 5.2 Rive r l .1.5.2 People, external o Swimming Individual, arem/ year, 7.8 x 10-5 5.3 -f whole body g Shoreline activity - along Individual, mrem / year, 1.1 x 10-2 .5.3 . g
- Colorado River whole body-j g
Boating along the Colorado River Individual, mrem / year, 3.5 x 10-5 5.3 i whole body I ~ 7 9o o 8' i 5
STP ER' (7 11.2 ECONOMIC BENEFITS 11.2.1 PRIMARY BENEFITS The capability to supply about 16.3 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity each. year for use by the residents of this region will be the primary benefit from the construction of the STP. The plant will provide an estimated average annual generation of 16.43 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity based on a 75-percent capacity factor. Approximately 1.12 billion kilowatt-hours will be lost in trans-3 mission and distribution, leaving 15.30 billion kilowatt-hours available for sale. The distribution of this electrical energy is estimated to be 4.35 billion kilowatt-hours residential, 2.67 billion kilowatt-hours commer-3 cial, 7.42 billion kilowatt-hours industrial, and 0.36 billion kilo-watt-hours for miscellaneous uses. The direct benefits are summarized in Chapter 8 including the expected uti-lization by user category. The income f rom these various consumers is l3 estimated to be a levelized amount of $1.49 billion per year. No revenue f rom the sale of steam or other products is anticipated. Another primary benefit from this project is the opportunity to retire older plants operating less efficiently and at a higher economic and environmental cost. - .f ) 11.2.2 OTHER SOCIAL AND ECobOMIC BENEFITS G A capital expenditure of this magnitude F.as many benefits besides the basic one of supplying the energy needs of the region. Some of these benefits, discounted to 1980 present worth, are detailed below: 1. Construction material costs are estimated to be about $646 million. 2. Construction of the STP will produce an estimated 60.4 million man-hours of employment and $1,570 million (escalated to time of 3 expenditure) in income. 3. Staff requirements for the 30 years of operation and maintenance will result'in an estimated 15 million hours of employment and $94.6 million in discounted lifetime income. 4. An estimated $1,621 million in discounted lifetime payments will be l3 made to local and state agencies as discussed in Chapter 8. The levelized amount is $169.6 million per year. l3 5. Additional employment in the local service industries will be gene-rated as a result of the service requirements of the staff personnel at the STP. The income associated with approximately 680 service-2 oriented jobs over the lifetime of the plant is estimated to be in Q340.12 excess of $176.3 million or a levelized annual rate of $18.5 million. l3 .g() Some $3.5 billion of value added by manufacturing industries each year j3 6. 11.2-1 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER would be made possible by the energy delivered to them from the STP. 7. Educational opportunities will be available to the approximately 50,000 persons expected to tour the visitors' center each year. Plant monitoring will contribute to the knowledge of the physical and bio-logical aspects of the environment. 3 O O: 11.2-2 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
1 STP ER i i 11.3 EC0!GIIC COSTS i 4 f Cost associated with operation of the STP includes the cost of constructing j; and operating the station and transmission system and of preempting agri-2 cultural land for station use. These costs are summarized in Table 11.1-1 and detailed below. i 1. The total generating cost is estimated to be approximately $5.2 3 4 billion for the plant life. The annualized cost is $542.7 million. 2. The transmission and bookup cost is on the order of $75.7 million and 3 the annualized cost is about $7.9 million. I i i i j i i } i i i J i l 1 l 1 i I d i i 11.3 Amendment 3, 10/10/80 l .~., --. _ - a. 1-.-~_--__,
STP ER [% TABLE 12.1-1 .d SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT LICENSES / PERMITS AND STATUS Agency Permit or Approval Status Nuclear Regulatory Construction Permit Issued December 22, 1975 Commission Operating License Pending Environcental Permit for construction Issued April 13, 1976 Protection Agency waste discharges Operational discharge Issued June 12, 1977 pe rmit Approval for construction Issued January 16, 1980 3 of auxiliary boiler U. S. Army Corps Pe rmit for construction Submitted February 6,1975 of the intake and dis-Issued July 30, 1975 charge structures on the Colorado River Amendment of permit Submitted June 18, 1976 issued. July 30, 1975, Issued August 12, 1976 to enlarge barge slip area Permit for installation Submitted November 24, 1975 of temporary cofferdam Issued April 12, 1976 in navigable waters (Colorado River) Texas Water Rights Permit for appropria-Submitted January 2,1974 Commission -(now the tion and diversion of Issued February 24, 1976 Texas Department of water from the Colorado Water Resources) River Permit for construction Submitted January 2,1974 of the reservoir and in-Issued February 24, 1976 take and discharge structures on the Colorado River Te).as Water Quality Permits for construction Issued April 22, 1975 Board '(now the Texas and operational discharges Renewed September 2, 1980 3 Department of of wastes to the Colorado prs Water Resources) River (i.e., sanitary ( ) waste, metal. cleaning waste, blowdown) 12.1-2 Amendment 3, 10/10/80 l
