ML20133G785
| ML20133G785 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1985 |
| From: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133G770 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-850805, NUDOCS 8508090073 | |
| Download: ML20133G785 (101) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:l I Instructions for Incorporating -$ Amendment 8 into the l South Texas Project i Environment Report Operating License Stage i Remove Insert Chapter 2 t 2.1-1, 2.1-2 2.1-1, 2.1-2
-Fig. 2.1-4 Fig. 2.1-4 Fig 2.1-4a
-Fig. 2.1-5 Fig. 2.1-5 Figs. 2.2 2.2-8 Figs. 2.2 2.2-8 2.7-17, 2.7-18 2.7-17, 2.7-28 Chapter 3 3.8-1 3.8-1 3.8-2 '
3.8-3 3.8-4 3.8-5 3.8-5 3.9 3.9-4 3.9 3.9-4 O v Fig. 3.9-1 Fig. 3.9-1 Chapter 4 Figs. 4.2 4.2-2 Figs. 4.2 4.2-2 Fig 4.2-3c Fig. 4.2-3c Chapter 5 , 5.2-1, 5.2-2 5.2-1, 5.2-2 5.2 5.2-5 5.2 5.2-5 Fig. 5.2-1 Fig. 5.2-1 ! 5.3 5.3-11 5.3 5.3-11 Fig. 5.3-1 Fig. 5.3-1 5.3.A 5.3.A-5 5.3.A 5.3.A-5 5.3.A-6 5.3.A-6(DeletionPage) 5.3.A-7 5.3.A-7 (Deletion Page) Fig. 5.3.A-1 Fig. 5.3.A-1 Fig. 5.3.A-2 Fig. 5.3.A-2 8508090073 850805 PDR ADOCK 05000498 O C PDR ~ W2/NLVQ/d 1 Amendment 8
Page 2 O Remove Insert Chapter 5 cont'd 5.4-1, 5.4-2 5.4-1, 5.4-2 5.5-1 5.5-1 Chapter 6 6.1-37, 6.1-38 6.1-37, 6.1-38 6.1-49, 6.1-50 6.1-49, 6.1-50 6.1-96 6.1-96 6.1 6.1-24
.6.2-7, 6.2-8 6.2-7, 6.2-8 Chapter 8 8.1 8.1-3 8.1 8.1-3 8.1-11 8.1-11 8.1-14 Appendix C O' C-73 C-73 Appendix F Fi F F-23 l
r l l. l-I. l i i ( Note: An Appendix E, Appendix F, and Chapter 14 tabs have been provided. l i-l LO l W2/NLVQ/d 2 Amendment 8
i STP ER r^x CHAPTER 2 (s_- ) THE SITE 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND IAYOUT The South Texas Project (STP) is located in southwest Matagorda County, approx-imately 12 miles south-southwest of Bay City and 10 miles north of Matagorda Bay. The location of Unit I will be 96 02'53" west longitude, 28 47'42" north latitude (3,188,669 m north--788,157 m east; Zone 14R); Unit 2 will be located at 96 03'00" west longitude, 28 47'42" north latitude (3,188,699 m north--787, 974 m east; Zone 14R). The site consists nominally of 12,300 acres, of which 7,000 acres make up the cooling reservoir, 65 acres are modified or occupied by the plant and plant facilities, and approximately 1,700 remain as a natural lowland habitat. Figure 2.1-1 shows the general area within 50 miles of the site. Figure 2.1-2 shows the one- through five- and ten-mile perimeters of the site. An aerial Photograph of the STP site and environs before construction is shown on Figure 2.1-3. Superimposed on this photograph is the site boundary (utility owned). Figure 2.1-4 is a diagram of the site layout and surrounding area. The exclu-sion area and railroad spur are also shown. The exclusion area is an oval shaped area, having a minimum boundary distance t from the center of each containment building of 1430 meters. The center of the (_,) exclusion area " oval" is a point 93 meters directly west of the center of the 5 Unit 2 reactor containment building. This point is also the center of the Low Population Zone, which is a circle with a radius of three miles. The closest approach of FM 521 to the exclusion area boundary is approximately 76 meters. Table 2.1-1 presents exclusion area boundary distances for Unit 1 and Unit 2 in each of the 16 cardinal compass directions. The participants in the STP own the land comprising the site, shown on Figure 2.1-4, except for the right-of-way of FM 521 and the right-of-way for a county road extending south from FM 521 and adj acent to the western boundary of the site. Figure 2.1-4a shows an approxi-mately 10-acre area north of Exotic Isle and west of the Colorado River that is 8 not part of the STP property. A High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) terminal will be operated by Central Power and Light company on a 17 acre tract in the exclusion area which will be leased 6 to the HVDC Project by the owners of STP. The HVDC terminal is shown in Figure 7 2.1-4. An Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) and Training Facility have been located 8 approximately 3/4 mile east of the Units on the main plant entrance road. Both facilities are located in one 43,000 square-foot single story structure con- Q310. i structed of neutral-colored textured concrete blocks. The EOC will be staffed only during emergency situations. A staff of 55 persons will be maintained at the Training Facility. The facilities are located on Figure 2.1 5. g3 The abutting and adjacent properties as well as developments near the site are shown on Figure 2.1-6. (G ) 2.1-1 Amendment 8
STP ER The local relief of the area is characterized by fairly flat land, approxi-mately 23 feet above mean sea level. Through the site boundary flows the west branch of the Colorado River as well as several sloughs, one of which feeds Kelly Lake, a 34.4-acre water body in the northeast corner of the site. The site and its immediate environs fall within the Coastal Prairie which extends as a broad band parallel to the Texas Gulf Coast. Of the approximately 50,240 acres within a 5-mile radius of the site, bottomland comprises 19 percent; the remaining 81 percent is upland. The bottomland includes 52 percent cleared land and 48 percent wooded area, most of which, with the exception of two small islands, is classified as agricultural. The upland consists of 91 percent c1 cared agricultural land, 8 percent woodlands, and 1 percent industrial. Major road access to the site is f rom farm-to-market road (FM) 521 and 7 (FM) 1468. FM 1468 intersects FM 521 approximately 350 feet west of the main g construction plant entrance intersection. The site development plan, shown on Figure 2.1-7, reflects the major features of plant development. The main element of the plan is the nuclear power plant and its support facilities. The plant was sited to enable functional and safe operation of a nuclear power plant compatible with the natural environment of the surrounding site and community. Currently no developed public recreation facilities exist along the Colorado River between Bay City and Matagorda. Neither are there any state or federal wildlife reserves along the river, but, since duck and geese are prevalent near the Gulf, some hunting is done along the lower reaches of the river. Recreational potential in the immediate vicinity of the project site is in the form of a group of vacation homes directly across (to the east of) the lh Colorado River from the site. The area between the cooling reservoir and the Colorado River contains a wide variety of plant material dominated by mature live oak trees. Wildlife is abundant within the area of riparian influence. With the natural vegetation, water habitat, and lack of development within the area of riparian influence, that area is a natural lowland habitat and will be allowed to remain such. A visitor's center is located east of the site near the intersection of FM 521 and the permanent plant access road. Parking, restrooms, and an interpretive exhibit to describe the plant's devel-opment and operation are provided at the visitors' center. i O l l 2.1-2 Amendment 8
MM ( ' 't - ,
,x\
,. s, e
s
~
< ((i o
c e.- y u g \\ Q. .
- . . . e ..~ +sstt% ,,w 8/ . v ,
o
+
g-,(L ,% < :c- ,y t + , ( y/ .. -] .w
~
', k '- .h s ,,.
pf r aJ( , g.-*-- gaa . . . _ N
^p --
8
=d ', s
( i , ) , *'" ~ ( ,, x , N: f.
, t
. , ' ,- - - ')Q a --
., j ,
\ ! . ,,, m . *
(:,y.- s "' s - ,. , { $1* ' 'A rl ... _ y Q ,L ._ f.s .. .n .
,\ . . ,
3-.
\ ,.
N gf \ t i ,
- 4. A
{
,\ f.~l A 'y .,
l
/
3.w .
.[
,1 *LacAo spoa'
/ %i
% 3,w , ,,,C
' 3/ / "[* -
No,
.. A i
' t.
s.- ,f ~ '\%
. . ' 7. '- .Y ~. _ I . l I g ,,
/ . EXCL StON ARE A BO NOARY ' \' ' .'
200
. ./,)
?'
3 f
/l s i
LOW PbPUL Af f 0N IONE . (3 MILE ffADIUS) PROPERTY LtMtT5 m g
\ f s
- t. .'
