ML20062L638

Forwards Review Comments of Draft Suppl 2 to Fes by Tx Parks & Wildlife Dept,Tx Dept of Water Resources & Railroad Commission of Tx

ML20062L638
Person / Time
Site:	05000467, Allens Creek  File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/06/1981
From:	Spies F TEXAS, STATE OF
To:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8102120379
Download: ML20062L638 (9)

Text

.

, i G Cf ( /?

go - 4 6 6 y6 /

gu,,

.. I i 5 D rt'p

g OFFICE OF THE GCVERNOR

' iL UC.17. CLEMENTS JR.

^

t :ence February 6, 1981 I

Mr. B. J. Youngblood Division of Licensing United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Youngblood:

The Draft Supplement No. 2 to the Final Environmental Statement per-taining to Allens Creek, prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has been reviewed by the Budget and Planning Office and interested state agencies. Copies of the review comments are enclosed for your information and use. The State Environmental Impact Statement Identi-fier Number assigned to the project is 0-12-50-044.

The Budget and Planning Office appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If we can be of any further assistance during the en-vironmental review process, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

/

W

[ F. R. Sp1'es, Manager General Government Section Budget and Planning Office ,

,r epg

Enclosures:

Comments by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Texas Department of Water Resources '

Railroad Commission of Texas Texas Air Control Board t &

( s' s A

'/ ,

t I

) 810212037]

s4u-cusrcysuitemo .

a.o acx wa cuir t mrica . ausra raxas 7am 'M

i J

9 TEXAS.

PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT l COMYliSIONERS COMMidSiONERs PERAY A. GASS joe K. FULToN i Clwrenan. Fori Wor'h k lid .., '

.. 3 Lubom k JAMES R. PAXTotl Vice Ctwem.,n. Pci.:st.no M5 E C?stN L. COY, JR.

Dai!as CHARLES o. TR AVIS PEARCE JOHNSON E x.ECUT h . ; HREC%f t '

" W. S. OSGOR N. JR.

S.anta FlenJ 4200 Snuth Sr.hnot Roast . .,

' ' ~

Austen. l e. 73 744 February 5, 1981 p{ {

ti {L U L .L i

l Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director FE3 5 1931 l Governor's Budget and Planning Office l Attention: General Covernment Soction @g(jgg{/fl3pgjpg Post Office Box 13361, Capitol Station .

Austin, Texas 78711 l

l Re: Allen's Creek Nucic:ar Generating Station,

,. Draf t Supplement No. 2 i . .\

Dear Mr. Wrotenbery:

This agency has reviewed the a'bove referenced document and offers the

(- following" commen ts .

(-

i ij ,_, -

In con, sideration of all the alternative sites discussed, impacts upon wildlife'res,ources would be minimized if the South Texas Project (STP) g esite were chosen. This site is preferred because it would require only two percent of the land that would be needed at the proposed Allen's Creek Nuclear Generating Station (ACNCS). As stated in the document, the STP site has already been cleared, and many of the required improvements such,as the cooling pond, access roads and intake and discharge structures

(. are either in place or under construction. Should the Mouth of the

! Colorado' River Project be implemented, impacts upon downstream estuaries

, could be adversely impacted by water withdrawn from the river at the STP.

1 Consequently, in order to minimize these impacts, a schedule developed in coordination with this Department would be needed that would specify the frequency and quantity of water that would be withdrawn from the Colorado River to operate the STP.

Concerning the construction of an unloading facility associated with the ACNGS, this Department agrees with the statement on page 3-10 that would '

, o T,

require an additional field study, prior to initiating construction, to determine the potential impacts upon wildlife resources. l

)

r. 1 c,' n-( f f i- N[, ',

[y

'(}g , _-- -- - - - - - - <

Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery Page Two February 5, 1981 Should the Allen's Creek thtclear Generating Station be built, the constructing agency should consider mitigating for wildlife habitat impacted by the facility.

I appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this document.

