ML20042B486

Supplemental Environ Info Document

ML20042B486
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	02/29/1980
From:	BOVAY ENGINEERS, INC., BURNS & ROE CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20041E806	List: ML20042B475 ML20042B477 ML20042B478 ML20042B482 ML20042B483 ML20042B486 ML20049J319 RBG-12241, Forwards Suppl 2 to Environ Rept Responding to NRC 820104 Questions & Including Corrections & Updated Info
References
NUDOCS 8203250359
Download: ML20042B486 (78)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:T l f,lb 3 i l RIVER BEND NUCLEAR POWER STATION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIR0fiMENTAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT Prepared For CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. v l l ~: l l l Prepared By B0VAY ENGINEERS, INC. - BURNS AND ROE, INC. FEBRUARY, 1980 i [l%J I l' 8203250359 820310 ' ~i PDR ADOCK 05000458 i C PDR ( BOV AY ENGINEE RS. INC. - BU R N$ AND R OE, INC. l'

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS s - 'l i v Section Pace

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-1 2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND CONSTRUCTION STATUS 2-1 2.1 Prime and Alternate Sites 2-1 2.2 Transmission Line Description 2-3 3.0 WETLANDS 3-1 3.1 Prime Site N and Transnission Corridors... 3-1 3.2 Alternate Site B and Transmissicn Corridors. 3-3 3.3 Alternate Site E and Transmission Corridors. 3-4 4.0 FLOCDPLAINS 4-1 (_) 4.1 The Prine Sit.e 4-1 4.2 Prime Transmission Line Strucutres ......a-2 5.0 SCS LAND USE CLAS3IFICATIONS - IMPORTANT FARMLAND.. 5-1 5.1 T.1e Prime Site............... 5-2 5.2 Prime Site Transmission Corridors 5-3 5.3 The Alternate Sites 5-3 5.4 Alternate Site Transmission Corridors 5-4 6.0 RARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES 6-1 7.0 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES.......... 7-1 8.0 THE NEED FOR POWER 8-1 9.0 GENERATION PLANNING................. 9-1 10.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION........ 10-1 V i. BOV AY ENGINEE RS. INC. - BURNS AND ROE. INC.

82ction .Pajle, 10.1 No Additional Generation.. 10-1 10.1.1 No Additional Power......... 10-1 ~ 10.1.2 Reduced Demand 10-2 10.1.3 Purchased Power........... 10-3 10.2 Alternatives Methods of Generation...... 10-5 10.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation........ 10-5 10.2.2 Oil and Natural Gas......... 10-5 10.2.3 Coal Gasification.......... 10-8 10.2.4 Solar Energy.. 10-8 10.2.5 Wind Power 10-9 10.2.6 Hydroelectric .10-10 10.2.7 Geothe rmal.............. 10-11 10.2.8 Magnetohydrodynamics......... 10-13 10.2.9 Fuel Cell s.............. 10-13 l 10.3 Preferred Alternatives .10-14 11.0 APPENDIX............ .11-1

12.0 REFERENCES

12-1 ~

3.,

'(l \\ _- ii 80V AY ENGIN EERS. INC. - BU RNS AND R OE. INC.

, [_) l LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4.1 ROUTE A - 500 KV STEEL TOWERS......... 4-4 Table 4.2 ROUTE B - 500 KV STEEL TOWERS......... 4-5 Table 4.3 ROUTE C - 230 KV DOUBLE STEEL POLE STRUCTURES EXCEPT POINTS J TO L SINGLE POLE STRUCTURES.. 4-5 Table 5.1 IMPACT ON LANDS................ 5-2 Table 5.2 IMPACT OF TRANSM!SSION LINES......... 5-3 Table 5.3 ALTERNATE SITES LAND CLASSIFICATIONS..... 5-4 Table 5.4 COMPARIS0N OF TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS..... 5-5 Table 8.1 CEPC0 PAST AND PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS.. 8-2 r~) Table 9.1 CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. - POWER (~ SUPPLY PLAN FOR PERIOD 1983 THROUGH 1990.. 9-2 i Table 10.1 CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. - l WITHOUT PARTICIPATION IN RIVER BEND NUCLEAR UNIT NO. 1.................. 10-6 ] Table 10.2 GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC SCENARIOS POSTULATED BY THE IGCC FOR PLANNING PURPOSES - REGION III 10-12 Table 10.3 EXPECTED PRESENT WORTH OF POWER COSTS... 10-16 MW !v -r L ~~ BOVAY ENGINEERS, INC.- BURNS AND ROE. INC.

C' LIST OF FIGURES _ b) ~~ Page Figure 2.1 PROPOSED SITE AND ALTERNATE SITES VICINITY MAP......... 2-2 Figure 2.2 PROPOSED SITE N AND ALTERNATE SITE R LOCATION AND TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS........... 2-3 Figure 2.3 ALTERNATE SITE B LOCATION AND TRANSri!SSION CORRIDORS.................... 2-4 Figure 2.4 ALTERNATE SITE E LOCATION AND TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS.................... 2-6 !U 7 I i I 5 ..G .m BOVAY ENGINEER $. INC.- BURN 5 AND ROE, INC. ~,y --,mn-wn._ e-- w e g

) 4 ~ v

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1j_ Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (CEPCO) is planning to 1 participate in the Gulf States Utilities Company River Bend Nuclear Power Station and associated transmission li:1es presently under con-struction near St. Francisville, Louisiana. As a power cooperative, 4 CEPC0 is eligible to utilize loan guarantee financing provided by the United States Department of Agriculture through the Rural Electrifica-tion Administration (REA). Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and to REA policy Bulletin 20-21, REA is required to prepare an Environmental ~ Impact Statement (EIS) prior to providing financing assistance for any major 3: Federal action which might result in a significant effect on the human ~ environment. REA has reviewed and will utilize the Environmental Impact Statement l lr prepared for the River Bend project by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission } (NRC). To supplement and update the NRC data, REA requested that CEPCO. prepare an Informational Document to support the preparation of the new EIS. i This document supercedes the original informational document. l ,tj submitted to REA in December,1978, and reflects those revisions 11 l"{ necessary to address REA's request of April 5,1979 (see Exhibit No.1 in Appendix) for additional information concerning rare or endangered species, archaeological and historic sites and the impacts of the project on the preferred and alternate plant sites and associated transmission 7 corridors with respect to land use, floodplains and wetlands. Also h considered are alternatives to CEPC0's participation in the River Bend project. l lN l-1 BOVAY ENGIN EERS. INC. - BURN 5 AND ROE, INC. ~

i l --O Agencies which supplied information and coments in conjunction with i this' effort include: I Agency Type Information ~ i U. S. Soil Conservation Service Land Use Classification U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Floodplains U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and j j Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Comission Wetlands and Rare and Endangered Species j Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer Historic and Archaeological Sites i I U. S. Department of Housing and i Urban Development and Louisiana Department of Urban and a Comunity Affsirs' Flood Insurance, Rate Maps Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Review !O Documeatetiom or 4arormatio# ead date previoee by eeca eseacy ere } contained in the Appendix of this report. Data from Gulf States Utilities Environmental Report, as reviewed by the Nuclear Re'gulatory {.. l Comission have been revised to include the most current information. This ' Informational Document presents the most recent information available and considers the latest Federal policies and those of the ~ State of Louisiana applicable to the proposed project. 1 3 l h. lO l-2 BOVAY ENGINEERS, INC.= BURNS AND ROE. INC. m, ~- _ -... - -. - - -,. ~ _ - - -

w n ia p 2.0 -GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND CONSTRUCTION STATUS i 2.1 Prime and Alternate Sites-lThe prime River Bend site area consists of 3,292 acres of GSU property, designated as site N. An alternate site R was considered on this property in the original Environmental Report by GSU; however, since site R is very similar to site N, it was deleted from further i consideration as a true alternate. Two alternate sites, B and E, were t selected as the most eligible sites for comparing environmental i alternates. ~ (See Figure 2.1, page 2-2, for general site locations.). Site preparation work on Site N was started under a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) issued by the NRC in September, 1975. Construction of' Unit No.1 is continuing under construction permits issued by the -NRC in March 1977 and is estimated to be 5 to 6 percent complete. The majority of the environmental impacts, which take place due to construction of a plant such as River Bend, occur in the initial site. preparation phase. This type work, which has already been completed at i River Benu, consists of the following:.(1) access and haul roads (2) foundation excavations (3) clearing of'the site switchyard area and onsite transmission corridors for Routes B and C (4) clearing of contractor laydown areas and (5) erection of temporary construction build-l ings. Construction of the river make-up water intake structure and barge off-loading area began in October 1979. Seeding of slopes and other disturbed areas to prevent eroision has begun and final revegetation and' reforestation is scheduled to take place in coordination with completion of phases of construction in accordance with NRC regulations and requirements. ~O - BOVAY ENGINEERS. INC BURN $ AND ROE,INC.

i p Ih, // p W 5. (g r/,.D 'id.,... y. l k :p-

• • '**g t

g, h k~ .:s k [T 'A h 'A N b % i_.i #n 1 Q h, gg

--g? '< -- Gv.4 m

h'.s'.'\\ n, ~.* 47 ms 2 h

h. gk

y. h-l'<

'g([. gl g ..? % 3.., y os 1 o8Nw l t s w$ y. \\ l .Q. $x q a ..,- l1 iaW; r

• d'.'

/ 8 8 ~ O tw v g 4 C Q,, g ,.= ilj f ../ oug .o a \\ w 1 w%~ 5 a (::~. ?,,,! i> -t ,g'} q s \\,%.- ~. s\\ s. a ), s, 4. y .s.n ' O Q' "n

• r+ n,, :.

c ~, ,.i i , f'*,Q v,.s ,.s. ,\\ l r 2' ^ "e ,/ u a y Ys Q,. s ...~ y a g,_jf<. C-d Q~ :_,.hg,a 1 4., N '. i

7

., 9 T ~ 3pQJ N

v. ~ ~

,f ' of, s s W w-Jy<' 4N ;.s,. :. J. y {'*/ ' x,,- ,s x m%,,:'.g+k i - .; g c g 8- / s ?,f + f., s /,g v '.'.:k, L.'- :.,, 9, .pq. f,s,, 0;'A *

• i j]

l., l 5 }.

~t m'- e .%s. s s

• /

,/%' ,,,,, 2 /,' g ~ 'i i 'I+! *\\s, g

• ~,/ -f..

'N ,\\ /; j Q 's..~.,~~ _ ~,*'\\*** N ,Ff~3 ~*

• nly%

w- 'N,. 'f l ' *% ' s.,~.: 'I ), ~ .m }N ~\\M.h, g .,f,lI, i .\\ '\\ i 4){,{,q,a[6 g" "' 9 . ~ 4 '\\ \\\\ % l1 l! T i i -i u Av 51ty'hll.#']'7," Q (.,g,7 '; ..q M,hp d.e

• s,

~ I . ps. I \\.%. h [4 i I 1I - ((m,i (, s. ~ w anu h ,4* e m. g g v*' 9_ O~ n . \\

, ", t. /

5x . :' m \\,li i.,/ j - &.\\ = % \\ s. g ~ ? e.;, if.ilc 5 ~- - w4 e.. .i ".. .gf, y/.; - 7~., 4 1 i ( %g, i y e, a n z u w

v.

'".x/ h s. +.,-... i.. n;h,!: ..i(' ~P1 4 l l l l~ s S,. " A fi ') %~ fl&,,j y I! Q 2 0

3 %,

[ y-p ~ (f,i yh'{h i ~ .4L' y. as< + g' 'N ~... 4, ~x ) ~,&c \\\\ ~~ ;h. p'

• )...

e <j $m wa,n e,,;g f @.q ' se e - j.f y s... g.Lc .y 8 ?; a e,. / % j.

~

'c

k..,

v %q' .~.- ,,? g \\ @; l.]- '^ .h,, q. 7'

• n,, A,e tu,,o

,3 'g A T C. g.s7a ,,y < f <s k ~ ~ ' ' ' h. - m <, g , [:,k,., ktf.ow g; y ~r d.> & l } ye ' f or" : '. g Ql' )} ~[n. x. [.. S &y l,o.c s,f.' p-. g_ f ..n we A ' :m.;, z .w2 .I .$yW- $q a. *.]Q~.

i. p,s

~ ,a.,% s. J '

• Wu

,~ f ei . ynd; t ~' m - +. - r

t 4 Transmission Line Description ( ) 2.2 The power distribution planning for the River Bend station created the initial requirement to extend the existing grid system north from Webre and Jaguar substations to the selected plant site a,nd from the' I plant site east to the McKnight substation (see Figure 2.2, Page 2-4). As plans were developed for Cajun Electric Power Cooperative's Big Cajun No. 2, Units 1, 2 and 3 at New Roads, Louisiana, the grid was 3 increased in capacity and ties were planned to permit transmission of power from the Big Cajun No. 2 site through the same grid extension =_. originally planned for River Bend. The transmission corridors, as identified in Gulf States Utilities Environmental Report, have changed slightly in the area of the proposed site. The three major line designations of Route A, B /) andChavebeenretained. The revised routes are shown on Figure 2.2, _ \\_J page 2-4. All routes originate from point A', the combined 230--500 KV switchyard on the proposed site. Route A extends east to the McKnight substation, Route B southwest to Webre substation, and Route C southeast to Jaguar substation. GSU's original Rouge D was combined with Route A, and Route E was eliminated from consideration as it was an existing ~ line shown only as a tie-in to the new grid extension. The changes in transmission corridors to accommodate the alternate sites will only be in the vicinity of the power stations and the crossing of the Mississippi River (See Figure 2.3, page 2-5, and Figure 2.4, page 2-6). These changes and their impacts are described in Section 3.0, Wetlands, and Section 5.0, Land Use Classification, of this document. -~ AU 2-3 BOVAY ENGINEERS. INC. - DU RNS AND ROE, INC. -p., ,--,,a

.v.L jG:. f,k...f w.y g[sl;N % ; +-~.u:Y. Dh2 E 4 a e hkh$ y$?rb fE..MMu.g+g gq/l y-s.p p ppg 3 gjgg .j;k.D ' N.

.3 x

g, ; u/ q) g stOl g{ )b

m..+.