/ Lw m j
W '
.~~~~
..; , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........w..
e . g' : HVDC \ 4 j
,% , - [' ((" '- . , _. L: Ni
'00 E Taansu 31ow a 70 fit ! , sing ---;
- T E f 4 MIN A4-ESSE N TI A PDhD -
CO
.. /, ,p q, .- seircn , .~: d,4
/ , , ,,,
. g .l f / g j vano - ,. -
s ,- , Ibv f I I I
/
.[ '
'--v
- g. ad .
s I : ( j e,
, -p {
*~
"{ ~~ jb
. . " .a .
N st emo
.f. i r
, Ft...f/.....fl
, l T'
Y e 4, I
' . . e -.o. ( L._ . f
*4'f.
, F N AHEST UL LTIME j 3 ESIOLNL lFAHM
$- l 1 f j=
4\
,,7 a ,g,,
. % j o .,
; 7of. 'y\ c.-r f;',. ;
/ $ y T -
g 6 -a _ ,,) yL y j, g g x 4';'/*,4 , v
- n. ,
e p D 0 /b r}g s
'/
l
, /.. _ . (
Rq d' $ x l, j ,
- q %
, ~\,.
- j
<w
} )
E ' S l5
*=t. ,
! (
f - ' f ( 3.: v T g1ist -
* * ' .j l 1
.'. a-- A h* ' '
N k( 8,, . at H0 o (* [ >.>.*r',,,,,,,,,,/ _
), } ,
t
.\s ',
( ,, , 8
'
- p .
, A- ! j'}i- y-- -
Lif ' i h'-t*- . i - ( - -} bfLOCArfDeamstou<...f(k{
, , 3. .
g,,
..._.-.+f -
l
- 1 g i
j Din t LLS2O
- .. l A l
,h n .' . ~f 4, . l .
,}
)
s ,
, *- {* ' s :,
me- r I ri
' < ;; i fue carst 't p , l " '
f [\ p, ..d _. , i F f
*'""' " !, w j
i
' s,
" */
~
I I!'(\ rfM8ANnWENT. % s-- * '4 ua' cp,,
. f
,~/ \. t -
I p
~-
lp, /g-' EL a!Oc \
$ , g I, ' , 1 , _f -
Q m --___ -_ ~ l , , , , r,- ., i
\
i
~.
. .j/" %
i t
-2'-
.1 .
( o y ,e . o ,! *./ o %
> .,
- b' , . o
> r 4 !
'g, o l o ;f ti s. Ms . ,e
- b. 7- , s ,
l e.
- 9
, 2 h d " ed n re b NOTE , g . g
= w
- w. jl* %f /l
*""~ 9.
- f WAP 84s10 ON t' ( .s er ,
ovacia awo sie.as sne.,t coo to.,ar, s ,' u s
, i*o east Y...
\
4,)q .. q ss Soirw suur ccmt at ya .
--..n,u i . ,
STP ER q., p.v.a e g'
; s,,_y .
. T ,,.;
b k .._ #
'.n I
$ .4
~
.. V'.w'u , d
(. t
. 'i s r .
s* .x % - -
.~=-
ynN ' V: %. l - I .. l
+
%) ,
f '~~ f 'l
~
l.. %,]l. y
~
'$9 & ,w ,c , m-- .. . ..
sL%[R'l .3 c .3 3 (
.s. ,x [,/ -
_f TO W & 4 ,g
'4
\
(( .
\
,.[. '
.\.
**>v r-"
L--.-- e a' u,.rz,. c6,oom .
\ ~. .
, gw(5x vtsNE. A No .
/N . .j ', -
( ". e"
. L) .~.. , -
a ; . - .o ,:y\y s.*' ,
,ee. . . .,. .
,u ,
...y
,,). = m_
!:L. ., r...qs -(.;'*:. ..'.-
. =
, _ _. &-y
, . .\
. :;: sac 19 e '
.N.W, he wer \
7: 1 Me i N7D. g s f
,lSt"/ -.J,. ,teorolo0~ cal'- , -
A 'y _ _,e'- _ ._.
. J .i ,g,;k o v. -
-J g ,c ,'
- Rfx,etst-,/\f)., &2b/ ' . y' Q ,,
~'"
i
- ^}*" . periore S Card con # -
.(7 ',/ -*
.< ). ....,....... ! '
s xx .
,y 8 -en S.
s.............. ' r n . {
- i
' &~. y a >< ' l
n-:.hl2ERT
'(
tE ,
- 1'e~ j<,,,, J.%) d(i;'l'q
#'~'""~
j" CARD .i1 . b,
!,- . , i f .y
. . .ac, ,t i,
*/ '
rJ c j ,'; + - -
/ :
.s
%,,
- do. .
y ,- , ,,,%, .. A ' f e... p ^' , r , I ; ,, ,,,,, ; N[u s .
~t9~ /.. y '- ', -
1s
.. qc;, g- .
. 4 . i
'.x . ..
% v
_7
^%hi; s
y ,a,' \s ' Q) .'.. c ;jk,7 s u, f I
< 1 / s. 1-
. f, ""*' ~ -
\ jy($ 4' ,) . \
. u c .
.<o. 9 ~ ..c.o m , .JL ,, .
- f. ,
t s s ..-..i 4cn s g e j "*"' "' ~ ,l
- ycf,,,m"+,
,. q n u r"st,' f.u,.h c
-j g
. -c' mm ~.bN.,_ ,c & ; -
a J=. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... (^ SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT
\ .. N,....
'}
"-~%-)*
t
!!.I a
(-N .
) (..
[
/ UNITS 1 & 2
-~-{
""J.
y s i
,., SITE LAYOUT AND SURR0l'NDING AREAS OF SOUTil TEXAS PROJECT #
w; __j .. .I
- FIGURE 2.1-4 g .,
. j.{ ' Comiove imit avqt srest e . '
. ** eAv..u .s e a se a i e in ,
,. i*,r.
" ~~~
= Amendment 8 ~
--- -- 8 5 0 800 0 0 73 -Of
e [955,C00
) * '
o . l 1
/
3
) N
+
I I t g i 3-h D F Q 4 > N 4 l t O Q ( '( .-
+,
~.
, a -
q o 1 - I, 1 > g> g 0 LEGEND SPILLWAY h DISCHARGE CHANNEL h - 10 ACRE AREA a ,1 _ SCALE IN FEET C ESS 0AD
]~T P PE t 0 1000 2000 3000 SIPHON PASSES WEST BRANCH UNDER SPILLWAf DISCHARGE CHANNEL ,
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2
. SITE BOUNDARY i
t FIGURE 2.1-4 a
! AMENOMENT 8 i
\s s <
RAILROAD k5~ SPUR : c'0, (1
\' i (M
( h l 400' WIDE TR A s k - LINE R/,W TO W. RESTRl( 100' WIDE TR ANSMISSION LINE N Ye51 EXCLUE R\W TO BLESSING - .
- , _ _ _ . . . . . _ _. . .. , . ,... ,111yil r .
' \ ;TTIIi141
. '- s l
ESSENTIA{ POND COOLING
-l, ,
, ==} l
, SWITCH y: -
YARD 1 d c.1_ _, 1
\ r' i -
lt _. ._ l-
\ ..
n , ll
- ~
k;
- }3
\ 'lgVlf
_ f[ j
~
/7
[ [~ s 9 RELOCATED l LITTLE
' /
l ROBBINS ""' 1
/, ..
4M % m.:m Iff
%/ i j
i vc e 1 9
./p g
- . e. .
i _. t
- i._. LL - a
u
" - - - STP ER
\\ \.__ K.,
b.) f 's' .o [, , ._ ,A
-s
. . . N, ..
)
[ / k'N N'N - N (
;% ' Q
?m ,
SSM SSION 2.P Af fSH, . TC~0 NT$ H01,MA "^3 -
.s
)' n SK lINE/AN LON HILL - ^
o , rs aTEJ !IO N A R E A AREA '&(l [r? 3 ' d e
} :
I ) ,
._, g;
--REL0d4TED FM 52[
$ I
'x IOd WIDE TRANSMISSION LINE i I
,, 'N (q R\W TO VELASCO "
j PRIMARY ' , ' e
-METEOROLOdlCAL TOWER
, o
- c. ::: a u l DLANT ( \'
*'x - '"" A5ailable On 2CCESS .
\ "N C*d j UOAD ,
BACKUP J' g N s \
. I METEOROLOGICAL TOWER' w e: .a .