S cerely,

& I S' l CIL\nLES D. TP WIS E:cecutive Director CDT:RWS:dsb l

II N.B 111 l'AltT\11:NT t11 W.\TI.'It it 1301:lt CI.S i p u, N.(^..n; , o .b s m w A ti sil t). . s .e 4 l" ..,

f l..\ AN W A l f.It lit.\ l l t d'\1l N i nt t \ttl) ,f *; il \ \ s % .\ ll it t ()\1\11%l(IN

!s i s A. I'.. s t h e !. f r . ( ..' innan {~.*> , ,.,S 1.hs \1t i rm.. LI . * .u i ,,

rohn H t . .r rat. \ L.e n.n n n  ; I t .nn n i t a m..n 4.c. .rce w . \utesin i.. n . ( .in , m

' 2c:. l . P .nt .. l i.i n n l l.n n w.o.n.,niann L on ""

ioneneA. no~e a on January 23, 1981 RECrfyE0 JAN~e3 fQt "r. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director Governor's Budget S Planning Office San Houston Bldg. , 7th Floor Austin, Texas 78711 Ogg0 abo /Sggjg

Dear fir. Wrotenbery:

2e: U. S. Nuclear Regul a tory Cornission (NRC) -- Dra f t Second Sur;nlement to Final Environmental Statement Relative to the Allens Creek Nuclear Generat-ing Station ( ACNGS) Unit No.1 (Docket No. 5-466, Houston Lighting & Power Company (FL&P). December 1980. (State File

Reference:

EIS-0-12-50-044.)

In response to your memorandum dated January 2,1981, the staff of the Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR) has reviewed the referenced draft Second Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement (SSFES), prepared by MRC in connection with their consideration of the application filed by HL&P, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (amended) and 10 CFR Part 51, Section 51.5, for a federal permit to construct the ACNGS Unit t!o.1 (3579-i4Wt Boiling Water Reactor; 1146-lG!e Stean Turbine Generator), located on a 11,152-acre HL&P-owned site in Austin County, Texas, approximately four miles northwest of the City of Wallis and 45 miles west of the City of Houston. The estinated cost of the project is $1.3 billion. ?!RC has indicated that the referenced SSFES for the ACNGS project was necessary in order to comply with relevant decisions handed down by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board AS& LAB durir.g 1978 and 1979, in connection with four nuclear project cases examined and ruled on by the AS&LAti, after tne FES and the First Supplement to the FES (FSFES) for the ACNGS Unit 1 project had been completed and approved. Specifically, AS& LAB Decisions: ALAB-471, 7 NRC 477 (1978); ALAB-479, 7 NRC 774 (1978);

ALAB-515, 8 NRC 702 (1978); and ALAB-569, 10 NRC 557 (1979) mandate in essence, that: (1) For projects which are still under NRC review, and the record is still open, NRC nust reexamine earlier findings regarding project site alter-natives in the light of current kncwledge, and to consider additional feasible alternatives which may not have been foreseen nor considered cossible in the earlier stages of project formulation; (2) NRC is required to accept at face value the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decisions regarding water quality matters, pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-ments of 1972, as amended, and NRC is not authorized to incorporate in con-struction permits conditions which call for a review of the adequacy of water 1

r i , n. n i ;,n , ,- e .: u .m . , . u , i, mi . \,..< .h m m u e

h

. i I

, Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director  !

) Page 2  ;

January 23, 1981

t quality requirements previously established by EPA.

From the standpoint of TDWR's responsibilities relative to water resources

• planning, development, and regulation, TDUR offers the following staff review comments on the referenced SSFES:  ;

1. We note the finding of this alternative site re-analysis that the original AClGS site is considered preferable to all '

other reasonable site alternatives in the study area. He i assume that this re-analysis, made pursuant ts the previously-  !

cited ASLAB decisiors, was based on a consideration of site-selection and site-evaluation criteria contdined in regula- i tions,10 CFR rart 100.

In view of this fiRC confirmation of the adequacy and '

suitability of the original AC:iGS site, TDWR reconfirms I the validity of the following State of Texas water rights  :

i and waste discharge permits and amendments thereto already l

!ssued to HL&P by TDWR or its predecessor agencies: l l a. Permit No. 2925 (Permit to Appropriate State Water on May 15, 1974, by the Texas Water Rights Commission (now merged in TOWR, as the Texas Water Commission),

. as amended by Permit No. 2925A, issued on November 1 29, 1977, by the Texas Water Commission of the TDWR.