~,. o, r.. y.,. ~ m a 1. ga t p,(w[OL; - P /.. i '.-e.,. . W. 5 a r",' y!.',y...a[','.. ff, i,. d g in 8 g z 4

/

• .. -; i 9

,,b,, ov c ~3, yg n., g!. 'a, i. 3. w$'.'c- ?,{; y ',<3],. 4;. k r s,. . Ig <h g g @~ . _]~- ~ a, g' : p 1. ct t- .y oL. % m s,,., y,.,6 (j.... -, 1. ['N ' 'k1. o.. 9.', 1(,, 9 M,' ( ,?, A %z,N/ b, ' %} *' w _.,[( = n. .c % :. ;) g,',# l 't :.4: y ,3 s z .g, g w, oc a v.,$ J: h r...#, g '[3.&..

c.,

e % '. (if * }v....;n;g \\ h %.g...G'j. },,::*,'.-q+[2L&g as 1..~ . y' ",, #y k ;;I / 3 g$ h g QFt ypgW. k%[!Y ~ 3 f j h' N I'.h iY E k JMWA D.kkk%[k.. 5.a. (O Nf,fd 3.dj Mh % & g h Q f i h &e, p p. g w ? [ h jd @awm,, m s w y m~ s4 = 3. .3 w. vJ n* f 4 r.... 1 s y,,re .p? .-v e p )4, l, Y 'y ....?? Q -{ i g t ss pf ftlyGlay.,f l7 s ~ jf.O } m. a : N. c,a. ~g >] wa n e

,?, p). 4% %p M N.MWpp

,'Y.-

g.... m..

y

, n. e..,,

7: nn c t (, .' k gg/.:q M, gD, fT_ A %j% w ~ , g by.,,. ,,,.\\ s. m v ?y. *t.. p-

7. v yg.g

.; 7 r, _,,', s 9 >.

• t.C 4 9

s;. ~. . n.t ... =..

• . -X %.

1 h' l f 's.u/ ' ' Jy ' 'q,p.,@. p 's,s~' ...i g.V 6,. ~ s ~ ' ' ,7 -:::b.f :~, W - f c:. y. a A c li f '% h/ '!. g l - f. h Ql'3, !a_ -f,9,4 '..l..-. f ~'i'~ \\ 1 Gf 3 p.f

7..

sy. / & ',',,','.s 2. +. .~ ~ ~%*'s. s /' ,u f ..,,,'f,,4 y.J.-......y., - 'f '\\.- * " " (*

• 7 't-

,.s.wr# s .i f '.'3,. g - B +s,, -~ > '-', t. / \\- / w g g , f.1. y r,, ql

,e '-

k; r i i i

• rs Q.r d 1

1 N .. /.. (h T ' $ - i .r s .l ?:{ j, y r j i J.f < N )..,\\,~g ; i b. ru u.,... .n s n.o ~ ~ g f. 2,- c .W m

n. J 3. O,.

(._, - as s 5 .Y dp .\\. \\d'v [t.t N.;,.g.., .+: nx. p ..-y. 24 v\\-*,

• as;.t' k T )r+i? 'r g'i -(3. g$

.4,.

.. nx w a.,,,,,,,,g,.<,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4. N. g i, a.. . ; e .,s -.. r y I' f if.. O,I,, ,e Il U.C '.,i.

• I,...
• 1, '

. x < "+ 9 g yr 1. .x y.., e, y. IL [4 _...N.

, g&..1 ;. j v.; y.. : gf.'* - >., ', s,.[.t u. ;-n,_,/ 3 g Ey 4

f{ b,% a.<t +,k' ; W ' +, ; ~;,

h' i. /. _., %q%);d I '), 'O ' 8:1 8 ~,,, >.. " sm g .':' *, c p i

u. g y 5

f '. h (Jh.'y, j,, 4 j l 4, .g, -4. ; ...r 3 T. / c ,,p , ;[,'

• I

" 'g. q. $2 [ Si S ggi .vrW..d, . l. u$ i:. p i u t' s g -;j = ~ 55wsi g.g %.,~., 1 a. e. s. .~.y ,,- q'., I n w e'II 4 jd[.c g, sf g b8 $N ..d

• 3

\\' T'[ u if-- %[3, b' 'gc.f ?; W m,g'i.) M.t-...m +s 8 6 g: t 4 + n O s n a.< ql.

4..

ct 49 i

7.,

) I Os 1

il a. I i h ' i 0 4 ~ { 1 i-l f,' h g, [IJ I" g,' ,j j I OD,Mfh D. t e I laq ' ;. N; o i' Nl i, g H i .h. h[j #..fi.% uk. h.# .hi .. s. _e c.1 -.t ~,s,. .- - m J,e/*.

• ks -*7-p.

A-y ej

• 6

1. eA,-

• * '. =

. -),(i) .. R. e.T. % . \\:: g!O 53'4. '$,.'sf4 * *-2 .,'.(. O-M.. v..h " e,, 3 y w w.~. m n p y .r i N. hp -;..a.:.s *. I.[ d_.. ; \\:*7~ * .... f' 2 W '4' -A--- 'I " g~. i g.,,,. 't,.' 1;[. ; '- g' fy, Qo %q _.'f., y,;,gQ. .Y$h ? ? a I +~ D,.ji, s%,kkh,bka . W '1 f *_ l '. ~ ~ f.k k-~- 'y \\t d. . w' a 'm ,;{ ' i gg., ] ' y .o J.~JN. T r &k#W.N' y{ sp{' %eQ0f.D.,. ;.,!a .'O.

• w; y r' w{ J

1. a._ u. s.g

g x gA.,ay+g.lg a. ~

g' A. J. f.Cpy - i W y 't g wn mg.a, 4~... ..w,... n a.s.,. \\, %a L, c,.u ( m v. a. e ~ , ya v.; 3 l 6 M[ h w . m. v,., kW%rw:;.RW-w w,1 t,,. p i e l' ~ 1 - 'y Q^ .. f 3 ~,' s. . p ; /,.** y g - e-

i..-

7,6,, -'4. J H - 9 f:., \\ ,s, n. s

i. L y

s c { :. L ;,,,.,, N.... Mg x w.. i +, e .y %.j I 'g,.k a .s p,,- N -*' t. 3 4 8 a' h' / \\(. Y, s u =3 4 Y 1, i,. k s E s U,'. 8 ' M %j;[,l'tj %q fi 1~, t~ '... 3 y. .- M - n s ps{1!. [, <;, ,ys.

• 7.. 4, p.%

1 ~ }Sk-j 7.... a 5 { @ p! l I .i

j-..

t-i' .\\.. I b $ j

• Lt"'5..). ',, b ', I'/.[ E fgi/ k v -.. - N-.6/gr \\. '. /

-1 js n 4. w ,an.. . M. e ,, #w- },,.tt.,[n, / "~ i y y. s e '. t.. : A - '..

J ' f, i n..,.,.

~. ' ', 4 a: f'

t..J

. i ~ 7. ~,, /L.,(,,,..,,,,,, 3 ' /3 - ~ \\.- r ? .. 5,,., - '\\ ). x s ST

i..

c. N s .Is..q. -i k._ j - ,a - *',f,. ,.\\. tt +- s l ,/

• e

i .4 3 j s t.,... u \\, s. 3- .7 g.:,-4,V g. [' . 'fk. yq 1 b. ... 'J.. .[ g 5 i > . J,..' e

• '?%?,gd14dA

> tTV g.'M. T J j' '.fh'.;.s.,,.f.q g 7 gg

• 5 L'

~ c ;:-- gj g g 'W y -; ,s,,, i b ,N.[ ]. , E$ @P 8 2 . 'h '.'.d 4,b ,+[,t I. ; * . _,,..t ;- ~ oc a, o s 'a- ..o oti: _ ,._,.t., [- '[f Kj[g' .\\ 4 t. w o ,u 9 ~ 2. j . J'- O .W $g E- ~ i -) e.ie b k d y. 7 a. w

• b-

{ , '

• s.D,

.M G5EW E..! }'_2 1 j 4

EQd,

,8 - .j s Ia 4 r r. ,1. oo e o 2* 4 .A .,, Q. W. 4.. .,s., N.'. m: n. wz um a s s

• c.. s g
• n,e

p. :.

e o ..'{. 3 p., g ' ( (

j. #

'l 7 ]g $ {",y j U <t g W g g s ' g'. hy, ?,

4. -

't + Q '{* t ,g '3.}~' e g 's Eg j d t $ M,.~O.2g %.-.6,li-Q w,l E kg.. gW* T **u*. g. -:... m. ,...uay* m(.., eu n 2 .3 3 g . s.y 3 v. ,s y,.,... N,..y: o g. r q.y o. ,s v , - i.,. 9.. e y _,.. : .v e.c. A Wa.. m D yf ,5 r. yr w,i. t..y....

m. s X- } $ y w)h 0 boy,2.a o

b Q?.I ;(:h $ $ l N W Tp ' ',hy G m..o js.y x. f.a.r. h,g,, y Q wl. ~~ k Wh RW . w% i q., x,w. ,e n.r. m u,. i.s y.. . b} ;,L-;gW ~ np b,.. 6.'k [C dl h .A h . g ,,s. 5 Qe J MM dWpv. P(,, Q-k,' ( c-6>,w. w

• x. t. -

7 r w w .m s t.,3-,4. y V r~t e p. n 3 M3> fe a y. ANQ,n.U$ ~ q_. q. . c ; f. t.4 .t .1 M &g #i figA.Ib% &. b 3 U y,. m.g., g., y,,,., w..<,y xp ~k.g e.. Vn 5 F.,,Nwh,e m,- >)~,!.[j.) f - .A v 1 i t. ,r w e mr i v. 1 1 a. e. o :n..y f. n O., e-r,-

1. ~,

-~ r, ...r 2 ~ s s ( ' ' i i. Q.l. T' . ' ]. g 4.. ' fN.[m .. (/. .r er q \\ ... a

• v.

) ..n. 3.w ', ','.u..., g >,= <,,t 4 %[233 @[.,,. 'jq j[ [ f. d.'} q - j '.[ v ,. 1 w h;j{$:y,'m i:.7,p c Agu. 7 s.- ar. Qfd N ;r &. J, a . ' Q-i.Q y'f,T .f re.- 'i ifi t- ,v ~ + d'#p.$:)[3?s' 'l,* +- Qr -.,,4Q. $y s . a r.x. j n. a-., m.., y [g... t .1. - e. .c. -. -..xp. ue...w % s,. s g,...., v-... .s-. .i. t gr. ,y .'f k* ? *$. h ,4 .---lj M., m. u%,,,,.. 9s,....s. k.m. >. w. p. a..,,. -. m. ' ' e s .;.' s d.s.3... ~ 4,.. ~, m 9.;.. 1 ..a ,c 7 / . \\

/.y - x.

• i..),,

p - 1. j, p*,- r u 1.j 1.p..,. A. 1 g\\,. E', ~ ./ \\ g . j.,*: a 1 4-n. 7. a . w %.s s

s. s.. c, 1

s ..., e. mu , s.g :.ryy <r f~x.... r.'.m,A,.;. .s- - < y-f..i .g , ~.. ;..;, y-,y-j .v. . i..s, .:,, w:.7. y - N ry,,N.. 2. .y, .L s.p j e . ;. i o .u $.y'T 0, ,,[ (, f,

• ;q

,,c,,,,,,,,,,, , / 3: l '. .i*' 7 i y, 4 f.y' u f ;x. 3 a,. ' 1,.pn > k.g,. p.i 3_ i.c c I. ,s

-I %r The general description and construction status of the transmission.. lines originally planned specifically for River Bend but currently designed to tie Big Cajun No. 2 and River Bend to the system grid, are as follows: ~' Route A - Route A from the site switchyard (point A') to poin't 0, the McKnight substation, consists of a single set of new 500 KV steel towers. 14.51 miles of this route follow an abandoned railroad right-of-way which will requira widening by 152 feet for the new line. o Also, 2.12 miles will parallel an existing pipeline and will require ~' an additional width of 139 feet. Approximately 11 miles of the.oute will require a new 182 foot wide right-of-way. The clearing of the corridors is scheduled to. start in January,1981 with an in-service date _. O b scheduled for September, 1982. Rout,e B - Route B extends from point A', the site switchyard, to-i point E, Webre substation, and' consists of a single set of new 500 KV steel towers. The first 1.07 miles from point A' to A share a 609 foot l wide corridor with Route C. This segment is entirely on the site and q required clearing has been completed. The segment from point A to Big Cajun No. 2, approximately point C, is approximately 200 feet wide and i requires very little clearing. Clearing started in July 1979. The above two segments of Route B from Big Cajun No. 2 to the River Bend switchyard, identified as GSU Line No. 746, will be placed in service in approximately September 1980. The remainder of the route from Big Cajun No. 2 to Webre sub-station, know as GSU Line No. 745, was completed and was placed in g '--q) service in March 1979. 2-7 BOVAY ENGINEERS, INC.- SURNS AND ROE, INC.

} Route C - Route C will consist of a single set of new, double I steel pole, 230 KV structures to carry GSU Line No. 352 from the site switchyard (point A') to point J. A single steel pole structure ~~ will carry the line from point J to L. The line will then run on existing poles from L to M, the Jaguar substation. The first 1.07 miles, segment A' to A, are entirely on the plant property and will share a 609 ft. wide corridor with Route B. This segment was cleared during the site preparation. Segment B to G parallels an existing ~~ transmission corridor and pipeline right-of-way and will require an additional 87.5 feet clearing along its 1.03 miles. Segment G to H follows an existing transmission line in the vicinity of the Historic Port Hudson Battlefield. This segment is 8.59 miles long and the additional right-of-way widths required vary from 80 to 155 feet. The \\ additional right-of-ways in segment G to H has been located so as to ~{ minimize impacts on the Port Hudson Battlefield area. Segment H to I is 4.83 miles long and requires the existing transmission corridor, that it follows, to be widened by 80 feet. Segment I to J is a new corridor 0.22 miles long and 100 feet wide. The first 1.67 miles of segment J to K will require an additional 32 feet of right-of-way next to an existing railroad to accommodate a single steel pole 230 KV The last 2.96 miles of J to K and segment K to L will structure. utilize existing right-of-way from a railroad on one side and a high-way on the other side. The required clearing along Route C will be started in November 1979 and is scheduled for in-service tie to the line to be completed in approximately September of 1980. -O 2-8 BOVAY ENGINEERS, INC.~ BURNS AND ROE. INC.