N.a ,I,I 3 s
.; u, T
EOC AND TRAINING FACILITY APERTUllR CAltu l "7 ., DTOR'S ' 3.NJER , r~'n
.,..m
( / _
~ \
kyg-- ---g,.g
,a N
[~- . c '. , ,. ,. . %,- =M' .
- esemos sts _
#'~
( N ,. ens , b
., 0 t ,, O/
ll e.,,* ' N '! :.c a n o n s m u s s emasea ucah-L( I
'g N *
,,, 6 % HEAVYJAUL R040 .
N CIRCULATION CHANNEL' . 4.-
\ lu -
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 I-M AKE UP PIPELINE lO
- / R stTr. m>usAn RESTRICTCD AREA & EXCLUSIOS ARI:A
,^-i-i,
- FIGUI'C 2.1-5 AME NDMEllTJ 8 5 d 8 09 0 0 7 3 -- O A---
.. 4 .-
s'
. l
)
e **
, e**
".a.=...,, ,
) l
, .=...,' ..
c.g,., J . o**2" [p wo*** / -
. r
. '. . s J s
t ..
, Buchh I fimeten O j
e gM ~ l e
.g j
Em E e ] 2 '
\, ! 3 G \s s8 i
, a I
h [
s., l
. I I .l .
\'
t
,! d
(-- ,
, ..i,... .. . . w e y...
t , . .... I ! l
. s , }
. l S. ! ,
.- a , -.
, .s - s.__..- .
l e : /,, / M .g 5 ; c.u , 6% g, k
- 3
' .~+
g y . - .... y N
-;c
[v 1, <> -- t n-4 7-r j, . . . .......... f' ,, ., . ; I e
> +
i ( ) a> - -/ . 9'~ ., Q: d' ,j, :/- t
, G [" _ f's0
- (9N
,. -;.C5
~~~~ ,_.7-
I STP ER , _ _ . . s F) uyry. g
\
I (' ^w, a . . ,' % ,,,gs. ne
~- ~ ~j i
%),,*.e.
s
# ,, a .
i I s ; t. s.
/
MATAGORoA COUNTY l <\\ 's g ,*.'
% also Avallable On I a
h', hperture Card o
/ LEGEND:
TI
' "i "" ** Y' APERTUllE Local e,, ,, CARD
) , d t o M.. , State memQamm 1 ,'" Railroads
% ,,, County Line --
*~
l ~. g d ! Incorporated Towns p# Unincorporated Towns e Schools 1 -A l 2 eu,==va w oa**. - -jc Recreatio'n Areas 7 -
,r , Hospitals o 3 ? .-- } #
z . f-8508090073 - 03 { _ . . . .
. SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT
_ UNITS 1 & 2
/ ' . SCHOOLS, PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS IN THE ENVIRONS OF THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT 0 t 3 3 4 9 c o, F IGURE 2. 2-7 ---- - -
Amendment 8_
STP ER o l - Y W "'
%!, d ..
s , O ...... I - . . . . m1 ,,,teci , , , m ,, 1 Il fm::.=.::.:
= .
<< - .a, t.i;;g ,
y g ; ... e
< - - . f. 4,,,,,,,,_,,,,
,.6M'i..
([ ,, , ' ,
.r....,.
. s,, cru .
t i
- *p . '
AWFme
-.yerg,%
~;nr <
"" = " :, r ,. -
~
O ,
-- J 1,
/,
/ .
t.:':L*','":::;r
/
,/4 o
o
, -l g,
- i c, 1
- e. ,
g
.. N f
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 O f COE DIVERSION PROJECT b 0 Amendment 8
- FIGURE 2.2-8
STP ER Red drum food habit studies (Ref. 2.7-43) reveal that young fish subsist on copepods, amphipods, and grass shrimp while adults prey en larger O' crustaceans and fishes.
- 9. Southern Flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma). This flatfish spawns in Texas during late fall and early winter probably in both gulf and bay waters (Ref. 2.7-57 and 2.7-58). Postlarvae enter Texas estuaries from December through April and congregate along shores of shallow bays, sounds, and lagoons.
Although the southern flounder is a euryhaline species, juvenile and young adult flounder are reported to prefer the less saline waters of bays and estuaries (Ref. 2.7-37). Young flounder prey upon small bottom invertebrates; adults feed mainly on small fishes and crustaceans (Ref. 2.7-43) . Results of STP Fish Study. Baseline data presented in the 8 2.7.2.6.3 Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage on juvenile and adult fishes of the lower Colorado River and adjacent waters were based on data from gill netting (July through December 1973), seining (October 1973), and trawling (June, August, and October 1973). A list of the 69 species collected during these periods, their abundance, and the months and the study areas in which they were captured are presented in Tables 2.7-17 through 2.7-21. Abundance, size, and weight data for forage and commer- cially important species are presented in Tables 2.7-18 and 2.7-19. (O_,) During the complete 12-month 1973-1974 baseline study, 91 fish species were collected (Ref. 2.7-2 Table 136). A species breakdown by gear type indicated that gill netting, seining, an/ trawling yielded 35, 49, and 54 species, respectively. The 91 species consisted of eight predominantly marine species, 64 predominantly euryhaline species, and 19 predominantly freshwater species. Included were 18 species commonly considered important from a forage, sport, or commercial aspect. Abundance and biomass of juvenile and subadult fish assemblages taken in seine and trawl samples fluctuated with seasons, life history, salinity, and station. Midriver (stations 5 and 10) and/or downriver stations (11 and 14) generally produced peak fish abundances. Continual movement of young-of-the-year estuarine species into the area with detectable salt wedges accounted for high abundances at midriver, downriver, and bay stations. Upriver catch rates (stations 1 through 4) were highest when a salt wedge and associated estuarine ichthyofauna penetrated upstream areas. Gulf menhaden, bay anchovy, blue catfish, and Atlantic croaker dominated juvenile and subadult catch totals throughout the study and were largely responsible for catch fluctuations between seasons and sampling areas. These species and other less abundant estuarine taxa used the study area, particularly midriver and downriver locales, as a nursery during all seasons. Catch of larger fishes in gill not sets generally fluctuated with season, salinity, and river discharge. Catch per net-day was greatest during moderate river flows and favorable upriver and midriver salinity conditions in February, March, and April, 1974. M1 driver stations (5 and 10) produced the highest catch rate per sample during seven of 11 months. Biomass at upriver and midriver n v 2.7-17 Amendment 8
STP ER stations was also influenced by flow conditions and season. Midriver net sets yielded highest biomass during fall and early winter; upriver stations yielded highest biomass during the summer, late winter, and spring. Gill net catches g indicated blue catfish and sea catfish as the dominant, larger fishes in the w study area during most months. 2.7.2.6.4 Endangered and Threatened Species. No fish species listed as endar.gered or threatened are known to occur in the STP study area (Ref. 2.7-59 and 2.7-60). 2.7.2.7 Shrimp, Crabs, Oysters, and Associated Macroinvertebrates 2.7.2.7.1 Introduction. Literature descriptions of macroinvertebrates, excluding infauna, of the Matagorda Bay area and particularly the STP study area are sparse. The only survey (Ref. 2.7-31) of nektonic and pelagic macroinvertebrates of the Colorado River and adjacent waters encompassing the STP area recorded 18 species of invertebrates. Ctenophores, brown shrimp, white shrimp, blue crabs, gulf crabs, grass shrimp, and unidentified sergestid shrimp were the most common forms. Other studies of the Matagorda Bay area it.clude those of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) (Ref. 2.7-9, 2.7-21, 2.7-22, 2.7-23, and 2.7-61). Lafortunately, none of these studies involved sampling in or near the STP study area. Commercially important tracroinvertebrates which use the estuarine waters of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico include the brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus), white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), and American oyster (Crassostrea virginica). These species are dependent upon low-salinity and highly productive estuaries for growth and completion of their life cycles.
- 1. Brown Shimp (Penaeus aztecus). TPWD reports cited above indicate brown shrimp present in Matagorda Bay from April through mid-December, with peak abundance from mid-April through mid-July. Gulfward spawning migration of brown shrimp usually beb nsi in June, and by mid-December browns are gone from the bays, not reappearing until April.
Diener (Ref. 2.7-31), trawling in the tidal Colorado River, Intracoastal Waterway, eastern arm of Matagorda Bay and East Matagorda Bay, found brown shrimp the most abundant and frequently taken invertebrate, with exception of ctenophores. He observed that brown shrimp were most abundant in the Intracoastal Waterway, but large populations in Matagorda Bay, the Colorado River, and Eest Matagorda Bay were also recorded. Findings on brown shrimp in these areas correlated with data of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for other areas of Matagorda Bay.