j -The a m nded permit contains the changes necessitated by r 3

the applicant's decision to reduce the scope of the t ACNGS project from a two-unit, 4800-MW plant to a

one-uni t, 2400-MW plant. Specifically, the amended

\ permit prov' des for: (1) reduction of the surface 8

area of tht. cooling lake from 3,250 acres (at 118 feet above MSL) to a gross area of 5,120 acres and a  !

net water surface area of 5,037 acres (at 118 feet '

above MSL); (2) reduction of the storage capacity of

• the cooling lake from 133,441 acre-feet to 93,132

acr'e-feet (both at a water surface elevation of 118  ;

feet above MSL); (3) reduction in the authorized total amount of water impounded, diverted, circulated, '

i recirculated, and consumptively used from 46,256

) acre-feet to 36,200 acre-feet; (4) reduction in the  !

!' maximum diversion rate from.8,889 CFS to 4,445 CFS;  ;

(5) reduction in the amount of water temporarily t appropriated for the initial fillirg of the cooling '

lake from 139,181 acre-feet over a 36-month period  ;

to 134,872 acre-feet over a 40-month period; (6) e change in the point of return fifw from N 19' 15' W,.  !

17,400 feet from the east corner of the Jesse Boykin l Heirs Survey, Abstract No.131, Austin County, Texas  ;

1 h

j

l Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director Page 3 January 23, 1981 19 0' W,17,250 feet from the aforesaid survey corner.

b. Peruit No. 01869, (Permit to Dispose Wastes) issued on Fbrch 13, 1978, superseding and replacing Permit No.

01869, issued on August 27, 1974, corresponding to Federal NPDES Permit No. TX 0056014. This amended permit authorizes the disposal of wastes under the provisions of Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code, from the ACMGS in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other special requirements, relative to chlorination of domestic sewr. e, monitoring wells to assure adequate protection of groundwater for the area affected by seepage from the cooling lake, prohibition against discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl transformer fluid, limitations on the discharge of total available free chlori,ie or total residual chlorine, and tne definitions of " metal cleaning wastes" and " low-volume waste sources." The waste disposal permit pertains to discharges at the following specific outfalls: 001-cooling pond discharge; 101-condenser cooling wastes and previously monitored effluents: -201-chemical waste treatment system wastewater; 331-low-volume v.astewater; and, 401-metal cleaning wastewater.

2. TDWR notes NRC's planned withdrawal of Conditions 7 a, b, c, and f, relative to water quality,which were presented in the First Supplement to the FES (FSFES) dated August 1978 (See page v of the referenced SSFES), and the upholding of EPA's earlier rulings and requirements. The revocation of the said NRC conditions re-moves the previously-recommended NRC requirements for the appli-cant to: (a) prepare and obtain approval of a revised lake management plan and program; (b) make a chlorine minimization study; (c) prevent the discharge of chlorine upstream of the traveling screens for the circulating water intake structure; and, (d) prepare and undertake extensive preoperational water quality monitoring programs.

TDWR concurs in the aforesaid NRC changes; they do not conflict with the provisions of the water rights and wastewater discharge permits issued by TDUR to HL&P, as listed and described in Comment 1 a and b, above. No amendment of the said vermits appears necessary as a result of the changes proposed by NCR.

l l

i

(

l 51r. Paul T. Urotenberry, Director

• Page 4 January 23, 1981 I

3. TDWR notes NRC's analysis and favorable endorsement of HL&P's revised plan of March 12, 1979, to transport the reactor pressure vessel, and related equipment to the ACMGS site by a combination of water and overland highway transport, instead of rail transport.

The revised plan calls for barge transport 26 miles up the San Bernard River from its confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, and then highway transport for 57 miles from a barge unloading facility to be constructed on the San Bernard River.

near the City of '<.'est Colunoia, to the ACNGS site. (See Figure 3.1, page 3-3, SSFES.) We note NhC's finding the proposed re-vised transport plan is preferable to all other reasonable alternative plans.

From the standpoint of our basic functions and interests under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in the prevention of contamination of water sources due to accidental spills of hazardous and toxic substances, we suggest that the SSFES cite the specific laws and regulations (e.g.,10 CFR Part 71 (NRC);

49 CFR Parts 170-189 (DOT)) which will govern the preparation, coordination, and approval of the revised detailed transport plan, including mention of the specific Federal and State agencies to be involved in the formulation, review coordina-tion, and approval actions.