(') U 3.0 WETLANDS Executive Order 11990 (Protections of Wetlands) insures that wetlands will be avoided to the greatest extent possible by all new construction or construction related activities. Since this executive order was issued on May 24, 1977, the NRC Environmental Statement did not specifically address this directive, but did consider the effects on swamps, streambeds and other frequently inundated areas. Authorities of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, were consulted to determine the extent of the wetland areas impacted by sites and transmission routes considered in this report. The following sections describe the impacts [, of the alternative sites and transmission routes on wetland areas. ~f 'l 3.1 PRIME SITE N AND ASSOCIATED TRANSMISSION ROUTES \\_j Site N is located on the east bank of the Mississippi River approximately 3 miles southeast of St. Francisville, Louisiana and is encompassed by a general plant area of 3,292 acres. Approximately 950 acres (i.e., 29 percent) are considered by both of the above agencies as wetlands (see Exhibit #2 in Appendix.) The area is comprised predominantly of three bottomland hardwood types (i.e., Tupelogum bald cypress, Tupelogum hackberry-ash and hackberry-j boxelderash-sycamore) and is essentially delineated as the portion of the property below the 50 foot MSL elevation contour west to the Mississippi River. The wetlands include approximately 723 acres on l bottomland hardwards, 110 acres in pasture, a transition area of approximately 112 acres between the bottomland hardwoods and the upland ~ !~) forests that is considered as susceptible to flooding and one small pond (5 acres). 3-1 BOVAY ENGINEERS. lNC. - 8 URNS / NQ RCE. INC. i

The two impacts on the wetlands on the site have been from the ,_\\ t '~ ' construction and installation of a haul road to the barge slip and intake / discharge structure, and a planned 500 KV transmission line. The road traverses 3,500 feet in the floodplain area removing about 5.4 acres of bottomland hardwood plus an additional 10.0 acres of bottomland hardwood at the river front embayment. This construction ~~ has removed approximately 2.10 percent of this habitat type (i.e. bottomland forest) at the site; however. construction is complete, and the areas bordering the road have been reseeded. The transmission corridor on the site will not directly effect i any bottomland forest areas in the wetlands, but will cross pasture ~' areas. The portion of Route B (GSU line No. 746) that crosses the Mississippi River will utilize four large tower structures. These ) four towers will be designed for maximum structural stability in 7 consideration of REA's " critical structure" designation (See Exhibit #3 ~~ in the Appendix.) The bases constructed for these towers will remove approximately 40,000 square feet, or less than one acre (0.92 acres) from wetland habitat. Two of these towers will be located on the site property. One of the two remaining towers will be off the site property cn the east bank of the Mississippi River and the other tower will be located on the west side of the river in the batture area east of the levee. All transmission lines will be inspected by air. When maintenance or repairs are required o"e the towers or transmission lines, existing I roads or actual corridor right-of-ways will be utilized for access by --() four wheel vehicles. Tire impressions made by access vehicles should disappear in a short period and could be considered a temporary condition. 3-2 BOVAY ENGINEERS. INC.= BURN 5 AND ROE. INC.

i _{ The use of this type access will be minimal due to the very infrequent maintenance requirements. GSU has committed to the NRC that there will be no spraying of chemicals. Mowing or cutting will be restricted to that necessary to maintain the corridor right-of-ways; however, in the event spraying becomes necessary, GSU will adhere to the applicable EPA /VSDA standards. The total permanent impact of all plant structures and facilities (i.e.,16.32 acres) on the wetlands at the site is 1.72 percent. The total effects of all the transmission lines in the wetlands } is considered negligible. The combined impact of the additional right-of-way for the transmission routes will temporarily disturb approximately 178 acres of wetland on and off the site. However, the permanent transmission structures will remove less than one percent ([ (i.e., 1.5 acres) of the additional right-of-way. The areas in the ~ right-of-way between and around the permanent structures will revert back to use in the wetland area. 3.2 Alternate Site B and Transmission Corridors Alternate site B is located on the west bank of the Mississippi River and approximately 3 miles south of the prime site (see Figure } 2.3, page 2-5). It would encompass approximately 540 acres of land. The batture area inside the levee of the Mississippi River is the only identified wetland in this site and comprises approximately 17.20 percent of the 540 acres. Wetland impact from the site construction would be from haul roads, docks and intake structures. Figure 2.3, page 2-5, shows alternate site B and changes to the transmission corridor routing from ~ the prime site routing for which lettered points were used for identi- .( fication. Point 10 to 7 to 8 to 9 (G) is a 230 KV line which would cross the river and most of this area on existing structures. The other changes 1 3-3 80VAY ENGINEERS, INC.- BURN 5 AND ROE. INC.

e L. _. ({]) to the route, 5 to 6,10 to 12 to C to ll do not impact the wetlands, to any extent, differently than do the prime site tra aatssion corridors. ~~ These impacts were described earlier in the section. 3.3 Alternate Site E and Transmission Corridors Site E is located on the west bank of the Mississippi River directly 1 opposite Profit Island (See Figure 2.4, page 2-6). This site consists of approximately 490 acres; the batture area inside the levee is the only wetland area. In this case the wetlands comprise approximately 27.20 percent of the total site. The impact on wetlands from a plant constructed at this site would be from barge dock, water intake structures and haul roads inside the batture. The change in transmission routing as shown on Figure 2.4, page 2-6, is identified by the number points ; the lettered points are the same i r-' i (,- as the prime site corridor routes. Points 1 to 2 right-of-way corridor cro:s approximately.6.3 acres of wetland, but the impact would be that of one tower base occupying approximately 0.007 acres in the wetland. The other variation in the route that crosses any wetlands is from Point 7 to 8. This would be a new 500 KV river crossing, adjacent t to an existing 230 KV crossing. The impact of this crossing on the wetlands would be similar to the prime route crnssing as shown on Figure 2.2, page 2-4. i I 6 g O 3-4 BOVAY ENGINEER $,1NC.-- 8 URNS AND ROE, lNC.

O FLOODPLAINS Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains) insures that floodplains will be avoided to the greatest extent possible by all Federally assisted construction or construction related activities. Since,this Executive Order was issued on May 24, 1977, subsequent to issuance of the NRC environmental impact statement, the NRC document did not specifically '~ address this directive. The NRC did assess the impact of any construction in the floodplains and furthermore, NRC safety procedures do not permit any nuclear plant critical structures (containment buildings, turbine and radwaste treatment buildings, etc.), to be sited in a floodplain without adequate flood protection. 4.1 The Prime Site The River Bend plant is located above the east Mississippi River f~' floodplain on elevated, gently sloping tarrain, approximately two miles east of the river at about River Mile 262. Local streams in the area are intermittent or have a low base flow with a tendency to rise and ~~ fall rapidly dependent upon local rainstorms. The site lies within the drainage of Grants Bayou with approximately 8.5 square miles of West Creek, a tributary of Grants Bayou, drains the watershed upstream. about 0.94 square miles before joining Grants Bayou South of the site. The reactors are to be situated on the divide between Grants Bayou and West Creek. Grants Bayou joins Alligator Bayou in the Mississippi River floodplain south of the site. Alligator Bayou joins Thompson Creek 3 miles upstream of its confluence with the Mississippi River. Because of the proximity of the site to the Mississippi River, the flood potential from the Mississippi River, Grants Bayou, and West Creek was evaluated. s Hydraulic investigations by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers indicated that a flood stage of 63.0 feet MSL could occur once every 4-1 BOVAY ENGIN EE RS. INC. - SU R NS AND ROE. b.4.

,, ] 100 years and a flood state of 64 feet MSL could be expected to occur once in 500 years in the vicinity of the plant site (see Exhibit

1. 4inAppendix). The proposed plant grade is at elevation 95 feet MSL, well above the Corps of Engineers predicted flood levels.

Gulf States Utilities (.GSU) performed an independent analysis of a worst case flood condition in response to NRC's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) request. This was done as evidenced in Supplement No. 1, page 2-1, paragraph 2.4.2 of the SER (see Exhibit #5 in Appendix). The worst case flood condition was based on conservative assumptions and estimates including failure of the proposed West Creek improved channel due to an Operating Basis Earthquake (0BE). The results of this l analysis indicated that the peak water level for this condition could l reach an elevation of 98.49 feet MSL for a duration.of one minute. This peak water level is higher than the proposed level to which flood } protection presently is provided, i.e., 98 feet MSL. Accordingly, GSU has committed that all appropriate doors will be closed during operation of the plant. These doors would include those which if left open would permit access of flood waters to safety related equipment. This requirement will be reflected in the technical specifications at the FSAR state. Flood waters would only be above the flood protec- ~ tion level for a very short time and any leakage around the doors could be collected in the plant sumps and removed by pumping without undue hazard to safety related systems or components. 4.2 Prime Transmission Line Structures See Figure 2.2, page 2-4, in the Transmission Line Section for ~ line routes. These.line routes were compared to the available Flood q TJ Rate Insurance maps for zones where flood are predicted to occur once every 100 years. The Flood Rate Insurance maps that were available 4-2 BOVAY ENGINEERS. INC.- BURN 5 AND ROE.1NC.

u'_ - and utilized are East Baton Rouge Parish, West Baton Rouge Parish, Point Coupee Parish, Iberville Parish, and West Feliciana Parish. t ( 3 Flood Rate Insurance maps for East Feliciana Parish (majority of-Route A is in this Parish) have not been made yet according to the U.S. ~ Department of Housing and Urban Development. Since Route A is in the

L

- part of East Feliciana Parish adjacent to East Baton Rouge Parish, i. i-the applicable 100 year floodplains were extrapolated utilizing the-East Baton Rouge Parish Flood Maps, the contour lines, applicable l r streams in East Feliciana Parish, and conservative judgment and knowledge I ~ of the area. Using GSU nominal spacing for 500 KV and 230 KV trans-I ^ mission structures, tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 were prepared showing { approximate number of structures likely to fall in the floodplains. The use of available Flood Rate Insurance maps described above-is ( O.' very conservative and inaccurate as the maps do not show topographic contours and flood elevations. The fact that a flood map for East.Feliciana does not exist led to extreme consevatism in evaluating Route A flood-plains. It is estimated that a maximum of 149 towers out of a total of i approximately 437 towers for the three corridors could be in the flood-plains; however, actual floodplain definition and final design could 4 ' '~ reduce this number as much as 30 percent. GSU practice is to minimize l 1 the number of structures in the floodplains wherever possible. 1 -- 1 ?-O 4 4-3 i 80VAY ENGINEERS, INC.- BURNS ANO ROE. INC. i .-,m -..-,--,r--.,--,.~r.,-.-m-4----,,,_m -_<4-w,- ,,,--+,.v.- + - ~.. - < + -y ,v -v,. --y.*,

i i m O: t I. i Tabie 4.1 ROUTE A 500 KV STEEL TOWERS Floodplain Number Towers in Floodplain Sandy Creek West Fork 2 Sandy Creek East Fork 2 Thompson Creek 5 Hog Branch 2 i i L. Black Creek 2 Doyle Creek 2 l O Redwood Creek 5 1 Comite River 13 i Water. Fowl Bayou 3 Sandy Creek 7 i Mill Creek 1 Scalons Creek 3 Ball Bayou 3 i Kidd's Creek 1 I'~ TOTAL 51 l (} Design of transmission tower locations for Route A has not been i accomplished as yet; however, based on GSU normal design spacings, Route A will have a total of approximately 146 towers. ~* t i !^ I.. -0 I l 4-4 BCVAY ENGINEERS. INC.- guRNS AND ROE, INC. .,7

t I u. ,,,. _.. +, --+ w g l Table 4.2 ~~ . ROUTE B 500 KV STEEL TOWERS-S L. Floodplain Number Towers in Floodplain 2 Patin Dyke and Slough Basin 11 t Chenal Crossing False River 'l Floodplain Southwest. 45 End of Route (Bayou's Sterling, Grosse Tete, Cholpe, Poydras, and m Tomy) TOTAL 57 Route B has a design total of 143 towers Table 4.3 ROUTE C 230 KV DOUBLE STEEL POLE STRUCTURES EXCEPT POINTS J TO L SINGLE PULE STRUCTURES T -l Floodplain Number of-Structures in' Floodplain Thompson Creek 8~ Sandy Creek 2 -Port Hickey Bayou 1 l Cooper Bayou 3 Cooper Bayou East Branch 2 Baton Rouge Bayou 3 Cypress Bayou 22 TOTAL 41 Route C has a design total of 148 towers -O 4-5 l DOVAY ENGINEERS. INC.- BURN 5 AND ROE, INC.

SCS LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS - IMPORTANT FARMLAND ,,(]} 5.0 The lands associated with the River Bend plant site and related transmission network were classified according to the latest information w. as supplied by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation i Service system (see Exhibit #6 in Appendix). There are four basic ~~ i classifications defined as indicated below: i ~r l Prime Farmland i Prime farmland is' land best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops. .. has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields ~~ of crops economically when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. It does not have a serious erosion hazard nor is it subject to flooding. Prime farm land consists mainly of level to () slightly sloping soils that are well suited to large multi-row farming equipment. ~~ l Unique Farmland Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. Lands devoted to sugarcane, citrus, catfish ponds, and crawfish farms are considered unique farmland. Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance This is land, in addition to prime and unique farmlands, that is of statewide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, 7-~ and oilseed crops. These lands are important to agriculture.in 5-1 SOVAY ENGINEERS. tNC.- BURNS AND ROE,1NC.

Louisiana, yet they exhibit some properties that exclude them from f '~ ' prime farmland. Examples of such properties are erodibility, flooding, and susceptibility to drought. Other Lands All other land not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance. 5.1 The Prime Site Of the original plant site of 2,679 acres, approximately 265 acres will be occupied by permanent structures. The table belaw indicates the acreages impacted according to the four classifications i above: Table 5.1 IMPACT ON LANDS Original Acreage Category Acreage Effected % Loss Prime Farmland 1137 108.0 9.5 Unique Farmland 0 0 0 Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance 604 63.2 10.1 Other Lands 938 93.4 9.9 2679* 264.6 9.9 Avg.*

• The additional 613 acres permanently now part of the new site boundries will not be affected at all, and consequently would reduce the average overall loss to about 8 percent.