- 2. White Shrimp (Penaeus setiferus). Diener (Ref. 2.7-31) reported that white shrimp were much less abundant than brown shrimp and found that they used the Colorado River and Intracoastal Waterway to a greater extent than they did the two bays. The Colorado River upstream from 2.7-18 Amendment 8 O
STP ER 3.8 REPORTING OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT 8 The environmental impacts of transporting radioactive materials to and from nuclear power plants are presented in Summary Table S-4 of 10CFR51. 1 i l O V , O 3.8-1 Amendment 8
l t STP ER f t e i i TABLE 3.8-1 This Table has been deleted. I I i l l 1 1 l I i i 0 3.8-2 Amendment 8
STP ER O I TABLE 3.8-2 O This Table has been deleted. O 3.8-3 Amendment 8
i . STP ER O TABLE 3.8-3 O This Table has been deleted. I O 3.8-4 Amendment 8
STP ER O l. FIGURE 3.8-1 This Figure has been deleted. I I r O 3.8-5 Amendment 8
STP ER 3.9 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES 3.9.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The general description of the transmission facilities presented in Section 3.9.1 of the Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage requires no updating except as discussed below. The Danevang Tie Point to Glidden Substation circuit of the City of Austin Electric Utility (C0A) has been modified to go from the Danevang Tie Point to Holman Substation. The Central Power and Light Company (CPL) circuit on double steel towers from the site to Lon Hill Substation has been modified to go from the site to Blessing Substation. The circuit is on double circuit steel towers from the site to Prairie Center and single circuit towers from Prairie Center to Blessing Substation. The modified trans-mission routes are shown in Figure 3.9-1. The right-of-way corridor which antains the circuit from Danevang Tie Point to Holman Substation is 150 feet wide. The right-of-way corridor which contains the circuit running from the site to Blessing Substation is 100 feet wide from the site to Prairie Center and 150 feet wide from Prairie Center to Blessing Substation. All transmission lines have been or will be built in accordance with the 8 National Electrical Safety Code. Q 290.2 3.9.2 TYPES OF LAND CROSSED BY THE RIGHT-OF-WAY Types of land crossed by the modified transmission routes are the same as those described in the Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage, O Section 3.9.2. Land cover in the modified rights-of-way include woodland, scrubland, pasture / grassland, and cropland. Types of land cover crossed by proposed transmission line routes including the modified routes are summarized in Table 3.9-1. The most common use of land in the modified transmission routes is grazing. Other uses of land include agriculture and recreation. The land use within each land cover type crossed by the modified route from the STP site to Blessing Substation is summarized in Table 3.9-2. The land use within each land cover type crossed by the transmission route from Danevang Tie Point to Holman Substation (including the modified route from Glidden to Holman Substation) is summarized in Table 3.9-3. 3.9.3 LAND ADJACENT TO RIGHT-OF-WAY 3.9.3.3 STP Site to Blessing Substation The transmission corridor from the site to Blessing Substation is located in the coastal prairie formation and is characterized by agricultural and grazing lands. The first 10-mile section of the corridor crosses cropland and scattered pasture. The corridor crosses scattered woodland and pasture in the immediate vicinity of Blessing Substation (Table 3.9-4). O 3.9-1 Amendment 8 I a
STP ER 3.9.3.5 Danevang Tie Point to Holman Substation The land adjoining the transmission corridor from Danevang Tie Point to Holman Substation is primarily agricultural and grazing land. Two small residential communities fall within the 2-mile wide corridor. The town of Glidden about one mile from the route and the town of Ammannsville about one-half mile from the route. The modified corridor from Glidden to Holman Substation crosses scattered areas of pasture, cropland, and scattered woodland (Table 3.9-5). 3.9.4 VEGETATION ALONG TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS 3.9.4.4 Description of the Vegetation on the Modified Routes The route from the site to Blessing Substation is located in the gulf prairie and marsh vegetational formation. The natural vegetation in this formation is described in Section 2.7.1.1, " Regional Ecology," of the Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage. The route traverses cropland, pasture, scrubland, and woodland (Table 3.9-6). Rice is the major crop produced in the vicinity of this route. The southern portion of the route from Danevang Tie Point to Holman Sub-station is located in the coastal prairie and marsh formation while the northern portion of the route is located in the post oak savannah formation. Natural vegetation in these formations is described in Sections 3.9.4.1 and 3.9.4.2 of the Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage. The route traverses cropland, pasture, woodland, scrubland, grassland, and savannah (Table 3.9-7). The southern portion of the route traverses cropland (primarily rice) and pasturc while the northern portion of the route traverses cropland (primarily field crops), pasture, and scattered woodland, savannah, and scrubland. 3.9.5 WILDLIFE ALONG TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDORS Mammalian and herptile species which occur in the vicinity of the modified routes include the same species described in Sections 3.9.5.2 and 3.9.5.3 of the Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage. 3.9.5.1 Birds Occurring Along Modified Transmission Corridors Avifauna in the vicinity of the modified route from the site to Blessing Substation include passerines, raptors, and waterfowl. Passerines and similar groups and raptors are common in the prairie, woodland, and cropland l areas. Waterfowl commonly feed in cropland areas or utilize scattered wet meadow and streamside habitats along or near the proposed route. Common waterfowl species in this area include the snow, white- fronted, and Canada geese and several species of ducks. The red-winged blackbird, savannah sparrow, and eastern meadowlark are common on prairie and cropland. The Carolina chickadee, tufted titmouse, barred owl, and common crow are prevalent in wooded areas and along streams. Along the inland portion (Glidden to Holman) of the modified transmission line route, bird species include open field types as well as woodland types. 3.9-2 Amendment 8 O
l I STP ER o () Common species in the open field and along fencerows and hedgerows include the savannah sparrow, eastern meadowlark, bobwhite, and red-tailed hawk. In wooded areas common species include the tufted titmouse, cardinal, brown thrasher, red-bellied woodpecker, barred owl, and common nighthawk. 3.9.5.4 Endangered Species Examination of topographic maps and aerial photography of the modified trans- , mission line routes, field observations on and in the vicinity of the routes, 9 and review of documents (References 3.9-1 through 3.9-7) indicate that no TE2 l Federal or state endangered species are permanent residents in the vicinity of the modified transmission line routes. Migrant or transient species (pere-grine falcon and bald eagle) could occur in the vicinity of the routes during migration (spring and fall) periods. No proposed endangered plant species are expected in the vicinity of the modified transmission line routes. 3.9.6 RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY The modified transmission route from the site to Blessing Substation crosses the Missouri Pacific railroad right-of-way near Blessing Substation. The transmission line route from Danevang Tie Point to Holman Substation inter-sects Southern Pacific railroad rights-of-way at three locations including one intersection along the modified transmission line route near Glidden. The intersections of transmission line and railroad rights-of-way are summarized in Table 3.9-8. (3 s_ ,/ 3.9.7 TRANSMISSION LINE VISIBILITY FROM PUBLIC ROADS Visibility terms and criteria applicable to the modified routes are unchanged from those discussed in Section 3.9.7 of the Environmental ReportConstruction Permit Stage. 3.9.7.5 Degree of Visibility Along Unmodified Transmission Line Routes The degrees of visibility in terms of highway miles for public roads crossed or paralleled by the modified transmission line routes are summarized in Table 3.9-9. Transmission line visibility resulting from intersection with or from being parallel to public roads is summarized in Tables 3.9-10, 3.9-11, and 3.9-12 for the site-to-Blessing and Danevang-Tie-Point-to-Holman lines respectively. A total of some 89 miles of highway visibility results from the total of 304.3 miles of transmission line along the overall proposed transmission system. 3.9.8 ELECTRICAL EFFECTS i The electrical effects of high voltage transmission are unchanged from those ) described in Section 3.9.8 of the Environment Report--Construction Permit Stage. 3.9.9 SUBSTATIONS ON MODIFIED TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES p ( ,) Modified transmission lines will terminate at Blessing and Holman Substations. 3.9-3 Amendment 8
STP ER Blessing Substation (CPL) One new 345-kilovolt transmission line from STP will terminate at au cddition to the existing Blessing Substation. The addition will be built on property currently owned by CPL and will occupy about 2 acres adjacent to q the existing facilities, which occupy about 3 acres. The total CPL sub-TEl station property consists of about 11.2 acres of flat, grassy terrain and is currounded by wooded areas that provide for low visibility from the adjacent road (State Highway 35). The unused portions of the property are occasionally leased for grazing. The 345-kilovolt substation addition will ba in operation by 1980 with ties into the CPL transmission network. Holman Substation (COA) One 345-kilovolt transmission line from STP will terminate at the new Holman Substation. The substation will occupy about 8.S acres of a 38.5-acre tract purchased by the City of Austin. The substation will be located on flat, grassy terrain. The site is adjacent to a farm-to-market road carrying very little traffic and the site was not used for crops or grazing at the time of ccquisition. The 345-kilovolt substation will be in operation by 1980 with ties into the transmission networks of the City of Austin and Lower Colorado River Authority. O O 3.9-4 Amendment 8
g-
~' ,, ... s s.c ym %.