The Texas Department of Water Resources appreciated the opportunity of reviewing the referenced document. Please advise if we may be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

/ /

A y Harvey Davis

• ' Executive Director l

RECE8I cn

+y~>ty,

. v<s-Lxm. U .. -

a.g.- f- c ..a.

WQ.y)' ..., 3gI 1" Gst g^c

y. .

n. +,v . 9 . - -

8 . . . q. ..

OFFICE OF THE GOV an NO / g000i g 4 ", ,

WILLt AM P. CLEMENTS. JR. "c,- d.

January _,. l981  %*

GOVERNCR c. t _ Q.

TRANSMITTAL MF210RANDU t

'c,

's 4 M, g L 00: Review Participants DATE CO:tMENTS DUE TO BUDGET AND I'IANNING OFFICE: 2/1/81 Ae ron.ne t i c s Commi s s ion Induetrial Qrc,ission Air n t tu i 30aril )l' arks .'nd ' i ' d l i f e Dqartnent

_ An:r..' ih a I t h Conni e i..n _ l'ubl i e (*t ii i t les Commission

,. Bureau o f Fconomic Geology ... Lil l road Cofrmiss ion

,_ Coastal and Ma rine Council J Soil and Water Conservation Board X Dopart men t of Agriculture _ Texas Energy and Natural Resources Department of ilealth Advisory Council Depar* ment of Highways nd Pub lic Co ve rn o r ' s of fice of Regional i r ,a po r ta c ion Development

,'jDepartment of Wa ter Resources Texas Fo re s t Se rv ice -.

3. Gene r.il Land of fice __ _

if f s to rica I Commiss ion I'l Draft EIS

" l$"I uther Draft Supplement to EIS Number 0-12-30-044 Final E!S

' oject fitle ___ Allen's Creek Nuc lear Generat inn Stat ion

, Dratt Supplement No. 2 Originating Agency U.4 Nuclear Renulaigrv Commissien Pursuant to the Natfonal Environmental Policy Act o f 1-369, of fice of Management and budget Ci rcular A-95, and the Texas Po licy for t he Environment (1975), the Governor's Rudget and Planning Of f ice is responsible for securing the comments and views of local and State agencies during the environmental impact s t a teme n t review process.

I'n c lose d for voar review and comment is a copy of the above cited document. This office .olicits your commerits and asks that t h e', be ret urned on or before the above

.f ue dat, You may find the ques t ions , listed on the re ve rse side, useful in formulating voor comments.

For questions on this project, contact Ward Goessi!ne at (512) 475- wt .

Please address your agency's formal comments to: Mr. Paul T. Wrotenbery, Director Covernor's Budget and Planning Of fice Attention: (Jeneral Government Section P.O. Box 12428 Austin, Texas 73711 5.U.t MOuS TO.N 90lL DING

• P U 404 121M APIToL iTATION .

AU$!!N. TE X AS 73111

.Df.

Suggested Questions to be Considered hv Reviewing Agencies:

1. Does the proposed project impact upon and is it consistent with the plans, p ro grams and statutory responsibilities o f your agency ?

2. 'in a t additional specific ef fects should be assessed?

3. What additional alternatives should he considered?

4 What better or more appropriate measures and standards should be used to evaluata environmental effects?

5. 'in a t additional control measures should be applied to reduce adverse environmental effects or to avoid or minimize the irreversible or irretrievahic ccamitment of resources:

6. How serious would the environmental damage f rom this project be, using the best alternative and control measures?

7, What specific issues require further discussion or resolution?

-i . Does your .tgency concur ith the implementation of this project?

As a part of the environmental impact statement review process, the Budget and Planning Office forwards to the originating agency all substantive comments which are formally submitted. I f, af ter analvaing this document, you conclude that substantive co=ents a re unnecessary, you may wish to so indicate Sv checking the box below and forwarding tne form to this o f fice T'ils type of pesponse will indicate receipt of this document by your agency md tl t o tor s onst wi be prepared.

s -

No Comment. J.

AND dry ..!D;/ roetor Rant!al (Jerrv) Hti1 Name and Title of Reviewing Official Surface Mining and Reclamation Rail road Commission o f Texas Agency These activities do not impact surface mining activities.