Of t.ie total acreage permanently impacted at the site (264.6 acres), only about 40 percent affects prime farmland (108 acre.c), --jll which is less than 10 percent of all prime farmlands (1137 acres) on the original site. 5-2 BOVAY ENGINEERS, INC.- BURNS AND ROE, INC. _m_.____.-__________._

3 ]; 1 o ~ ..[ } 5.2 Prine Site Transmission Corridors The additional right-of-way required for transmission lines on and off the site involves approximately 1,156 acres. This area will be temporarily disturbed with less thanl3.31 acres actually required for the permanent transmission structures. The total system will-provide for four 500 KV towers in the floodplain at the P.ississippi River crossing, approximately 289 regular 500 KV towers ano 148 new 230 KV structures. Table 5.2 below summarizes the temporary and ~~ permanent impacts of the sytem. Table 5.2 IMDACT 0F TRANSMISSION LINES Additional' Right-of-Way Acreage Required For Permanent ' Category (Acres) Structures '% Loss i ~~ Prime Farmland 686.5 1.48 0.22 Unique Farmland 0 0 - 0 Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance 219.1 0.39 0.18 l Other Lands 250.3 .54 0.22 1155.9 2.41 0.21 Avg. i _. As indicated above, a combined total of_l.87 acres of land will be removed from the prime and statewide farmland areas. This represents about 0.16 percent of the right-of-way land, in these categories, c --() that would not be available for use. 4 (/ 5.3 The Alternate Sites The alternate sites, B and E, which are located on the west side of 5 BOVAY ENGINEER $,4NC.- SURNS AND ROE. INC. m.

i l t the Mississippi River, consist primarily of flat open bottomland -- ( ) protected from seasonal flooding by the Mississippi River Levee System. The sites are classified by approximate percentages of the total site in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 t ALTERNATE SITES LAND CLASSIFICATIONS SITE B SITE E 540 fcres Total 490 Acres Category Percentage Percentage Prime Farmland 82.80 72.80 Unique Farmland 0 0 ( )) Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance 0 0 Other Lands 17.20 27.20 L. 100.00 100.00 5.4 Alternate Site T ransmission Corridors The transmission corridors change only in the areas of the alternate site and the Mississippi River crossing (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4, pages 2-5 and 2-6). l Table 5.4 shows classification by percentages of the total corridor area. Also, the alternate site transmission corridor configuration is compared to the transmission corridors of the prime site. As indicated, the maximum percentage variation is less than two percent, and for all _. {~} practical purposes, classification is the same for both corridors. 5-4 1 BOVAY ENGINEERS,4NC.-- BURNS AND ROE, tNC.

l Table 5.4 COMPARIS0N OF TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS i SITE N SITE B SITE E Corridor 1155.9 Acres Corridor 1150.8 Acres Corridor 1106.6 Acres '~~ Category Percentage Percentage Percentage '~ Prime Farmland 59.40 58.80 57.60 Unique Farmland 0 0 0 Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance 19.00 19.20 20.90 Other Lands 21.60 22.00 21.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 Ah NF W -= Y mm I \\ w 5-5 BOVAY ENGINEER $,1NC. - BURNS AND ROE. INC.

4 ) > 6.0 RARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES The Environmental Report (ER) examined all species of wildlife found at the site and within the transmission ~ corridors. There were no endangered species identified. These data were reviewed by the.V. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No species which have been added to the list of threatened / endangered species since the June 1974 ER (see Exhibit #7, in Appendix) are likely to occur in the project area. However, as noted in Exhibit 7, the endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker has been reported in West Feliciana Parish and is known to be associated with southern pine forests. GSU has committed to have all previously undisturbed areas of the site and transmission corridors surveyed for the possible presence of this species. 6-1 BOVAY ENGINEERS. INC.- SURNS AND ROE. INC,

f-i t .. (]) 7.0 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES The only property currently listed in the' National Register of ~~ Historic Places in the vicinity of the plant and its transmission I lines is the Port Hudson Battlefield. No other sites in the project vicinity have been identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); however, Riddle Cemetery was found to possess some qualitites which may require further investigation to determine its eligibility. (See Exhibit #8 in the Appendix) Cemetaries in the state generally are not considered eligible for the NRHP unless they possess historic architectoral features above ground, such as some tombs found in the New Orleans area, or contain the remains of a nationally recognized historic figure. Riddle Cemetery does not possess either of these features. (See Exhibit #9 in the Appendix) 4 () An archaeological and historical site survey is contained in the Appendix of the Environmental Report (ER). Since the ER was prepared, "GSU has performed a survey of the transmission corridor areas. The Appendix contains letters from the Louisiana Department of Culture,- Recreation, and Tourism, Division of Archaelogy and Historic Preservation giving comments and approval for transmission line routings (See Exhibits

1. 10, 11 and 12 in Appendix). Also see GSU's responding comments and submittal to the NRC and the corresponding response in Exhibits #13 and 14 of the Appendix.

I 7-1 50VAY ENGINEERS. INC.- BURN 5 ANO ROE. INC.

8.0 THE NEED FOR POWER -- (') The net capacity available from the present CEPC0 generating facilities is approximately 230 MW, of which 15 percent is dedicated i to pool reserve capacity. The additional capacity and associated energy required to satisfy CEPC0's needs above the capability of Big Cajun No.1 is purchased from private utility companies, and Tex-La Electric Cooperative. CEPC0 has three 540 MW units currently under construction at the Big Cajun No. 2 Power Station. Unit Nos.1 and 2 are scheduled for commercial operation in 1980, and Unit 3 will follow in 1983. An estimate of future electrical demand and energy requirements has been prepared by each of CEPC0's member systens. These estimates, after having been compiled by the CEPC0 staff, were included in the f3 Louisiana 30 Bayou Power Requirements Study. A summary of these ( ! estimated peak MW demands for the entire CEPC0 system through 1991 is shown in Table 8.1, page 8-2. As noted and reflected in that Table, several major changes in CEPC0's service responsibility are expected to occur. In 1979, South Louisiana Electric Membership Cooperative (SLEMCO) assigned all purchase power contracts to CEPC0, including those from Gulf States Utilities (GSU) and Central Louisiana Electric Company (CLECO). In 1980, CEPC0 wil'. assume the responsibility for the portion of the South Louisiana Electric Membership Cooperative (SLEMCO) load which is supplied by Central Louisiana Electric Company (CLECO) and GSU. For comparison, the SLEMC0 loads are included in CEPC0's demand requirement in Table 8.1, beginning in 1976. _/ .,/ 8-1 BOVAY ENGIN EERS. INC.-- 8 URNS AND RO E. INC.

] Table 8.1 CEPC0 PAST AND PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS 3 Year Projected (c) Actual Energy in Million KWH/Yr. Peak Demand - MW Peak Demand - MW ~ As Billed Projected Actual 1976(a) 769 769 2,882'. -2,882 1977 842 844 3,166 3,346 1978 920 954 3,479' 3,752 3. 1979 1,006 1,018 3,822 3,947- ~ 1980 1,099 4,199 1981 1,201 4,613-f 1982 1,311 5,058 1983 1,430 5,547 1984 1,560 6,083 1985(b) 1,701 6,670 _ { 1986 1,856 7,314 1987 2,025 8,020 '1988 2,209 8,795 1989 2,410 9,644 f-- 1990 2,629 10,575 1991 2,868 11,596 = NOTES: (a) SL'EMC0 loads included in CEPC0's requirements. ~ (b) The Tex-La/SWEPCO load responsibility will be included in the CEPC0 load in 1985. -. C (c) From Power Requirements Study for Cajun Electric Power Cooperative,1977. ~ 8-2 DOVAY ENGINEERS,INC.- DURNS AND ROE INC. .m..._

b I CEPC0's estimated 1983 requirement (including system reserves) -- O 1593 MW (see Table 9.1) exceeds the 1290 MW of installed capacity. This deficiency will increase in future years if additional capacity is not secured. To supply this 1983 requirement, power must be obtained through i purchases from other power utilities or from additional CEPC0 owned generation. The availability of purchased power in the future is highly uncertain. In fact, investigation indicates that available capacity for I purchases will be reduced below present-day levels. The entire utility l industry cor.tinues to be hampered by high inflation rates, restrictions n use f fuel and increase in fuel prices (which either cannot be iT passed on to the consumer, or can be passed on onfy after a significant I time lag), rising interest rates, difficulties in raising capital for new construction, and uncertainty regarding governmental licensing restrictions and regulations and their associated cost. These factors have generally resulted in electric utility industry delays and cutbacks, and re-evaluation of generation expansion programs. 4 CEPCO's neighboring power utilities have experienced similar difficulties which have resulted in plant delays and cancellations. i !l Their schedules for planned nuclear units have slipped and the planned l _. coal-fired unit addi+. ions are now being scheduled based on reduced system load growth projections. This reduction in planned generation could produce a shortage in available capacity should the regional f -- growth in electrical power requirements exceed these projections. 1 Adequate. capacity to meet its 1983 through 1985 load requirement was I l not found to be available for purchase from neighboring power utilities in a recent CEPC0 investigation of purchase or participation options. !-"O Tne alternet$ve of ceec0 insteitias ea additioaai coai-fired uait ia l 1983 is evaluated as the most economical and reliable source for its [l 8-3 i 80VAY ENGINEERS, INC.- BURNS AND ROE, INC.

l '.. s l R

.. p U

required capacity in 1983. Participation in the Ownership of the GSU 't i i River Bend No.1 nuclear unit will provide a portion of CEPCO's additional

T 3

capacity requirements in the late 1980's. This investigation and the ~" detailed study of the generation alternatives are the subject of the i 4 May 1979 Power Supply Planning Study. l While CEPC0 is dedicated to generatitc planning to keep pace with i t + i 4;'. its merrber system's requirements, it is a proponent of all methods of l energy usage management and conservation, including emphasis on proper l" insulation techniques,.off-peak rate incentives and electromechanical load management. As a wholesale power supplier, CEPC0 supports its l member system's energy conservation and load management efforts. T 'O 4

T l l

!T I d s lv i-- ! __ O 'I 8-4 BOVAY ENGINEERS. INC.= 80RNE AND ROE. INC. . - ~ _,, _. ~ -. _ ,,,J.-_.

i => I 9.0 GENERATION PLANNING CEPCO's present generating capacity consists of two 115 fW steam turbine units located at the Big Cajun No.1 power plant, near l l New Roads, Louisiana. In addition, Units No.1, 2 and 3 are presently i under construction at the Big Cajun No. 2 power plant, also near L, ~ l:, i New Roads. Each of these Big Cajun No. 2 plant units is rated at A 540 MW. Units 1 and 2 are scheduled for commercial operation in ~ 1980, with Unit 3 scheduled for 1983. Following completion of ~ Unit No. 2 at Big Cajun No. 2, CEPC0 will have an installed system generating capacity of 1290 MW. l The projected capacity requirement to serve CEPCO's 1983 peak demand and reserve requirements of-the Southwest Power Pool, of which it is a member, is 1593 MW. To meet the power requirements of CEPCO's .I members projected to be increasing at a rate of 9 to 10 percent per O year, as shown in Table 8.1, planning is in pregress to complete the 7 i following additional units. It is planned that neighboring power utilities will participate in the ownership of these units in r-l accordance to the details described in the notes for Table 9.1. r } One 540 MW coal-fired unit for commercial operation during 1983. This unit is the third unit at the Big Cajun No. 2 site. 7 l' One 540 MW lignite-fired unit for commercial operation by the summer 1985. One 540 MW lignite-fired unit for commercial operation by'the sumer 1986. In addition, CEPC0 proposed to participate in the ownership 7 I of the. Gulf States Utilities Company River Bend No.1 nuclear unit. Participation of thirty percent (282 MW) is scheduled as described in Table 9.1, and is the recommended alternative. 9-1 8 BOVAY ENGINEE RS, INC. - SURNS AND ROE, INC. w -~

+ 5 s Beycnd 1985, pcwer planning will consider additional lignite-pd 1 fired and coal-fired units, or other available generation alternatives. Further details en the CEPCO system load projection and pcwer generation I 2 planning are contained in the May 1979 Power Supply Planning Study. Tacle 9.1 i CNUN ELE +"TRIC ECWER CCCPERAT!'lE, INC. PCWER SUPDLY PUN FCR SERICO 1983 TMRCUGi 1990 WITii RI'/EA SEND MUCLE/,R UNIT 30.1 PARTICI?ATICN ~ CE?ca ?urenasec .te: 3enera:1cn To al 5urpius dystem .L:ad Capacity Res:ensibility Additions Casacity Ca:acity 4 serve Year (W) (W) (W) (1) (W) (2) (W) ,' ( W ) (3)_ (il f ai '953

• a30 la! (11) la93 175 ( !)

72 20.2 I 1954 !!ic 100 (12) '537 ( *.22) 7.0 k;325 I 1701 si (13) 1591 280 ( 5) 1945 54 18.2 I 1956 1256 115 (la) 20 *.? 275 ( 7) 2314 295 30.9 94 ('8) O 1987 2C25 l'.5 2214 94 ( 5) 2375 16 4 23.1 t e i 19ES 22C9 115 2a25 275 ( 9) 2553 223 25.3 i

• 959 Ea*.0 115 2557 94 ( 3) 2747 90 13.3 1990 ISIS 115 2908 E.'.0 (10) 2237 379 29.a i

19c1 2568 115 2133 32S7~ 104 13.5 ); NOTES: 1. Capacity requirement equals (lead minus fim purchases) times 1.15 less non-fim purchases. ~ 2. CEPC0 installed capacity prior to 1983 w'll be as fo11cws: k Big Cajun No. 1. Unit No. 1 - 115 W (gas /cil)* 7 Big Cajun No.1. Unit No. 2 - 115 W (gas /cil)* Big Cajun No. 2, Unit No.1 - 540 MW (western coal) Big Cajun No. 2, Unit No. 2 - 540 W (western coal)

• 1979 Tests show a net capability of 105 MW for each. unit.