- v.'. ,
" ~ '
N, . . . ' ~, / F A.' Y E 1Y
-- ./. _, , ' C' Lh #
N .. O M A
\. , f'g a- -.CsA L DW 5" *",*E, L L
\, ,/ % ., / # ,,~,,,
% \ f,7
\ ,,,y
~
t -..I J/ -
'A
/e
. - HOLMAJ '
/* "', .W _r A,
~
M , f' ' g * * * - ~ , , , , , ,
'/ [N.< "
g
., s.
,e.t w%l '%,. ,g/ 4 N'
\ .
'~ ? '~--
/ -~ : 'N, s '
Y- b,,,. D g' 'Y; - h q. . , , 1K .y b, 'O
~~'~'
, HILL COUNTRY,.t ,/ .
. s,Ay. .' J 'K,(l i,
~
N ' "'
~~==**
c, u y Q yt U P E t 7 J/ ~
, -~ ~~. -[*--4
\ "*"
f . g ' g -,. .
\ , - - / ~~-
f.'
**~*
. - ' w - ,
\ s -
se .-.-o.
.Q , .i y ,. % - .3osA l %.
e- % t.
. o
;, , - .. f.%.. .. f . -
s
' .. o
',g '}p ,> -y 4 E S;' 1,_% ~
v
-...;-~* ,, s.. 5.
y > ss l-q /m ,_i.,g+N .-. ).I 1 ' . . -- < , m
- r. ~ '
....M, /. ,
s r
% 'U - e K A. .,R * *s ./ f>**0 - ,
,, l s \.
m \ m .I ,,l r, c. s SAN ANTON40
. (,,
' . .. ~ . ... [,'(> \
\ w. '/ -
g{m-- t t *=.+1
- - \ ~ ~ > *" 'f
, s g ...,o.- ..
p
,(!. - - . _ _ __.s__/ ,, N s
% ,, m ,,rq q y ~,
-x. . . .. . t -
,r*/,
/.7
,,, g
- . ,3 .,e 7- \ --- c ; c. .
c.,' 4'. / NN ?g ? - J'
' (s' "'(..\[y_'N ~-.
/ .. . i "N,N W o.,
'.'"- '/, ,j %"*' . ' # (*~g , ,
s q--
-4*
7-- ,b.v (/sA
<,~~/
/ s.--
A A,N \ 17 - 7 y ' p/
,s N'.-~-
i
*' . +. ~9 %,
g '/ 4 N\ j
,""* N , i
.'j
, r
,,, Wg i L
,, a ,,,- 4S ;O N j '
\ - '
( *\ ' N, '"' ; e i s~ 6w N- - ./
,, . \,
%. , N /
4 f ,!
*~~~
,/ 7,,,, ~g,,\g gA ,i J.= 9 "
Q~
," \; ,.,M. ;
+.
j .. - w ,_}g +. -- a _s, s
/ g
_ s. _ . j
'N
~ . + - - -
s, .. .% N /- _ . , \, e s*
..e-- '
[ 3.. f g t N r', j \g,f .
,,,,,. e , KA N E '
U-**/ pL,,' ' ' ' ' ' T A S C,O S A- 5> .,,'s'. / s '
.A ' %. "
'\, / /s '.* ~*/
a ( ' ,, N. / c-m s ' Ip'g. "/ w (
~'
s i I, ' - N
,/q -;j
. , , /'
y
\ 1 .s '% v A, &,/, ?. R
\.
g n- " ,-/,< ! , . .
,/ _\ t,*.. . ~
',
- s .=
*l -
,3 /// '" ' . s M ,,,/ ,'s,
/ '
- r. .~'
s _ * =x=
%. N l s.,., '
e 3,
- _.,_ . y ._ . _ _) _,.,, / G, .+
- a. q M.
- o X .% l 4 s
\
i.
'% J\
e-3 4.,Y ***
- l \c,,.
# ,,, ,-\g - -p k
,~
l ,, '\s l , . ,
- s s
\, % ,
_e c
,< Q'-
,j
'\, * ,,,
-} . e i *
. 1, p* ,j .I 4 .,
*a r s,'-- >q s: .. , . -g
- q <
3.
'/ '
} a. .
* ' } , ,/, ' ,
-f-r- ,
c* .w n \ ~e e c, } ~., i NA[ l
,h */.
r--
/ '\ \ 1, %
4 1 - * *#
+. A .
/. ,,.,,
%. 7>.j#' , *
\
No C M U L, L E N
.4 e g
e ,N y / '\ i k
'* 1
% % 9'i.r*s/* s lf
* . - 1
- e. %
7;/1 -3 '\ "T( e t *. ,/ - a tayE '\ --~ " , .
\ s R '
-E F ., 0 Q :'. 10 5
N>7 g l u
. o A ,< f ,g y
M
~
.. / ,/ s u *Tx
+
t p : *2 _.l. 1
" c-
.,,, 'y / g s % s Q y 4, ,., i w
l ;s ms x%s s
- s
. . y ,, , _ .. .
4 ,
-..,y'*"* ,s
- a ? . <,/ ,.
, . gQ"~~q >%, - . .4, * /
; y , '7 #, <
fl. - - ^ g- ..'~,.r. ., jl 4.T . gs/ p' p , %*.L, %. .
~~ s iL ;.- /_ *' /
l'
/ . ,,!WgQ. A y g.
.~ -
V :' , - ;m.g,
,..An^- n, ,A %.
. ._L s. . _ .{ . _ .
_ .x_.pa ,_ 4
,~- .
{ y,. ,
, ' 'q,.
-n - c
.- - l s,.
.L c ., + % nsp.ro-ge.*
. . - ~
.N; .~ - / - ,W
,9 I-
\ ---/ n.J. \ "~.%*-> '.
g '\ / _ '\,p A
-\ ', s cl / ,/ . . ,. . x , , . . * . -
.. ~~* .,,e..
t .. ,, J
-., ;- > . ,p
---I. wgy.-. . . 4 , :f r'5g. /r t I
, i Iw LON HILL t . r' ',
--- w s.- # ~~~r'
' ~. - - * .
[' ,. - i
't ,- b' y.#. *M, M.~-f;,*- - -' . CORPUS , ,- - m 1. .. s ,
'/
p q,~. , .. , . . *
= ,,
4- e
- C HRtSil
.I e ,4,
' ', j ;g y )
I l .,
'=-- / 6
,,/
} t l
, N' U t C E S. ..,
.r--. .-
D" U V A' . L[.. N..} .WCLL$ '
- 4 '
M STP ER
- h. ~-~ /}. .A- A u s T ! .h % w %~j \ s g.- g, . , 3 :g , gg. p.-
, l * ~,. / ,
t
. Qm W '
y_'. '
.;; . \ \,
N . y _4.%..g , ...
%.i:3 1 u o.
' ' ' ' ' . * , - , ,p' . s..
. s -
) . . <1,'
g y* - % . .' ( L t h< -' ..- , % ;.rc p,,_ .-- :T ^; + - ,j ; p
.~"
,, . w. ~
y W. q}',_- (.<o.: . q 'y;f,p ,' *7 (. a-z. g- a ., -
/,- . s;/5.. -
'sT,LIDDEN
- g /n yL
.. x c us m.. , -Q,.u .sg _,
-,5J*cHA
- r. e .
'S -rgW Y ~% /
c-s L %. 4
&' s..
*3 ' s .. "
. . W.' O- "" ~t ~
~. ...
~. ". x !
4, ,. p /
- r.i c o ' t o a\ \x,.. ,,soN 2h ~~':*r . 'n . g = g .:.;;t, \ . .\ o -
~ ~c.-N N C
~
7 e 5 ! \ "<
} ~~.,
. t 't ' 7[/. "~ 7 h ,- M - W ~'p \. T .
~~~ '
.f ,',,7T'~~' \ .% .(- \ 4*. . b.