STP ER f) Table 12.1-1 (Continued) \\ i L.s SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT LICENSES / PERMITS AND STATUS Agency Permit or Approval Status Permit for construction Issued April 22, 1975 discN.arges from sanitary treatment facilities and dewatering waste Approval for construc-Submitted June 24, 1976 tion of solid waste Approved July 1,1976 disposal area Section 401 FWPCA Certi-Submitted January 27, 1975 fication Granted April 22, 1975 Texas Highway Approval necessary for Granted June 20, 1975 Department rerouting of FM 521 Texas Air Control Construction permit for Issued January 2,1976 Board solid waste incinerator (C-3924) k -) Operating Permit for Issued May 4,1976 s solid waste incinerator (R-3924) Construction Permit for Issued August 21, 1975 concrete batch plant and main plant (C-3570) Operating Permit for Issued April 1, 1976 concrete batch plant and main plant (R-3570) Const ruction Permit for Issued June 7,1977 soil-cement pugmills Operating Permit for Issued.iovember 15, 1977 soil-cement pugmills Construction permit for Issued June 27, 1979 3 auxiliary boiler Texas Parks & Pe rmit for dredging and Issued June 18, 1975 Wildlife removal of material from state-owned river bottom n i \\ G/ 1 J 12.1-3 Amendment 3, 10/10/80 l
d STP ER (""% TABLE 12.1-1 (Continued) j SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT LICENSES / PERMITS AND STATUS i j Agency Permit or Approval Status l Public Utility Certificate of Conven-Issued August 20, 1976 Commission ience and Necessity for (to City Public Service transmission lines Board of San Antonio, docket #59) Certificate of Conven-Issued April 29, 1977 4 ience and Necessity for (to Houston Lighting i transmission lines & Power, docket #44) i 3 Certificate of Conven-Issued April 29, 1977 ience and Necessity for (to Central Power & transmission lines Light of Corpus Christi, docket #44) i 4 4 ) !O 4 i-4 i 1 i 12.1-4 -Amendment 3,'10/10/80 1
STP ER g quality. A permit (construction phase - #01918, operating phase - #01908) (Sj for the discharge of sanitary, chemical, and cooling lake effluent was approved on April 22, 1975, by the TWQB. An amendment to this permit was filed on November 18, 1977. 12.2.2.2 Lower Colorado River Authority The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), which holds rights in stored waters of the Colorado River above STP, has contracted to provide stored waters when "necessary for the normal operation of [STP]," thus providing insurance against having to shutdown STP due to extended low flow condi-tions in the Colorado River. As required by state regulation and after hearing on the issues, a contractual permit based on this contract with the LCRA has been obtained from the Texas Water Rights Commission (TWRC), now the Texas Water Commission, the judicial branch of the Texas Department of Water Resources. The Attorney General of Texas appealed the decision of the TWRC in issuing this contractual permit. This appeal was dismissed by the State District Court considering same, and the appellate courts of this 3 State affirmed the action of the District Court. 12.2.2.3 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) enforces the provisions of the Texas Water Code to the extent that aquatic life or wildlife is affected in violation of the code. TPWD permit 2005 was issued June 18, 1975, and authorizes dredging for a barge slip and material renoval from a [} state-owned river bottom. v 12.2.2.4 Texas Department of Health The Texas Department of d7alth (TDH) investigates and makes recommendations to the TDWR concerning the health aspects of water quality matters and industrial solid waste disposal. The TDH exercises licensing authority over the use of source and special nuclear material used fo' calibration of nuclear equipment. 12.2.2.5 Texas Air Control Board The Texas Air Control Board'(TACB) issues permits for construction and operation of new facilities which may affect air quality pursuant to the Texas Cleaa Air Act, as amended (Article 4477-5, V.T.C.S.). A permit exemption exists for the emergency stand-by diesel power source. In addi-tion, the 1ACB issues the construction permit for the auxiliary boilers. After construction, the TACB also issues the operating license. 12.2.2.6 Additional Agencies In addition to the above state agencies, meetings have been held with the following agencies, to inform them of planning activities with regard to the plant construction. Each of these agencies listed below will have p N._.] 12.2-3 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Report (Operating License Stage). 1. State Highway and Public Transportation Commission 2. Texas Railroad Commission 3. Texas Industrial Commission 4. Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board 5. Texas State Historical Survey Committee 6. General Land Office 7. Texas Department of Agriculture 8. Texas Forestry Service 3 9. Bureau of Economic Geology 12.2.3 LOCAL AGENCIES The economic and social consequences of plant construction and operation have been studied by the Houston-Galveston Area Council. Various officials in Matagorda County have been briefed on the proje t in meetings which were conducted within the county. The local office of the Soil Conservation Service has been similarly briefed. Several other meetings have been con-ducted with interested citizen groups and professional societies to provide information concerning the project. i O 12.2-4 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
STP ER l 12.3 TRANSt.7SSION SYSTEM CONTROLS There are at the present time no state or local laws or ordinances regula-ting the design, construction, or location of transmission systems. Except '~ where more strict standards are required by Article 1436a of the Texas j Statutes, the National Electrical' Safety Code will be followed throughout l the development of the transmission system. The only other authorizations l
- to be:obtained are as follows:
1. The railroad' companies for easement and clearances of rail' road tracks that will be crossed 2. The Corps of Engineers for river clearance of navigable streams that are traversed by transmission lines-l I 3 l-O i 12.3-1 Amendment-3,.10/10/80 .}}