,1-3. Surplus equals total capacity minus net responsibility. r s 4 Surplus plus pool reserve as a percent of net responsibility. '~ 4 9-2 SCVAv ENGINttes. INC.- suRNS AND MOE. INC.

a Table 9.1 (continued) CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE INC. I POWER SUPPLY PLAN FOR PERIOD 1983 THROUGH 1990 WITH RIVER BEND UNIT NO. 1 PARTICIPATION i 5. 275 MW addition represents 51% ownership in Big Cajun No. 2. Unit No. 3 (western coal). Gulf States Utilities and Sam Rayburn Dam Authority have submitted a Letter of Intent to purchase 265 W's (49%) of this ~ unit. 6. 380 MW represents 70% ownership in Big Cajun No. 3, Unit No.1 (Louisiana lignite). Other utilities have expressed serious interest in participation in CEPCO's lignite units. Discussion leading toward a decision of participation in these un'ts are planned in the near future. 7. 275 MW addition represents 51% ownership in Big Cajun No. 4, Unit No.1 (Louisiana lignite). Similar participation arrangements as described i for Big Cajun No. 3, Unit No. I are planned. 8. The three increments of 94 MW each represent participation in the 940 MW River Bend No.1 unit under construction by GSU. Based on infomation available, this unit will be commercial by the 1985 peak. The increments ( ) shown represent the portion of this unit's capacity required in 1986, 1987 and 1989 to meet CEPCO's load requirements with GSU buying back the ~ capacity of the balance of the 30% owned by CEPC0 during 1985, 1986, 1987 l and 1988. 9. 275 MW addition represents 51% ownership in Big Cajun No. 3, Unit No. 2 (Louisiana lignite). Similar participation arrangements as described for Big Cajun No. 3, Unit No. 1 are planned. 540 MW addition represents 100% ownership in Big Cajun No. 4, Unit No. 2 10. (Louisiana lignite). Participation arrangements have not been considered for this unit at this time. 11. 45 MW firm purchase has been arranged from Tex-La/SWEPC0 in 1983. 100 MW non-firm purchase available from CLECO in 1983. 12. 50 MW firm purchase from Tex-La/SWEPC0 and 50 MW of hydro peaking capacity have been allocated from SWPA. ~ 13. An additional 15 MW allocation of hydro peaking power will be available from SWPA.

14. An additional 50 MW allocation of hydro peaking power (total of 115 MW) will be availab'.e from SWPA.

-e 9-3 BOVAY ENGINEERS. INC.- BURNS AND ROE INC. ~

j P t ,I. 10.0 ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed project is a result of investigation into several i alternatives. Possible alternatives to the proposed action are discussed !j i in terms of foms of generation, fuels, unit sizes and sites. Dis- ,l ~~ cussion begins by eliminating alternatives to additional generation. ji i 10.1 No Additional Generation i! Several alternatives to the propcsed project involve no additional [ t generation. In this case, alternatives include: not providing any i' l additional power, conservation and load management of available power; i T purchasing power from another ele::tric company which might have an l excess; or sharing power from a unit already operating or under l construction. L f 10.1.1 No Additional Power l CEPC0's need for power, which will be satisfied by the construction j f and operation of Big Cajun No. 3, is discussed in Section 8.0. This alternative is acceptable only if additional generating capacity is not required. The historical load growth (power) of CEPC0's member systems i 4 1' has approached 12%, which is much higher than the conservative projection j of between 9 and 10%. The lower projected growth reflects the increased public energy use awareness and conservation interest. CEPC0 is a i member of the Southwest Power Pool and as such is obligated to maintain i i l capacity reserves of at least 15%. Also, purchase agreements with other { utilities will expire in the early 1980's. This will increase the deficit j i of the Cajun systems. The alternative of no additional power generation would result in, i initially, a great and rapid loss of system reliability, followed by 10 ste9eetioa of the eree economy. uitimeteiy. the livie9 stenderd of the customers served by CEPC0 would decline as the present units became less l 10-1 80VAY ENGINEIRS, INC. - BURNS AND ROE. INC.

i '~ n efficient with age. It is concluded that the no additional power v alternative is not viable. 10.1.2 Reduced Demand i Conservation programs adopted by CEPC0 include stressing the f importance of energy conservation to its members through local publi::ations, cooperative publications, radio announcenents, etc. i These include lessons and lectures on effective methods of reducing _ l electrical consumption and stressing the importance of purchasing the I most efficient electrical appliances. The efficiency of air condi-T tioners is most important since CEPCO's peak usage occurs in summer. i Since conservation is a major part of the National Energy Plan, CEPC0 will continue to encourage its members to accelerate their conservation program to fully comply with the National plan. The ! O $=9 cts or a"ticiaeted co">erv>tioa heve e're dr bee" ta'ea '"to account in the 1977 Power Requirements Study. ~- i An area of increasing interest is the potential benefits to be gained from load management. In seeking an alternative to the con-tinuing increases in cost of providing service to their consumers, one of the alternatives available to cooperatives is to offer load manage-7 ment type rates. The intent would be to pass on to the consumer, through lower rates, any savings that could be realized by an [ alteration of the consun., ' ion pattern. It is difficult to state precisely what the impact of a load management program might have upon the total load requireme-ts for CEPCO. A load management scheme would likely reduce the peak demand requirements; however, it l is unlikely that it will reduce the total energy consumption. h l %) ~ l 10-2 BOVAY ENGINEERS. INC.- BURNS AND ROE, INC.

Consideration would also have to be given to the possibility of altering the summer usage patterns while at the same time not.estab-lishing new peaks. A possible method to accomplish this would-be il. to impose time-of-day, seasonal rates or a demand charge to increase. I the cost of electricity during peak periods, ~ With regard to other types of load management, specifically those types controlling water heating, space heating and air conditioning, i it is difficult at this time to state what impact they might have 1 j _l upon total system requirements. Water and space heati_ng and air ~ ccaditioner cycling can be controlled by signals sent over the power lines to help reduce peaks. The member systems are examining i-j load management. However, at this time it is not expected that load management would have an impact significant enough to change i ._<j ~ the need for, or timing of, the proposed plant additions. Load l i i management could affect the feasibility of future generation i i projects, and will be evaluated as patterns of load management i i i develop. 1_ 10.1.3 Purchased Power I i i CEPC0 has investigated the alternative of purchased power by i j-contacting other Louisiana power suppliers, including all comoanies i, with whom CEPC0 presently has Interconnection Agreements, to detennine i_ i the availability of spare capacity for the years 1983 through I 1987. The utility industry, including CEPC0's neighboring power i l,l i utilities, has been particularly hard hit financially in recent i years by the combination of a rapid inflatic,a rate, increase in fuel l prices, high interest rates, and difficulties in raising capital TO' for new construction. The result has'been a cutback of generation l expansion programs in many areas. i 10-3 I-80VAY ENGINEERS, INC.= SURNS AND ROE. INC. 2-

.. Q The response to Cajun's survey of available capacity reflects the reductions in generation expansions and the unavailability of purchased power from others in the region. New units are i being added only to the minimum capacities required by each company's service area. Purchased power is available in limited amounts but only for periods of up to one year. As a result, CEPC0 has purchased 100 MW from Central Louisiana Electric Company for 1983. This capacity is being purchased as a hedge against late completion of new generation, unscheduled outages and unanticipated l I increases in system load. CEPC0 is currently negotiating with Tex-La Cooperative, the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) and Southwestern Electric ~~ Power Company (SWEPCO) whereby CEPC0 will receive 15 MW of hydroelectric peaking power as its proportionate share of the contract between Tex-LA/SWEPC0 and SWPA. CEPC0 would contract with j SWEPC0 to receive the 15 MW and would firm up the energy and capacity required to serve that portion of Valley and Bossier Electric Membership Cooperative load supplied from the SWEPC0 system. This transaction would represent annual purchases from SWEPC0 during the years from 1980 to 1984 of 34, 37, 41, 45 and 50 MW. These purchases are not included in Table 9.1. I CEPC0 expects to conclude Interconnection Agreements with SWEPC0 prior to 1985. These agreements would permit assumption of 3 full responsibility for these loads. Acquisition of these loads is lf included in Table 9.1. SWPA has proposed to allocate 50 MW of hydro peaking capacity l v l to the CEPC0 system beginning in 1984 with an additional 50 MW ~ 10-4 80VAY ENGINEER $. INC.- BURN $ AND ROE, INC.

F n -- Q available beginning in 1986. This capacity is reflected in Tables 9.1 and 10.1. 10.2 Alternative Methods of Generation 10.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation As shown in Table 9.1, CEPC0 plans a western coal-fired generating i unit in 1983 and lignite-fired generating units in 1985, 1986, 1988 and 1990. If CEPC0 does not participate with GSU in Riverbend No.1, it is planned to retain 100 percent ownership in the 1983 and 1988 units, as shown in Table 10.1. 10.2.2 011 and Natural Gas Oil and natural gas are clean burning fuels that produce little air pollution, but the supply situation and increased prices no longer make them attractive for electric power generation. Additionally, O L' the Fuel Use Act of 1978 essentially prohibits the use of these fuels in new power plants in the CEPC0 service area because of the availability of nuclear fuel and coal. Both of Cajun's operating generating units (Big Cajun No.1, Units 1 and 2) are currently l natural gas-fired which are planned for conversion to No. 2 fuel oil i upon expiration of the natural ga3 contract in 1987. Current national energy priorities dictate that alternative fuel, where available, be used for base load power plant generation instead of natural gas or oil. Residual fuel oil would be an acceptable alternative because of reduced construction costs resulting from less expensive anti-pollution equipment, fuel handling system, boiler and ash handling system; however, the savings would be offset or exceeded by increased fuel costs over !--(] the life of the unit and the uncertainty of its use for power generation. U At present, allocations of low sulfur oil have been established primarily '~ for utilities located in areas where ambient air quality conditions are 10-5 BOVAY ENGINEERS, INC.- BURN $ AND ROE. INC.

L. -- n k/ TABLE 10.1 CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. WITHOUT PARTICIPATION IN RIVER BEND NUCLEAR UNIT NO.1 ("No Action" Alternative) 1 CEPC0 Purchased Load Capacity Net Generation Total Surplus System Ycar (PA) (H4) Resoonsibility Additions Capacity (1) Cacacity (2) Reserve ~~ 1983 1430 145 1493 '540 (3) 1830 337 39.4 1984 1560 100 1687 1830 143 24.5 1985 1701 65 1891 275 (4) 2105 214 27.6 1986 1856 115 2019 275 (5) 2380 361 34.4 l 1987 2025 115 2214 2350(6) 136 21.7 1988 2209 115 2425 540 (7) 2890 465 36.0 l 1989 2410 115 2657 2890 233 24.7 1990 2629 115 2908 540 (8) 3430 522 34.8 j 2826 115 3183 3430 247 23.6 l (m1991 ) NOTES: I 1. CEPC0 installec: capacity prior to 1983 will be as follows: Big Cajun No.1, Unit No.1 - 115 W (gas / oil) Big Cajun No.1. Unit No. 2 - 115 W (gas /cil) Big Cajun No. 2, Unit No. 1 - 540 W (western coal) ~ Big Cajun No. 2, Unit No. 2 - 540 W (western coal) Indicates a surplus over the 15 percent reserve requirement. 2. 3. 540 W addition represer.is 100% ownership in Big Cajun No. 2, Unit No. 3 (western coal). ~ 4. 275 MW addition represents 51% ownership in Big Cajun No. 3, Unit No.1 (Louisiana lignite). Gulf States Utilities (GSU) and Louisiana Power & Light (LP&L) have expressed serious interest in participation in CEPC0's '~ lignite units. Discussions leading towards a decision of participation in these units are planned in the near future. 5. 275 W addition represents 51% ownership in Big Cajun No. 4, Unit No.1 (Louisianalignite). i ._ g. Reflects a planned 30 MW decrease in available capacity from Big Cajun 6 Q No. I due to conversion from natural gas to fuel oil. I 10-6 BOVAY ENGINEERS. INC.- SURNS AND ROE, INC.

1

• --d Table 10.1

} - (contineed) CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. POWER SUPPLY PLAN FOR PERIOD 1983 THROUGH 1990 i ("No Action" Alternative) jl. i b 7. 540 MW addition. represents 100% ownership in Big Cajun No. 3, Unit No. 2 i i j-- ~.(Louisiana lignite). 8. 540 MW addition represents 100% ownership in Big Cajun No. 4 Unit No. 2 (Louisiana lignite). Participation arrangements have not been considered e for this unit at this time. 1 9. 45 MW firm purchase has been arranged ft om Tex-La/SWEPC0 in 1983. 100 MW i-~ , non-finn purchase available from CLECO in 1983. p 10.l 50 MW firm purchase from Tex-La/SWEPCO and 50 MW of hydro peaking l-- capacity have been allocated from'SWPA.

11. An additional 15 MW allocation of hydro peaking power will be available from.SWPA.

l l .. O. An aeditionei 50 MW allocation of hydro peaking power (total uf 115 MW) will be available from SWPA. j j f' i I e I e.* t f i. h I j i l. T + ..o 10-7 SOVAY ENGINEERS. INC.- SURNS AND ROE,INC. .-,-,.-..m, m..

Y 4 i a I above the Federal Primary Standards. ~~ The National Energy Plan called for increased use of coal to i generate electricity and help reduce dependence on foreign 01'l. I Therefore, a more detailed evaluation of an oil or natural gas-fired plant was not deemed necessary,primarily for the fuel-related reasons stated above. For this same reason, CEPC0 has eliminated the possibility of using a gas or oil fired steam unit, diesel engine generators, combustion turbines or combined cycle units to meet the l projected energy requirements of the cooperative. j 10.2.3 Coal Ga_sification An alternative use of coal is the coal gasification process. Gasification of coal results in a clean burning gas, suitable for use in a steam generator. High sulfur coal-can be converted to a f n clean-burning gas,thereby eliminating the need for sulfur control i equipment on the generating plant. Although the process has potential, comercial quantities of gas have yet to be produced, and it is unlikely that a system would be available in time to meet the near future needs of CEPCO. This was not considered a viable alternative to the proposed project since coal gasification ~ i i is not comercially available. t 10.2.4 Solar Energy i Solar energy can be used to generate electricity directly by using photovoltaic cells, or indirectly through solar-thermal or biofuel conversion. Photovoltaic conversion of solar energy has been used for space-craft power generation. However, current technology would be pro-hibitively costly for large utility applications. This' energy source ~ was, therefore, eliminated for further consideration. 10-8 sovav e ointeas. iuc.-euaus Ano aos. INC.