-- I
'NN,w\ ?/
_&')r 7f'":*" E.m . i r ['
% l t . . , , . , z
,.8 W r- Y ~: ,- [... e, -/
- g. i4 4 7'j@'x
(. % 1_. . r 7o A. Tly I.
~
72 "f ,., ' . -. . ;tdp- A_, , s - *
. L]
Q r\li, y$ ,T
.f, 1 - ,
T
- 1. .
.,?p -
ff '{.-if{'. 6 A oN
,Ny . s. .,, ,,%. .\. \N , \(k. s. - .
' -1 C A
= A.t ' ' ~ s e,,.
. =~.(, . f
,, u, .
, ,j' y. * '
l i, .
'=
. : - ~ \ . -. . .K. * -
fj 3 7-
% . <7 . - ,f\. /$\.,A.
t?
\ % J- 7
\
s x t y
.9 y ,.
.u,
/-
'N\.\
i sy +
. . v. s e,j
. c.nau
/w A H \'A R--%T O N ,
,,. [*
*t y/ .A]'
g r~ N .y ***g L f"' ,s \'.( . ' N',N } / - ] a % n p o fa , i .+ v . . . - ifg *z f, v,d s .f.; . .\ . -
/
i ~W
-" p [4
.n 3
^
Klv ,- 1 ,.L c:/. /.
' ~
M)... q :\ y-~"f+--p.fg'Js .-- \ q A-.:\ 'm y A'Q'd'[u. %s , t.~; DA EVANG
.w q+(p:q TIE Pb[NT 5
\. pNY .
a. WN*-*~k[wp.p "WeCed
~
q y 7 Acf sto d -p/ ., o,q w 4,,- g+- ~ h1_ ~.. s ."$';_.h;f 1 .
~h .
-e ,%v7 ,s . .
hl p ?.//gtAsco -h _< k ' APERTURE TI l
. . . . . . . .,. . . .t . . . . .i. . . . . . . . . s CAM) 2 gd l q./S .[-
]m h*~.()'t 5 b[-'t --~ ')hj
-m
- s rr- SITE l{*
- i. 4 LEGEND
'N . /.'* E p- ...J. . 'Y ~M..c r- .,
)he*& ,4 k l .- '. MODIFIED ROUTE (1978)
% .* . a. r* ,@, ;'b
'-- *,'f -
- j ..Q'
.rw$.,d,' *u 15' PREVIOUSLY SELECTED ROUTE
,' Lu d x k Y
'- N ?[o A STILL PROPOSED
--==-
r*.
'
- M r' I n
g,gh PREVIOUSLY SELECTED ROUTE ......... c%p::r [A hp 'U- + I'O * *. NO LONGER BEING CONSIDERED
-(
~-
o 5 s, m( J. jA'.~
\c S
;eg.g n. W-m f _.
__ ss y.e/ y ,. s 3 o y gv 8508090078 - O y
. / o SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2
#1>
STP TRANSMISSION ROUTES o io 20 ao 40 so FIGURE 3.9-1 AM~EN D M E NT 8
W t i
-)
,, a .. . ,- vmE*
s."h a.W.
- g ,, x sa p
' f. .. ,
\, ..',,. ./ F A,.' Y ET T
/. ,, i ' C '~O M A L'/s ~ \
s m-
,j 'i. I , f% --- C s A L D W s
,',LE L \ '/ %,' ' / ,2 P
*~
s .. g
'N g/.
t
. . (
f- ' \ ~/ -
/-
,g'
- ~, ;, --- -* ./s.
/
'/ HdLMAh
,,,-y-J'3 :: f"g, JI ?
-y**i
.'*~,~ . s i
,g , ,/ Ny -~ e' ' g g .,,.
g % .. ., t .4 - / .~. y .N , I ' ., 4 L X \- %'-d,,.:th A. M
' i. .
[ ,-. . , , . . . , .
. -W ,4'
.pt T s
N=f ~,-y Awif
, HILL COUNTRY
.'e)-j,lr/ 'ir" u . .( .,
s \ An u u; 41. a U -/ k. , , \ 1.
-s v,;p_- ] './ ,
P E - - i -- ~~. . . ,/ . - ' * . * - - .~>}._ *
. g w... .- -
\, ,
.N " .,4,-
/
( ' ' S*IWi
-, ,-' .Q ,! , f *
,g
'~
f [,
- g
- y. g- ,,..g
- - g
--. . .. . . " sj_y=~~ \ , }
. p"'A . g.q/ GN'y-n 'ot y ~n q;,E s; , g. . ; i _ ,,,, j
- s. .
,/
X N 'li E A- R -.- ,, ( m s *"
/ *, ,
s
., F sQ , . . ..... -
% %. / - ' '- . " ~ . ~. ~. >
SAN ANf0$0 g
*~,J...,
/,' 7
,~. - ~ . - A ,/ .
\ '
% . - h * '1 i
g .
,4 -- -
,,A , ,
6 . . . , .-
- r
.;/ -% i
,g/~ . N \, u., e.,
..,. M.,'*L ' =(.' ;, - e'-
. , . ~ ~Ns N s.g _
,f-c x ,/ 'g ,,
R, ,- - - -=} '*'
- v,7 , \W N 7N ;,,,,' /"
- 4 /,,\g\
s --
\ .h.- -. N. / . s.5 N
. .*c r- [ Gf 3 3. m 3.
g ,ys N - 1, (- / s s, 7 s z /e Ns <
,j /. y .
s 2 -- N*'
- "~n k.s%t. O N
'- g ', -
s ~,/' _. 4S
/ g
'\
s
,,,Q \ p, i
-Q . j
% s- : . ..
. - / ,y .
?
.x './ . -
A. s
_ . yN =' . .
i
<. y
/
~J\q,,.4.'
Mm .. - f
*. p *+
.e. ---- ,,.,,
,. ,<.-. 9 % 'y(--*'*""." A,.
-. V'
-s
,,,,(__- s \-/
i___ , * #, j* . - N. , d. . Ne5
--~.f
/~ ,s,.
. . +
d/y .
\ N"-N*
\. ,7",*,"' ra-* * * , \ x ., /g 's 7 .y.~ .
N A g# / . .KA v N E ~~ t.,,, U ==+,-V ..A\
- r
~ N ,,
j c,
' ' S A
/ ,
1 - n. g/ ,,
) % .'
.\ , i j i o . .
,,'s..,. .,
\ ~
\ ~ ' ,, /t
~',/(
j
",/
/ '\ \ % ,iVl. m s
\TCN, R 1 A T
j
&=.
/
b
b ', /
\.,,, .
_ ' = - f,!' R.k,, y. a
/ 'S / 'w..
-p'.
, e
' +3 ( -.-.t / /, ,,,,. 's'%, . q' ,
g [(s- =
. /'
',, + j', (' r. g -" & g2 ,'- l s
\ bc'f%N
%g._. > 3 <% -
,N_ s . -
'\ s s
< g 'i -
\, s 1
v 5,J~ ' b.- i\ m _ i g , a < , s. g#N .gt J- -_ . - -d
.'. . g/ 3" '/ ~# 2 /
. A. ."q .:
/,
r:&!. . ~ p ~ ~ 3 a; u r 2 '
~ .f .
e / s' {$
\ e /e /: R
. / 3 .a s
~
4C MU .LEN '
.N (
- 5 cv M ~ lf L1VE
.A ,
'f ' k "N '
p'E F U
. s'6.
. 'O 2'
OA g K [ \ \* *- " '. t . i-
=
^1[--
s , N ,. c 3 l tr + p'
> i- .* ./ ,/ s m,
,t
- p. .'*0% 1,. .,.'" .)
, . '.? ., e -
,, % \ w y .,
v s
,/ .A,,, 9,.
- g
(
a .
J,/ z ..-
)
- e. -
i - %,, g l* - --
.g' '
,/( si*"' { -- , .*,
s syQ. ' ~ ~5 Ng % 1 - /, / Q.Y. (, ' , /
._ l 1..___
" '[,, ,,,.
~~'
/ N *~"
3
-----. ._.. . . _ . . _.w s ss; . ,
p g
,, ,,1 --
*:-f
*. e _ ---- .' ~, ,4'.,,% < - i ? \ <' w c., r I
-s, \, C ," ? #
c/ --P-
.R W' ar & - +y ~--
,'# --?.le
*:~l ,, .> . '~
. . , , i.
, ,- s
,A ./
~* g* * ~
\> hO ,$
.. - ~ i 5
e
. *_.s... ;*y
- Y .. . .