I -l ~h (J For utility-sized plants, central receivers using solar-thermal j conversion are under development. The 5 MW solar-thermal test facility l in Albuquerque, New Mexico is evaluating subsystems and components. I A 10 MW experimental unit is expected to be in operation in 1980 at 1 i Barstow, California. Coninercial availability is projected to be in 4 the late 1990's. The large land areas required for collectors, the { need for large' storage capacity, and a required supplementary generation for sunless periods are major disadvantages of this method of generation. j I On the other hand, the use of solar energy for augmenting heating ~ and cooling of residential and commerical buildings, which is being tested by the TVA in Memphis, Tennessee and by the Department of Energy in other locations throughout the U. S. A., is increasingly attractive 2 as the cost of fossil fuels increase. Such applications are expected -. g f to be the area in which solar energy utilization will have its earliest impact. These applications are expected to reduce the burden on central f station generation eventually. However, programs now being implemented l 3 are of the demonstration type and cannot be expected to alter significantly 1 the requirements for the generating units planned in the time frame of the generating unit proposed. Therefore, solar energy is not considered a viable alternative in the near future. ~' I 10.2.5 Wind Power Wind power has been and is presently used to supply many small energy necds around the world. A frequent application of windmills is for pumping irrigation water. A possible use of windmills might j be as power boosters along transmission lines. By connecting the j windmills directly to the line, the additional generation from the central station could be reduced as available wind power increases. ._ emm~m. k9 .u.~,.~o...,,o:.

j-I 'd I Preliminary studies have predicted that energy costs will decrease as wind turbine systems increase in size. These predictions are being tested by the Department of Energy under a long term program. Large scale wind generation systems have only recently been re-introduced into the power generation spectrum of potential supplies. Jn July l 1979, a'n experimental 2MW wind turbine (identified as M00-1) was~ com-pleted at Boone, North Carolina. This facility is to be used to provide parts of the needs of the Blue Ridge Membership Cooperative at Boone, t North Carolina. Prior to MOD-1, the largest operating generating facility was the MOD-0 100 kw machine at NASA's Plum Brook facility _at Sandusky, i Ohio. A MOD-0A 200 kw version will be tested at this site. i, It is unlikely that the current rate of development would allow I O) serious consideration of a wind replacement for the proposed project. t Wind-powered generators encounter the same problem as solar generators regarding the availability of demand energy and storage during windless periods. Large base-load, wind-powered turbine generators are not I currently available and cannot be considered a viable alternative to the proposed project. 10.2.6 ~ Hydroelectric j Hydroelectric power coul.d not be considered as an alternative to the proposed project due to a lack of feasible sites that could be i devebped. Existing hydroelectric power facilities do not have the j i spare capacity that the CEPC0 system requires, i Cajun has examined potential hydro-electric generating sites in 1 4 Louisiana but none are available to support more than very small O (3-10 MW) installations. Hydro-electric generation will continue to be examined and if technology advancements in application of low-head units or additional sites appear feasible, this method of generation BOVAY ENQlNEERS, i URNS AND ADE. INC.

~. will be considered for a plication to the CEPC0 system. g 10.2.7 Geothermal l Geopressured resources are known to exist in Louisiana and nearby Texas but they have been of little commercial interest because of their j low quality. The potential geothermal generating capacity for Region i III (Texas and Louisiana) is shown in Table 10.2. This Table ~. was developed by the Federal Interagency Geothermal Coordinating Council (IGCC). The table shows that no generating capacity can be anticipated L. in Louisiana until 1987--and in only very limited quantities thereafter. The geothermal resources in the State of Louisiana consist of water and dissolved methane at moderately high temperature but at pressures approaching lithostatic. These geopressured-geothermal resources consist { of three forms of energy: thermal, hydraulic pressure and dissolved l (7 methane. Estimates in the U. S. Geological Survey Circular 726 [ v indicate that the potentially recoverable thermal energy of geopressured L resources in the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana could exceed 38,000 I megatt-centuries, and the energy of the dissolved methane cwid be several times greater. However, to date, no generating units have been constructed for the production of electric power from geopressured resources. While the technology for conversion of geopressured energy to electric energy exists, a great deal of research and development is yet to be done i before such generation becomes economically and environmentally feasible. Geopressured reservoir characteristics have not been studied to the extent that will reduce uncertainties to an acceptable level with respect to the ability of any particular geopressured raservoir to sustain ,jq J energy production over long periods of time. Other technical, insti-tutional, legal, regulatory and environmental issues must be resolved before 10-11 BOVAY ENGINEE RS. INC. - BURNS AND ROE, INC. - L

I .l~ l l ~~-I F' l l l ' ~" F ~ .(~) V,rx. be V TABLE 10.2 GE0TilERMAL ELECTRIC SCENARIOS POSTOLAl[0 llY lil'. IGCC FOR PLANNING PURPOSES * - REGION III Generating Capacity installed Each Year (fei ) c Pre-1990-1983 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 2020 Total g Acadia Parish, LA 50 50 250 350 25 100 100 200 1800 2225 y Brazoria, TX 50 50 250 350 Calcasteu Parish, LA Cameron Parish, LA 50 50 400 500 5 Corpus Christi, TX 50 50 1550 1650 R Kenedy County, TX 50 50 200 300 .? Itatagorda County, TX 50 50 400 500 i 1 Cumulative Total 25 325 425 525 1025 5875

g. ro, D

f

• The selection of sites and the postulated generating capacities are based on current knowledge of i

g the geothermal resourdes in the region. The scenario is intended for planning purposes only and does not imply any consnitment on the part of the Federal government to developnent at these sites. a 2 'R E SOURCE: DOE /ET-00901GCC-4. Third Annual Report, Geothermal Energy Research Develoimient and P Demonstration Program, March,1979; Interagency Geothennal Coordinating Cc.uncil. e i f a

commercial development becomes commercially feasible. Present de-7, velopment plans provide only for exploration leading to the construction ~' ' ' of generating units in modestsize increments--aparoximately 50MW--in ~T l the future. At this, time, therefore, CEPC0 could not prudently include a m. geopressured power plant to meet its 1985 load obligations. 10.2.8 MagnetohydrodynSmics MHD generation is based on the principle that an electric charge moving through a magnetic field produces an electromotive force. In an MHD generator, ionized gases are passed through a mangetic field to produce an electric current. Although MHD power has been generated. large scale application of this principle has yet to be developed. It is likely that problems involved in scaling up the equipment and de-l{ 3 velopment of materials capable of operating in the corrosive MHD en-vironment for long periods of time will require considerable time to solve. Based on the current state of development, the availability of an MHD generator to supply 540 MW of electricity in 1983 is considered highly unlikely. Therefore, MHD is not a viable alternative. 10.2.9 Fuel Cells Fuel cells generate electricity by the direct conversion of chemical energy. For example, hydrogen can be combined with oxygen in a fuel cycle to produce water, heat and electricity with little en-vironmental impact. An advantage of having only minor environmental impacts is that fuel cell generators can be located close to load centers where waste heat utilization becomes practical and transmission distances are reduced. Fuel cells show promise of being commercially ,e. available in the near future. United Technologies Corporation, in cooperation with DOE and the Electric Power Research Institute is ~~ developing a 4.8 MW fuel cell that is expected to be commercially BOVAY ENGINEERS. NC OURNS AND ROE, INC.

x p available in the early 1980's..These fuel cells will however, use ~ L O' natural gas or naphtha as a fuel and, therefore', would possibly conflict j ~ with the National Energy Program. CEPC0 is presently installing coal-t fired generation to reduce its dependence on natural gas. A natural. q I gas fuel cell (500 MW and above)' is still untried and is not cons'idered i i a viable alternative to the proposed project. l ~ 10.3 Preferred Alternatives - Of the alternatives available for CEPC0 to meet its members' power and energy needs, the Lignite-Fired Generating Plan discussed in Section 10.2.1, and the Preferred Plan to include 30% ownership of River Bend No.1, discussed in Section 9.A. are the only viable alternatives, ~ now available which will meet CEPCO's needs. The Preferred-Plan offers certain advantages to both CEPC0 and GSU. This Plan does not change the timing, size, or type of capacity j' O additions presently proposed by either CEPC0 or GSU' individually, and therefore does-not alter the impact on the environment. ~ From a reliability standpoint, the Preferred Plan decreases the-1 dependence each party has on any one generating unit or type of fuel. l With the completion of Big Cajun No. 3, Unit 3, CEPC0 will rely T heavily on weste'r'n coal for its base-load fuel supply. As it is located far from the source of this fuel, CEPC0 will also be dependent upon the rail and. barge transportation systems necessary to delivery Western [ coal. In the recent past, both the mining and rail transportation industries have experienced labor-management problems. The rail-barge 4 transportation system is susceptible to delays or breakdowns caused by floods and other natural disasters. It is therefore very desirable for l p CEPC0 to diversify its fuel resources to mitigate the effects of supply i... problems related to any particular fuel. The addition and sharing of 4 lignite and nuclear capacity CEPC0 proposed under the Preferred Plan is reconsnended in this respec BOVAY ENQlNEERS,IN = BURNS ANO ROE. INC.

t W, u.( In addition, the costs and risks of constructing and operating each unit are shared by the participants, and capacity additions are in increments more suitable to the ' parties' needs, all of which result ~" in ultimate cost savings to the consumers. .Both Plans we're considered in the May,1979 Power Supply Planning L. Study.'.The evaluation indicated that by participation in River Bend Unit'No.1, CEPCO's customers would save approximately $100 million l over the 20 year study period, as shown in Table 10.3. The basis l of this savings is currently being investigated in ongoing Power Cost ~ Studies in association with River Bend to determine its sensitivity to increased construction costs, delays in start-up, increased operating cost and environmental impacts. Joint participation can also be expected to benefit the parties O L./ in other aspects of_ their utility' operations. A cooperative relation-L. ship will have beneficial impacts on transmission _ interconnection L, arrangements, power interchange and wheeling arrangements. Considering the expected benefits of sharing in generating l i capacity additions, including-RiverBEnd'Uriitt1~, and'thetlick'of 'any" additional adverse environmental impacts,.the Preferred Plan as dis-cussed in Section 9.0, is the best available method for CEPC0 to meet its member cooperative's needs for power during the 1980's. i, i I l-O. 1 i 10-15 l BOVAY ENGINEERS. INC.-SURNS AND ROE. INC.

TABLE 10.3 EXPECTE0 PRESENT WORTH OF POWER COSTS Alternative Preferred Alternative Without River Bend With River Bend Capacity Cum. P.W. Capacity Cum P.W. Addition Cost In Addition Cost In i MW Million $ MW Million $ 1978 42 42 1979 540 98 540 98 1980 540 203 540 201 314 311 1981 1982 423 421 i 1983 540 584 270 566 1984 731 708 ) 1985 270 896 867 ~~ 1986 270 1086 94 1056 ~. 1987 1277 95 1251 1455 1988 540 1496 1989 1715 95 1661 1990 540 1959 540 1893 1991 2203 2125 2381 1992 540 2471 540 ~ 1993 2739 540 2662 1994 540 3031 2941 540 3244 1995 540 3344 1996 540 3689 540 3568 1997 4017 540 3915 i ~ 10-16 80VAY ENGINEERS. INC.- SURNS AND ROE. INC.

. _- -=

.o APPEft0IX - LIST OF EXHIBITS l

i 4 Exhibit No. Page l ;_ 1 11-1 2 11-4 i 3 11-5 1 I! 4 11-7 i m. j 5 11-8 6 11-10 7 11 -11 l 8 11-12 l 9 11-13 1 11-14 10 i .11 11-16 12 11-17 h 13 11-19 14 11-20 t t. 1 i I -- i. 1 1 l SOVAY ENGINEERS INC.- SURNS AND ROE. INC. av,,-- , ----+ _ -,-_,,,.-,--,, .,n,-1,.r--,m.,,vrwr.,--.,,--,_,,y,,.w---,-v_- ,-e--.- ,,mm...,-.----,-,- ,w--. -e,._,w---

jf gf EXHIBIT NO. 1 _O UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP' AGRICULTURE RURAL ELECTRifrlCATION ADMINISTMATION wmi, n. o.e. zum i APR 5 1979 Mr. John Allen Moore Bovay Engineers, Inc. P. O. Box 8093 ~ Houston, Texas 77004 1:

Dear Mr. Moore:

At your request, enclosed is a list of coments en the information you supplied to RLA regarding the River Bend Nuclear Power Station. Also j enclosed is the Final Environmental Imoact Statement, prepared by REA, 4' on the Black Fox Station. The Black Fox impact statement, and the following cecr.ients, should be used in the preparation of a final i' information document for the River Bend Nucit:ar Power Station. Regarding the document in general, we would like you to enclose corre-spondence with the applicable agencies for each environmental tcpic -l discussed. Generally, we would like documentatic.1 showing that the i 'O

aPiic>bie aseacies coacur ita riadiass that you =>xe 21=

ar eeditioa*1 J. infomation they might have that may be of use to the REA decisionmakers. 5 The agencies should include the Soil Conservation Service, for prime and unique farmland, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for wetlands and rare and endangered species, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for.floodplains, and the 1.ouisiana State Historic Preservation Officer for historic and archaeological sites. In addition to:the above agencies, we would like g you to contact the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 for general coments on the document. The infomation we recuire on the above topics not discussed in your original informational document is discussed below. ~. We would like two additional sections added to the informational document. One should discuss any proposed or listed rare or endangered species that have attained this status since the publication of the HRC document. The. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service will supply this information. Another section describing similar information on historic and archaeological sites should be added. This section should describe new historic or archaeological sites that are listed or are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Officer should 80VAY ENGINEERS INC. 1 BATON ROUGE RECE8vED ~ ~ -O APR l l 1979 11-1

---

f

,s,,..,._,,,.,c,_,.. .,,,,.,s.., ,,,j,_

l! O e ':i 2 Mr. John Allen Moore l In addition, we would like you to request the j. supply this infomation. State Historic Preservation Officer to make a "no effect" determination on sites on or near the River Cend property and transmission corridors (if the line routes are established) in accordance with Section 800.4 j-of the Advisory Council on Ilistoric Preservation Final Amendments to the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (Federal Recister, Tuesday, l January 20, 1979, Part IV). The State Historic Preservation Officer ~ should be informed that a professional archaeological survey was conducted in December 1971.- If the State ilistoric Preservation Officer cannot make a'"no effect" detemination, have him call or write REA's working The REA centset for envircnmental matters on the River level contact. Bend project.is: 1 Dennis J. Dubberley-1 USDA - REA,-Rm. 3865 Washington, D.C. 20250 ,~ Tel: 202 447-3446 or FTS 447-3446 6 i In the Land Use Classification section of the draft informational document,- 3; we would like you to detemine the extent of prime, unique, and additional q famland of statewide importance on two or three of the alternate sites V and transmission ccrridors that are described in the NRC Final Environm This infomation can be obtained from the Soil Conservation Statement.t!e reali::e tnat the alternate sites and transmission corridors

Service, All we require is an approximate were not laid out in great detail.

percentage deternination of the price, i!nique, or additional famland of statewide importance in the alternate site and transmission corridor vicinity. In the Uetland section of the draft infomational document, we will require si-ilar infomatien on wetlands near or on the alternate sites j and transmission corr.idors as was requested for farmland, above. Additionally, we would like you to elaborate on the method of taintenance l i l of the three 500 kV transmission towers to be located in wetland areas. Will a service road be required? If so, how many acres of wetlands will c j j- ~l be affected or will caintenance be done by air? ~ 4 f In the Floodplains section of the draft infomational document, we would 4 i j like you to contact the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers to determine the SOO-year floodplain of all applicable streams and rivers at the proposed f site and the number and location of proposed transmission towers for the If the Corps of Engineers plant to be affected by any 100-year floods.cannot supply this informat l l W w 6

i t- ~ O ~ Mr. John Allen Moore 3 1 Development Flood Insurance Program maps possibly can. We require this information because the project design flood discussed in the draft informational document does not give us 100- and 500-year ficod infor-mation that must be determined in accordance with the Presidential .j Executive Order 11988. . Additionally, REA contacted the NRC regarding the potential for flooding of safety equipment by occasional high flows of the West Creek improved channel as reported in the draft infomational document. REA was infomed that the West Creek improved channel represented a flood threat to the plant only in the event of a severe earthquake c maging the channel in combination with severe local rains on the plant grade itself accompanied by high winds and wave action. This condition could cause water to~ clear a door sill by 6 inches to some safety related equipment for a period of 1 minute if watertight doors were not employed. We would like this spegified in the final infomational document. Regarding the rest of the infomational document, we would like you to prepare an alternatives section briefly describing the alternatives gonfronting Cajun Electric. The Black Fox Final EIS prepared by REA can be used as a guide. In the " build s carate facilities" alternative, it should be fully exclained why Cajun's power supply plan contemolates GSU _ O ownership p rticip tion in or capacity purchases from plants planned by Cajun to be on-line prior to River Bend, in exchange for ownership parti-gipation by Cajun in River Bend, rather than Cajun building its proposed j plants and retaining all ownership and capacity. Additionally, the transmission section of the infomational document should be rewritten to disquss only those lines to be built soecifically for the plant. The only information we require here is a brief description of the proposed system and the status of construction. This infomation will be extremely helpful in the preparation of the REA Environmental Impact Statement. Should any questions arise, please feel frte to contact us. Copies of this letter are being sent to Mr. Jack Gambrell of Cajun Electric, and Bud Endlekofer. Sincerely ~ 9 (* ONALD L. OLSEN irector Southwest Area - Electric (aclosure l 11-3 j

't EXHIBIT NO. 2 LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES O P.o. box 44095 CAPIToLSTATIoN BATON ROUGE,LoUISLANA 70804 July 20, 1979 Mr. Herman A. Endlekofer Bovay Engineers, Inc. 10305 Airline Highway Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70895 Re: Wetlands Classification on the River Bend Plant Site

Dear Mr. Endlekofer:

i e L. I have received the report developed by you concerning. wet-lands classification on the Gulf States River Bend Plant Site near St. Francisville, Louisiana. I am in complete agreement with _f s (_) previous opinions of authorities from this Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that those lands (approximately l 950 acres) lying below the 50' MSL contour west of the plant site are indeed wetlands. The fact that this " wetlands" classification may be confusing because of an opinion that this same land is also " prime farmland" is understandable. Much of the State's bottomland hardwood forests lying within the flood plains of major river systems is " prime farmland"; but, only after it has been cleared of forests, drained and leveed. Simply put, former wetlands are presently some of this State's most productive farmland. I hope this will clear up this area of concezn.for-you. Feel free to call en us at any time. Sincerely yours, Hu h A. Bateman Wi dlife Biologist Assistant Federal Aid Coordinator (P-R) HAB:1p m_ 11-4

1 l EXHIBIT N0. 3 s COMPJANY g GULF ST}ETES UTILITIES t eoST oP *8CE eQx 29Si aEAUM CN?. 7ExA s 777o4 A R CA CCDE 7 5 3 83e GS3I Septe=ber 21, 1979 B0VAY :NGIN:* R*e INC, v

• g.n 3 4 s - ' ovav.

sAros nevo: scuvay regineertag, 1 :. P = c = "- i

p. c. 3cx 15725 2 ate = Ecuse, icuista a 70s95 SEP 281979 Mississippi River Cressing 500KV line 30. Th6 f

Dea-M::. Ecilevay: ,j

• he following describes the str2:ture.1 e.deraacies of the trans=issi:n cvers located in -he flood plai: ef the Mississi;;i River. *here are free :.cvers c: :he ficed plain c: the east side of the river. Cne is a M e 3-k h e; Tever, c=e is a Type L-1 Ancher Tever, and c:e is r.

1 Type 5-Z Heav/ Angle Tever. There is aisc c:e Type Ed Tcve-c the i vest side of the river. '~he ?/pe 3d he; Towers have foundations which project above the high ~ vater elevatics as dete d

• frc= Corps of Instreers records. The foundatices are _assive and vill take the i=;act of legs or other debris tha: could be ficating dov the river dr ing e. ficed.

In addi:10s, the botten pc-tics of the tcver is also =assive and structurally adequate to resist i= pact and debris if the va.ter should ever rise abcve the re-cerded high vater elevatics. The Type D-1 A= cer S neture is 10 sted e.;;r:xi=ately 2750 feet frc= the river tank. ' here are trees ;rctecting the tower in the directice ef the river fiev such that loss er debris eculd only get to the tower ~ the ri ht-of-way.

• his is not likely, since the through a path dov 6

velecity of "lov veuld be very slow and ficating objects veuld act really l-provide an i= pact. Assu=ing debris could cellect, -he tover is aderaate to take whatever leading may be possible. The projected area for estch-ins debris is also "a and vill act allow a collection tha: =culd en-s danger the structural capacity cf the tower. The T/pe 5-I Tover is located apprext=ately 3500 feet trc= the river bank. This tower has tree protectics like the S/pe D-1 structure. It is a heavy angle structure and thus has the me=ber si:es and strength ~ to resist any loading frc: ficating debris. - G) 11-5

4 r, e s ./ / 4 Page 2 c0 l 5 ; . t If you have a y questices or eccr.e: s, ples.se let us know. i Yours very truly, - j L G. m

i. u. smits-L Direct:r

• gineerius i

I en.s W e 6 W O I .i 4 L JCC/ v h ) I 4 e eu a 11-6 --

EXHIBIT NO. 4 i, / s DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW ORL.EANS OtsTalCT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS f[/ f, [. =aw onte nn e. bout.4A,se 100 0 j ,jn a*J IN RZiLY REFER TO i LMNPD-M 21 June 1979 ^~ N ENGlN - 2 10v n %.i. t EWED ~ Mr. W. W. Holloway Manager of Studies Bovay Engineers. Inc. Jijy p j jgg P.O. Box 15728 3aton Rouge, LA 70895 ~ l

Dear Mr,

Holloway: Reference is made to your letters dated 31 May 1979 and 5 June 1979 in ~ [') which you requested the 100- and 500-year flood plains for a new 500KV y . switchyard and powerlines in south central Louisiana. l Preliminary hydrologic investigations indicate that floods with recurrent frequencies of once in 100 and 500 years would produce stages of 63.0 and 64.0 f eet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, respectively, in i the vicinity of your switchyard site located in Section 63 T4S R11E in West Feliciana Parish, Louisians. Relative to powerlines indicated on your map, the sites are too nunerous for us to deternine the 100- and i 500-year flood plain and their associated elevations. We suggest you contact the Federal Insurance Administration and obtain their Flood ~ j Hazard Boundary Maps, or Flood Insurance Rate Maps, for the communities which your power 11nes are located to determine whether they are in flood plains or not. We are returning your maps which show the location of your switchyard and powerlines. Should you require addi:1onal information concerning the above, please contact Mr. R. J. K11ebert at (504) 865-1121, extension 249. J Sincerely, 5 f 3 Incl JAMES F. ROY As stated Chief, Planning Division I 11-7

.. - - _ = _. _ - _. _ - - - _ _ l wp - - - - .-a -~~ m.,- n -l ~ w -} 2_a_ w m-Q tl, O ,.l EXHIBIT NO. 5 ..-l SUPPLDiEh"I NO.1 TO THE O SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF LICENSUiG U.S. ATOMIC ENERGT COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY RIVER BEND STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKEI NOS. 50-458 AND 50-459 Ghans b _O e e e a j 11-8 DEc./97Y

e .O. s [N a (./ 2-1 II. Revised Sections of the SER 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2.3 Meteoroloey 2.3.6 Conclusions q' In the SER ve reported that the applicant planned to perform 1 l onsite tracer tests to justify modifications to the staff's 1 diffusion model. the staff for review and approval in October 1974.The results of the h The staff is currently reviewing these results and will, if varranted d ~ modify the input to the atmospheric dispersion model for this O case by adjusting the assu=ed lateral and vartical plu=e para-k meters. n a results of our evaluation will be provided in a i supplement to the SER prior to issuing a CP. 1, k 2.4 Bydroloeic Engineering __ n) 'L 2.4.2 F'.Jod potential In the SER ve ~ reported that the applicant has not analyzed 2"- a potential worst case flood condition. i We required that the } applicant either submit a detailed analysis which would sub- 's stantiate that the proposed West Creek improved channel vould 5 t-not fail due to an Operating Basis Earthquake (CBE), or to ? i submit details of flood and water level esti:aates for a t_ Standard Project Flood (SPF) concurrent with an OBE. The applicant has completed the latter analysis and has i submitted it to the staff. The results indicate that the peak 5 water level for this condition could reach an elevation of 98.49 t ft MSL for a duration of 1 minute. Our independent evaluation indicated that the applicant's assumptions are conservative, j-This peak water level is higher than the proposed level to which flood protection presently is provided, i.e., 98 ft MSL 5 z Accordingly the applicant has committed that all appropriate doors j vill be closed during operation of the plant. 1[ include those which if left open vould per=it access of floodThese doors would vaters to safety related equipment. This requirement vill be reflected in the technical specifications at the FSAR stage. '~ We conclude that this is acceptable since flood waters would I' j; ) only be above the flood protection level for a very short time m and any leakage around the doors could be collected in plant .t su=ps without undue hazard to safety related systems or 3 components 2.4.6 _ Conclusions

3 t' EXHIBIT NO. 6 Lj JUN 2 9 REC'D UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Soll CONSERVATION SERVICE P. O. Drawer N, New Roads, La. 70760 June 27,1979 4 Bovay Engineers, Inc. P. O. Box 15728 Baton Rouge, La. 70895 l

Dear Sirs:

I 'l We appreciate your interest and concern in identifying important fam lands. l The Soil Conservation Service has the responsibility for identifying important fam lands, The infomation (maps and criteria) we provided you with, through our local offices in Clinton, Baton Rouge and New Roads should be sufficient. ~ i-The " National Criteria for Designating Prime Farmland" is still in draft fom, i but I expect the revisions to be minor, and doubt that it will affect your I percentages. - l j The National Criteria for Designating Prime Farmland is: Prime farmland is land that has the best ccabination of physical and chemical characteri!, tics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oil-seed crops, and is also _. 7V available for these uses (the land could be cropland, pastureland, rangeland, I forest land, or other land, but not urban built-up land or water). It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically ~ produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable faming methods. In general, prime d farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. They 4 are pemeable to water and air, Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible ._jj or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they either do not ficod frequently or are protected from flooding. The criteria for designatino prime famland and famland of statewide or local ,:tI importance for Louisiana is on the attached list of prime famland units. 4 Again we appreciate your interest in identifying important famlands and the opportunity to work with you in identifying them. Attached is a list (in draft fom) of Criteria For Designating Prime Famland in Louisiana and Criteria For Designating Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance in Louisiana. If we _?" can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact us at any time. Very truly yours, M ~ /-n John W. Pcwell, Soil Scientist Party Leader i O Soil Conservation Service, New Roads',' La. TI' Kj Attachments i i] cc: Paul Miletello _1 Arville Touchet Li j 11-10

EXHIBIT NO. 7 ] W ~' ~ 48 ~ ( ) &E%".% United States Department of the Interior:: i FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ......, n u... o m........... t JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39101 June 26, 1979 J'Jil 2 91979 j I f, Mr. W.W. Holloway, P.E. ./ s -S Bovay Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 15728 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70895 4

Dear Mr. Holloway:

The following information is provided in response to my' telephone conversation with Mr. Hinkie on 6/19 and your letter of 6/21 relative +4 the Riverbend Nuclear Power Station project. I have reviewed the infon.ation concerning threatened / endangered species contained in the June, 1974, Gulf States Utilities Environ-mental Impact Report. Based on this review, it appears that there has not been any species likely to occur in the project area added -(", to the list of threatened / endangered species since the June, 1974 k' report. This conclusion also holds true for species presently pro-posed for listing. I might point out however, that our records indicate the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (picoides borealis), listed 6/70, has been reported in West Feliciana Parish. This species is associated with southern pine forest. The subject report states that 1,317 acres of ~ the proposed site is made up of hardwood and pine forest (page 2.7-1). In addition to this, the transmission corridors shown on your enclosed map traverse other parishes (East Feliciana and East Baton Rouge) reporting this species. The possible presence of this species either within the plant site or along the transmission corridors should be examined. Si cerely, fI , [/ /\\ A%iMICL Dennis B. Jb an Area Endangered Species Supervisor pn ' 1/ -e 11-11

.- N EXHIBIT NO. 8 ..l STATE OF LOUISIANA ~

1. k, ~ #

DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE. RECREATION AND TOURISM i OFFICE OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT w EDWIN W. EDWARCs E. BERNARD CARRIER. PhD J. LARRY CRAIN,PhD co mor Aa. tent s.cr.wy secrowy J* May 22, 1979 66VAY ENG'.HC3 INC. BATON R*;u E RECEIVED Mr. W. C. Tolbert, P.E. Project Manager l Bovay Engineers, Inc. 'P. O. Box 1572S Baton Rouge, LA 70895 .., + RE: Riverbend Nuclear Station Riverbend property and transmission corridors

Dear Mr. Tolbert:

The only property currently listed in the National Register of f ~G Historic Places in the vicinity of the plant and its transmission lines U is the Port Hudson Battlefield. This property also has been designated a National Eistoric Landmark. During cultural resource surveys of the proposed plant and the f transmission lines, several archaeological and historical properties vere discovered. Some of these were not found to possess g situ cultural =aterials. Six other sites, five Civil War breastworks and one cenetery did possess qualities which may r.ake them eligible for the National Register. The Civil War breastverks are all inside the boundaries 4 of the National Historic Landmark and thus r.ay be considered part of the Port Hudson Battlefield. The Riddle Ce=etery lies outside the Port Hudson Battlefield boundaries as recorded for the National Historie Landnark; it has not been determined if this site is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. If you need additional infer =ation, please contact my sts!! in the Division of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. l S ne rely, ~ p. A*A04' W A44,$,.1) E. Bernard Carrier State Historic Preservation Officer EBC:DW:f=r DIVISION OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION Po @e hx 44847_____ Baton _ Rough La. 7CSO4 504 342 6682