Q., . \ . ,.,,%,, s, I-
~~~
, t I LON HILL --* I ~ d~,[<y.-.. ~ '
{ s -
. . 1 . , L ,.e '
I 7.~. ~ . ,1 cc.,os $ masri ' fu, agp[M""*"" .manQ*'*4 W o.}' , ;';.;"';; - .- coR**US e - CHR}Sil iw .;
,,,, , ' /
P % J lM - N" U ,e C E <S. '
.s ,- .,d
"" ~"'
D*O V A'. L/ \ ., -
- W E7 l L$
'~~
==
STP ER
.~' ' / 1t r T '~ ' p U 5 T 4, h s t 's
\ s gy4 g
- 4. , g.,. g*
y 2, s,.,, (s, .(, p ~. .p
- y. / . .N W
, . n. w
~L
.5_
\,. \n. . . n..-,_ ...c).w x,,,
. . .,t. .
' .. m. .
,gg:,
) a ir. ,
- x. 7 7 .w , j-
,_ x y%
s . .,, ,. i . M.. ~ ~- . n.. - - i \-
./-,. . z=n:. . gf, ..
8, eousso,, L v-JP. X _< 4 a H s- w i.s, % ,x, A
%.- ' ~ GLIDDEN- ,3, /\{, . ii '"*
r . / ,.
, . ?P" h ~~u~~ j ' c'"H
.L N - -'c . -s. ,r -WN_ ~ s.* s, "/ ./ ' ..< -\ W'a~ g i .
a
, c\v. .J s .
.c'- -k i c-g . os: @/;.,. . ;,dh\."-IN cot .o A,
'4 4 ^4 N-Q.L: p
-- -/ . . ,
- < 7 '
' . .;g
- q g ,',,,, \
( :" xj?"'N *
~ 12 c t .s. e. s .. --,
p.,
- f(/D. ' .
*~
'N
'g . . r',
,,f.0 '
t \ y' -f' o . . ..D:a~e t 3 . . f"F O,
- ~ ,
{ Tj N- \ $.f u M f r-l - $.
. ,p , , ,
, -..-:f.Be. ..a E<- . ,
.< s s 4.. -
(.7,A ,- - c, . . .s. .w, ;, \ s . g g ,>7s a , .
";P.
j 'g i g 4 A
\ 7 j- -J 4, 3 *A '.% g 6 A . %, sq, 5'y E. , , T
,,; gN1 ,
s, ,% .,, ts . , X" g. :I. N. \ j,\(<.g,, .y-A < N.- . . y ( 4 QN.' e. ..A s ,. v.
.w.- g,-
N.. .
.N qnp- s.,-',,.J ,f '
x,.~~ g
%- . ,/. _ . .N t v w
,..~~~, ./,a ,* w* .. ,.
'., . \ ' ..'$
w
- -A /n; :
av_
. c. a
.T. .. -
.. \/ , ' . 4. \ n. ',\ f+- r-O
~
'v-a- /l /w > n \'A R *T O N '"-- * * - \
. =. .. <
^
j' s
' N'.
N i / \ ,,'
. 4
; ' {' ,'
5 ,- f'g\ \
- s
.YY . "ul , ' -Y Y gE -<
4
^ d ,-'r'Ai . .u '
y %.l/$;r,]!k \ ,s s.'.. t',.. 'tN. e w --% -t'A-- y
,$ 'g-h' g
g N .\
'g
~ i*
z'<
./..
( ,: 2 ,l ~ \ ,, 1 s ,i, - N- rr. pr N((. d'..T
'~bN.h. '. ~ M, j
'y
'N 'DANEVANG T 'IEOI'NT ~-
P 'I "Ob G
- 's i g W) .
Aperture Card 2 p'. M'h: I
'L p'f'~u,.p'% ,,,.} .--ly ,,,$.LAsco
. 1 .. E (:M. -A 4) f -
/ .) A C / , S t o g ,, 1 g' := . , , ,
\' ' '
bk-- 1 Y e '- , .X* ' J - E
- 7 TI k M'. . [,--[BLEbSt$p :
. . . :. . . . . u. . . .
, - .8*4 g % .
',[}.7- $+ ; APERTURE agg j'(m'\*x~\, t k. u .I < / ' ' r k' N, LEGEND s U r-jr.WjeT-+--
-- - g .
~*r- SITE >l/,~.
;. ~r >" 4*
^
L \ h, h- L.. .! F jg* 'y 0 ,A MODIFIED ROUTE (1978) k./,.* N =
- d k',q:'
. ,ge e s ,..%%'i' f
'./'" &-". 2M, w e *:n - thlb ,**
- i
% PREVIOUSLY SELECTED ROUTE -----
,.* + ' iv -se gif ,
-], o A g' STILL PROPOSED f
U __ d PREVIOUSLY SELECTED ROUTE .........
\ F / NO LONGER BEING CONSIDERED mC s
.A M 4 'u 4 y> >
f-g b MODIFIED ROUTE SEGliENTS ARE Fe ' .";' , *, -
~
SHOWN IN DETAIL IN FIGURES
/
,s. . ...
- 4. D. $ 4.2-2, 4.2-3a,b,c.
** g;4 r Jh #- k
;.Q ~ o
,0l ' ' 9 h}# G Q
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 O STP TRANSMISSION ROUTES 0 10 30 40 50 FIGURE 4*2-1 n 2,0 Mitts -
~
AMENDMENT' 8 8508090073 - 0 5
STP ER i j O 5fl(J y K / ] _g4 R ellW Q t g
%dj~
j)lg. ;- ' fj ,i , p -Q-
< j' ) i -,g q ,
49l - M;p;3f,f R
., Y m i
J ,. . i -
'- Wgng yppW:q' --
rg ,,, , .. ,. 1 I E ,
' ' ,;
- T p = -
-t _ h . 1 rT T .jjp c [(/ 6
}
~
r 1I~ ~$ ,
; h
.\-
~ ~ "", ,, ,. ; T* ' .
,, y r. N/. ~ ^g, 4 i .
s "
#p .
_9x'> y,n ,e ' m),';*;'.gp ,' .
~ (s 3- ,,,,, d g -- 9 . -- ) Jw i
% TRANSMISSION ROU i; , u, -
f
+ #
,1 ff ' '
n ., .I \ a
/J wf 1
-d/ /[_pI ..ST '
N s N/ 2 f v 4-?-r f ,', N 3 ~ M- y - c ( fjk b 's 1~
~
r es< F i; - c
- g. _ m I % $ ,3 "/ , ,'ed', j M 3:::hi:i
' "7, S' ..,. . ,
L;_ ] E2 , --pyng g,gMifgg, y: j
-14>r f
*# + 4 fk#b [ sit -jj S
f __byL i "p s 4 Jp' 4
+:- S f
i }L
,;h;-
s 4,
-s At 2
"'T' ""- y '
,,/r,s n"
- SITE ::
f"' ..:8 : i . ,-7 i 3 /e ( \ . : / Mi:if.i-'
.n . . p;ij::
.I e 3 [. g. - r 0 f,m. A,' h ,' 1 ef j; .
[y yQv,GR y P
,SI g ,
z
,/Ij_ . j %p: ? D,te 3 u.y*.v"ua~r X= 6,
.2y..!
r 2 4 r, g m. *,, i
.J
[ E. - a vy THES f tLArloS 5 h i j Jur v '-
,,,a s
s r-- '
,1 -
t/ f _{ " m ,C. . .,, g g ,- ( ei
- caw a ,, - u. s -
ed ~((,T csurp: ,Ma" .,
'-' [. ,, ' 'y ~ d'"' ' _ ,,,, ;
~ '
'r'
(
- k. /-
,/ .? ,8~ '1 ...
~
,Au_ f,/ /=~-. +.. .m, , , - .
/ m a,
-s y- -
~
j ::
~ ...-. ,d '. ~
~
+p3 , j#-
? -
5
'P A SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 O STP TRANSMISSION LINE -
LEGEND SITE TO B' ESSING 1ll111111lll Marshland
//////// Forest
1 STP ER O i "f7..fQ i
. .fu,fg.':22 N' ':s. +3 aRV' .? n, nl f AWOF l
fym . um :b cy+P
- s. n q.
- y. , ;P c..; nic..
s
, a,, n ?p ,o ,,-[ f JI: T "c" '- (f .y 4.c
,l
..o& g 'p; g, m ct.ny.,: :g,[v.ah,p' dos '::-
- i2 ' 7, h. O
.: - . . . r +-
/ *. :D q< <
gr,.QNg.g: a.. . , g p_e p;,.q %
>. c ,
g.