EXHIBil NU. 9 .If STATE OF LOUISIANA f** DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, RECREATION AND TOURISM O* OFFICE OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT EDWIN W EDWARDS E. BERNARD CARRIER, PhD J. L.ARRY CR AIN, PhD Governor Amistant Socinary Secretary October 26, 1979 Mr. W. H. Hinkie Bovay Engineers, :nc. P. O. Box 15728 l Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70895 Re: P0 posed ::ansmission lines ~ Rive: bend Nuclea: Sta:Lon 4 t Dea: M:. Hinkle, in response :o you: :elephone inquiry of 25 October 1979 concerning our letter of 22 May 1979 to Mr. tolbert of you: fi:m, i: has not been dete: mined as of this date 1! che Riddle Cemetery is eligible for inclusion in the Na:Lonal Registe: of His oric Places. Usually cemete:Les a:e no: eli gi bl e for in-31usion in :he Na:Lonal Register unless they a:e architecturally ~ kigni!Lcan: or persons-important in history a:e buried there. Since Gulf Scaces U:llicies Company has indicated thac the Riddle l Comece:y will not be a!!ected by this p:oject. its status wi:h respect to che National Register need not be an issue of conce:n. Rega: ding the Por Hudson Na:Lonal Histo:Lc Landmark, Gul! S: aces U:11ities has made a numbe: of commi ments to avoid '~ dire : impact on components of the Battlefield. An on-site inspeccion by o!!!cials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Gulf Scaces Utilicies Company, Louisiana O!! ice of State Parks, and this o!! ice was made in 0: der to examine the visual e!!eccs on the Landma:k. The place =ent of lines adjacent to existing Lines and away !:oc :he a:ea of park development will minimize chose e!!sc:s. Based on Gulf States U:111 :L e s s commi: men:s conce:ning :he Po:t Hudson Battle!Leid and their plans to avoid the Riddle Cemetery alcogether, we have no objection to the p:oject. '~

! you have any questions, please contact my sca!! in :he Division of Archaeology and Hisco:ic Preservation.

Sincerely, t e e M O ~ E. Bernard Car:ie: State Histo:ic P:eservation O!!!ce: - ) EBC/DWinj DIVISION OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION' .t o P. O. Box 44247 Baton Rouge, La. 7C804 504 342 6682 _ ___ _15LA R

3 EsHIBIT 10 i ../ STA"E OF LOUISIANA hh, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, RECREATION AND TOURISM ~ O 'T FFI E F PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 7s sowis w. towAnos E. BERNARD CARnlER, PhD J. LARRY i: MAIN, Pho co m.< Ass =m s.mmev s.am,y I i September 22, 1978 Mr. William J. Reed, Jr. Gulf States Utilities Company Post Office Sox 2951 Beaumont Texas 77704 Re: Cultural Resources Survey of the Gulf States Utilities Transmission : Line Rights of Way, Louisiana: ~ Line 752 - routes A and D I Line 352 - rcutes C and : I

Dear Mr. Reed:

i The Division of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has reviewed the above referenced survey report prepared by R. W. Neuman of Louisiana O State University. I would like to submit the following coments and 2 recommendations at this time: b (1) The report should include a brief description of the environmental setting including elevation, drainage, major floral and faunal comunities. (2) Spot find forms should be submitted for sites 1 and 2 with accompanying sketch map showing the locations of subsurface testing; (3) Site foms should be completed and submitted for sites P 3-7 (Civil War breastworks). Separate fonns should be ^ completed for sites 3 and 7. Sites 4-6 can be con-sidered one site due to their close proximity. (4) A site fonn should te completed for site 8 (Riddle 1 Family Cemetery). Site numbers and spot find numbers will be assigned by the Division when the forms are submitted to this office. The additional environmental data can be suo...itted as an addendum to the report. (5) Sites 1 and 2 do not appear to meet the criteria for state registry or National Register consideration. No further work is rectramended at this time. If additional - J artifacts (pottery, arrowheads, other stone tools) are DIVislON OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION P. O. Box 44247 Baton Rouge, La. 7o8c4 504 342 6682

,, s :. .y _) m w ~ l g Mr. William J. Reed, Jr. v Septuber 22, 1978 Page Two l ~ encountered during construction, this office should be notified immediately and construction temporarily halted. i F (6) Every effort should be made to avoid any physical impact (terrain alteration) in the vicinities of sites 3-7. Access roads required for construction of the transmission lines should be routed well away from these features. Any sub-surface disturbance in close proximity to sites 3-7 (e.g. core holes for placement of transmission poles) should be monitored by a professional archaeologist. No cores ' ~- should be placed within 25 feet of any of the breastworks. 1 (7) Site 8 (Riddle Cemetery) should be avoided by all construc-tion activities. (8) Any subsurface terrain alteration occurring within the limits of the Port Hudson Battlefield National Historic Landmark should be monitored by a professional archaeologist. (' If these recomendations are followed, the adverse impacts on the Port l Hudson Battlefield and other cultural resources within the project area should be minimized. This letter can be considered as iny final clearance of this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, f 1A E. Bernard Carrier State Historic Preservation Officer EBC:DHG:mp cc: R. W. Netsan

== ~~ 11-15

EXHIBIT NO.11 STATE OF LOUIS!ANA j f' DEPARTMtiN; OF CULTURE, RECREATION AND 10URISM O OFFICE OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT a@ EDWIN W. EDWARDS E. BERNARD CARRIER, PhD J. LAMRY CMAIN.Pho Governor Amistant $ecretary Secretary September 21, 1978 Mi. William J. Reed, Jr. Gulf States Utilities Company i Post Office Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 i Re: An Archaeological and Historical ~ Site Survey of the River Bend Station Transmission Line, Route B Louisiana 1978

Dear Mr. Reed:

The Division of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has reviewed the above referenced cultural resources survey report prepared by R. W. Neuman of Louisiana State University. O In oreer to meet the criterie set forth in the draft Staneares for Cultural Resources Surveys" in the Antiquities Code of Louisiana, l_. the following additional infomation should be included in the repor (1) Description of the environmental setting of the project area including elevations, landfoms, floral and faunal comunities; (2) Discussion of the location and cultural associations of known historic and prehistoric sites closest to the project area; (3) Brief discussion of why no sites were located during the survey; (4) Two copies of each report should be submitted to this office. I request that this additional infomation be submitted as an addendum to the final report. ~ Since no historic or prehistoric sites were located during the field survey, I hereby give my final clearance for this phase of transmission line con-struction. gg @- D BATON ROUGE Sincerely yours, Jd ggg O s-i 1 5F MAY 211979 EBC:DHG:mp E. Bernard Carrier OlVis10N OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION P. O. Box 44247 Baton Rouge, La. 7o8o4 504 342-6682

t } EXHIBIT NO. 12 o _a til AR EA

• C. O E 713 4 3 8.'S S 3 1 February 5,1979 RBC -

6097 Mr. E. Bernard Carrier, Assistant Secretary ~ office of Program Development - State of Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism Division of Archaeology and Historic Preservation P. O. Box 44257 Baton Rouge, LA 70804

Dear Sir:

File G10.5: Environmental - History, Land Use, Transport, Transmission,4 and Seismology Attached are rwo copies of the following information you _ (s requested in your letters dated September 21/'1978 and Septe=ber (_) 22, 1978: 1) Archaeological and historical site surveys i 2) Description of the snviron= ental settings for the transmission routes 3) Known h' istorical and prehistorical sites closest to the project area. 4) Spot find forms for sites 1 and 2 5) Site forms for sites 3-7 6) Site form for site 8 7) GSU com=itments We recognize, as you stated in both of these letters, that your final clearance for the transmission line routes has been given. Sincerely, f-g J. E. Booker 1rg/ Manager - River Bend Project l~ WJR/cb Attachments

m ~..) ) t.7_ l g ~.s i u-CSU Cc==it=ents In regard to I. Bernard Carrier's letter dated Septe=ber 22, 1978 and co=nents (5)-(8) therein; Gulf States Utilities vill suspend con-strue:1on and notify Mr. Carrier's office if any additional artifacts ~ are encountered during such construction activities at sites 1 and 2; Gulf States Uitlities vill take every reasonable effort to avoid any physical i= pact in the vicini:1es of sites 3-7, vill access these areas carefully, vill not locate any structural foundations within 3 25 feet of breasrvorks, and subsurface disturbances in close proximity ,m to sites 3-7 vill be monitored by a profes,sional archaeologist; () Gulf States Utilities vill not affect site 8 with any construction y v activity; Oulf States Utilities will have any subsurface terrain alteration occuring within the limits of the Por: Hudsen Ba::lefield National Historic 'andmark monitored by a professional archaeologist. O 9 ae 4 e 9 W k m s

• I\\

w c =. E_ .inde n -w 11-18

/j~% ] I , t J EXHIBIT NO.13 ~ O p -O G UI<F STATES UTXZrZTIES COMPANT* POST CP P1CE SOX 2esi 3 g A W ad O N 7. TEXAS 77704 AR KA COOK 7 13 83e.8431 l March 6, 1979 i R3G - 6196 File G9.5 Mr. W. H. Resan, Chief Enviren= ental Projects Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmen:a1 Analysis U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission Washington, D.C. 20555 i t River Bend Station Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-458, 50-459 Transmission Lines - Archaeological and Historical Sites

Dear Mr. Regan:

In our le::er dated March 16, 1978, Gulf States Utilities l s:ated that'i: vould provide the NRC with copies of the l archaeological and historical site surveys resulting from proposed U changes to:the trans=ission routes associated with the River Send Station. In this regard, attached for your infor=ation are the l archaeological and historical site surveys resulti=g from the " proposed changes to the River Bend trans=1ssion routes (see 1.nclosure 1). Also a': ached are the co==ents Gulf States re-ceived on these surveys from the Louisiana Department of Culture. . Recreation, and Touris=, Division of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in letters dated Septe=ber 21 and 22, 1978 (see - ), and Gulf Sta:es' response to the Division of Archaeology and Historic Preservation by letter dated Februa y 5, 1979 (see Inclosure 3). 1 Sincerely, s < -i - L. L. Humphreys Senior Vice President b$h 7 Engineering and Construction mb/y>R/JE3/JGW VJIl/=b A Enclosures g ~-E: File G9.5 FROM: Nuclear Licensing Weigand/Derr/ Booker /Wi=berley/Glazar/ Hudson / King / Reed /Leavines /Kirkebo-S&W/ Guthrie Powell-GE/Ple::=an-03&T/ Conner-CM&C/Nuc.' Rec 6rds-Petro./Nuc. Records-Edgrtrs/NRC Log uv.

g",et'.. ~q EXHIBIT NO. 14 7 [,, gag, 70 UNITED STATES /* g g g *9 g, ^e,ff g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "*J _d,. E WASHINGTON. C. C. 20555 f E czy h %,% / AUG i6 ws O% UC, ~ Docket Nos. 50-458 50-459 Gulf States Utilities C:mpany ATTN: Mr. L. L. Humphreys Senior Vice President Energy Development P. O. Box 2951 Seaum:nt, Texas 77704

Dear Mr. Humphreys:

On March 5,1979 Gulf Statas Utilities submitted results of the archeological and hist:rical site surveys of the routes.for the varicus transmission lines to be constructed in conjunction with the River Bend, Units 1 and 2 prcject. The survey report, prepared by Dr. Robert W. Newman, indicates that part cf Line C will traverse Port Hudsen Battlefield area and characteri:es that area (, as " extremely rich in historic resources". The re crt further indicates that i aq 'i ' Port Huds:n Battlefield is included in the National Register of Historic Places and has received designation as a National Historic Landmark. In x' addition, a letter of September 22, 1978 frem the State of Louisiana Historic Preservation Officer, attached to your submittal, indicates that the pr: ject will affect cultural properties and will adversely affect the Port Hudson Battlefield. The regulations promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 35 CFR Par: SCO (Enclosure 1), require NRC, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, to determine the effect the construction of the transmissi:n line will have en the above mentionec histe'rical resource and to consider alternatives that would mitigate any adverse effect the pr: ject may have. The regulations further require that NRC provide the cpportunity t the Advisory C uncil en Historic Preservaticn to comment. Please be advised that (a) we are initiating steps outlined in 36 CFR Part.800

determine the effect the construction of your transmission line will have

~ cn the Port Hudson Battlefield area, and (b) you shculd not proceed with the i ,_fileG9.5 P3 -tC,G343 73tM: Nuclear Licensi=g C 11-20

? . Gulf 5tates Utilities Cc=;any constructicn of the transmissien line within the ?crt Hudsen Ba . ~~ 500. Sincerely, I 4 %d Oc aid E. Sells, Acting Branch Chief

nvironmental'? rejects Branch 2 Divisien cf Site Safety and Enviren=en al Analysis t

I . closure: -n 4 As stated Stanley Fie:::an, Est. cc: Orgain Seil & Tucker 1 Beaumont Savings Building 5 eau =ent, Texas 77701 ( Trey E. Ocnner, Jr., Esq. lL. ]) Ccnner, Mccre & Career 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washingten, CC 20006 ~ Karin ?. Sheiden, Esc. Shelcon, Harmen, Reisman, & I Weiss. 1725 I Street, N.W., Suice 506 Washingten, D.C. 20006 Kenneth K. Kennen, Est. ?.0. Drawer R St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 4 I i Hencrable Richard M. Trey Assistant A :ctney General State of Louisiana Decartment of Justice ~~ 2-3 4 Leyela Building, 7th Flcer New Orleans, Lcuisiana 70112 ~O l 11-21 b

/ ii_ = r --Q

12.0 REFERENCES

l-- .May 1979 Power Supply Planning Study for Cajun Electric Power Cooperative. l_ Power Requirements Study for Cajun Electric Power Cooperative,1977, Louisiana 30 Bayou. 1 1 O T d =w .,mu.5 e ense j tlI M j -= i i 12-1 ' ~- i SOVAY ENGINEERS. INC.- SURNS AND ROE. INC. 1 ...-..-.-._.----_-,,-.--.,,,....---,--,_--_-..-.--......--,,-.--,._-.-----_---,..,i-- -}}