- ~ . %, n.. .. ,
- p y- 8 ..
p,ya s,m Q
'~
d'ew,a.sseks\ iUWb{ g~GQ.3r L ," &" f ' f : f'^$ 1 + %My1 6 9/oh g ; g fj' -" ' . O ?'3 ' d h '
>*'[ l' DE*jl$. h" 'di3' "T %&'@ O'O'* 7 N+'~N @
P,h,s.m l ll$ <$ Mg2 M C &-M es . t#7 ~ ,,o - w' xI y i v
,\. Q ; l$:
"- L. D 'y1 1
,, g 3
e gf' Gf' ,4 , l l rh h' i d 1 c w.
-c_d h~2e '7g
- 'chwi
- j Y).;Jsg a < yf% i Mh>t - ,", c[
)
~
Jg '4 ib Q[QQ:' ( e-W +N $ $ : g?n& ] h >') g: h @(' ! ,: 'y g ap$ ; y 1 1""" A SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 O LEGEND STP TRANSMISSION LINE - TIE POINT TO HOU%N 11ll11111111 Marshtand FIGURE 4.2-3c AMENDMENT 8
STP ER l l 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON BIOTA OTHER THAN FUW (~') 5.2.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS U Generalized pathways for potential exposure of biota other than man to routine releases of radioactive effluents are shown schematically in l Figure 5.2-1, which has been reproduced from Appendix H of Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2. Most of the pathways depicted are expected to provide potential routes of exposure to biota in the environs of the South Texas Project, although the degree to which waterfowl will consume fish from waters affected by the plant effluent is not certain. Internal exposure to most of the important aquatic species, that is, the local game fish, is expected to be primarily through secondary consumption. The potential for external exposure of all aquatic biota from submersion 8 in waters affected by plant effluents and from radioisotopes deposited in sediments will also exist. The primary pathways for internal exposure of terrestrial animals are expected to be ingestion of water affected by liquid effluents and inhalation of airborne radioisotopes. Immersion in the gaseous effluent 8 will be one of the sources of external exposure. Evidence collected to date suggests that no living organisms are con-siderably more sensitive to radiation than is man (Ref. 5.2-1). In addition, guidelines for limiting exposure to man from radioactive effluents are generally held to be conservative for other species (Ref.
~y 5.2-2). Since radionuclides in effluents from the South Texas Project conform to the guidelines of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 (Section 5.3.5.1),
() no significant adverse effect on flora and fauna is anticipated from exposure by any of the pathways described above. Predicted doses to some biota found in the environs of the plant are discussed in Section 5.2.3. 5.2.2 RADIOACTIVITY IN ENVIRONMENT 5.2.2.1 Radioactivity in Surface Waters Concentrations of radioactive effluents in water affected by operation of the plant were calculated according to the methods set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.113. The specific rationale is discussed in Appendix 5.3.A. Based on the analytic techniques therein and the predicted releases of radioactive materials in the plant liquid effluent, estimates were made of the concentrations of each radioisotope in the Cooling Reservoir and the Colorado River. The release rates and the calculated concentrations are listed in Table 5.2-1. Tne concentrations expected in the relief wells can be obtained by making the 8 conservative assumption that the liquid effluent discharge is diluted only by the recirculation flow and by taking no credit for ion exchange or decay during transit. Based on these assumptions, concentrations in relief wells N-] 5.2-1 Amendment 8 a
STP ER which surround the reservoir are below the 10CFR20. Appendix B. Table II 8 limits. Liquid effluent from the plant will be sampled and analyzed along the pathways to assure that this expectation is in fact met. 5.2.2.2 Radioactivity in Air Dilution factors ('X/Q's) and relative deposition utilized in evaluating the releases of gaseous effluents were calculated according to the methods set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.111, based on four years' onsite meteorological data. All releases were assumed to be at ground level. A detailed discussion of.the applicable methodology appears in Section 6.1.3.2; the results of the calculation of annual average dilution and deposition values are listed in Tables 2.6-27 through 2.6-30. Examination of those tables reveals that the highest offsite concentration of gaseous ef fluents will occur at the site boundary in the northunorthwest O sector, where a relative concentration of 1.16E-6 sec/m8 was calculated. Calculated annual gaseous release rates were used in conjunction with these T/Q values to calculate the total maximum expected radioisotope concentrations in air outside the site boundary. The release rates and 8 calculated maximum offsite concentrations are listed in Table 5.2-2. 5.2.3 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES Pathways of possible significance in exposure of biota other than man to radioactive materials in effluents from the South Texas Project were discussed in Section 5.2.1. All doses discussed below were calculated using standard models suggested by the ICRP (Ref. 5.2-3). Doses to aquatic flora and fauna can be calculated from a knowledge of the concentrations of radionuclides in water in which the organisms live. Based on radionuclide concentrations expected in the Cooling Reservoir (Table 5.2-1) and bioaccumulation f actors presented in Regulatory Guide 1.109,* doses to fish and aquatic plants living in the reservoir were calculated to be 57.2 and 16.8 mrad /yr, respectively. Doses to fish and aquatic plants living in the Colorado River were estimated to be 1.84 and 5.5E-1 mrad /yr. l 5.2-2 Amendment 8 l l l
e t O,, O Table 5.2-1 CALCULATED CONCENTRATIONS OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA FROM LIQUID EFFLUENTS OF THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Reactor Colorado *** Reactor Colorado *** Release Reservoir
- River Release Reservoir River Per Unit Concentration Concentration Per Unit Concentration Concentration Nuclide (C1/yr) (44C1/cc) (44C1/cc) Nuclide (C1/yr) (AC1/cc) (4C1/cc)
Rb-86 3.8(-3)** 1.1(-12) 5.0E-14 Te-132 3.7(-2) 2.0(-13) 9.lE-15 Sr-89 7.6(-4) 6. 3 (-13) 2.9E-14 I-133 1.1 1.2(-16) 5.5E-18 Sr-90 2.0(-5) 6.4(-13) 2.9E-14 Cs-134 .414 4.6(-9) 2.1E-10 St-91 1.7(-4) 8.9(-28) 4.0E-29 I-135 .15 3.9(-31) 1.8E-32 Y-91 1.1(-4) 1.1(-13) 5.0E-15 Cs-135 5.4(-2) 8. 8 (-12 ) 4.0E-13 Y-93 8.8(-6) 1.7(-28) 7.7E-30 Cs-137 3.1(-1) 1.0(-8) 4.5E-10 2r-95 3.0(-3) 3.5(-12) 1.6E-13 Ba-140 6.2(-4) 9.8(-14) 4.5E-15 Hb-95 4.2(-3) 2.6(-12) 1.2E-13 La-140 4.2(-4) 5.1(-17) 2.3E-18 Mo-99 9.6(-2) 2.5(-13) 1.lE-14 Ce-141 1.1(-4) 6.1(-14) 2.8E-15 Tc-99m 8.6(-2) 5.7(-34) 2.6E-35 Ce-143 3.6(-5) 7.5(-19) 3.4E-20 Ru-103 3.6(-4) 2.5(-13) 1.lE-14 Pr-143 9.0(-5) 1.6(-14) 7.3E-16 8 Ru-106 4.8(-3) 3.1(-11) 1.4E-12 Ce-144 1.0(-2) 5.1(-11) 2.3E-12 , Te-125m 4.0(-5) 4.3(-14) 2.0E-15 Cs-51 .24 1.1(-10) 5.0E-12 y v, Te-127m 5.4( 4) 1.1(-12) 5.0E-14 Mn-54 2.2(-2) 1.2(-10) 5.5E-12 m L Te-127 7.6(-&. 1.1(-27) 5.0E-29 Fe-55 5.8(-4) 7.7(-12) 3.5E-13 w & Te-129m 3.3(-3) 1.9(-12) 8.6E-14 Fe-59 2.4(-2) 2.0(-11) 9.lE-13 I-130 3.3(-3) 1.3(-23) 5.9E-25 Co-58 5.9(-1) 8.0(-10) 3.6E-13 Te-131m 2.0(-3) 1.8(-17) 8.2E-19 Co-60 9.0(-2) 1.8(-9) 8.2E-11 1-131 3.24 2.2(-10) 1.0E-Il Np-239 2.6(-4) 3.3(-16) 1.5E-17 H-3 1806 2.1(-5) 9.5E-7 Total annual release from the site boundary = .47 Ci/yr (except H-3) MPC Fraction = 1.86 x 10"
- The reservoir concentration is the concentration that is released to the Colorado river, and includes both units release activity
** 3.8(-3) = 3.8 x 10 -3 8 @ *** This is based on the reservoir concentration being the input concentration to the river. $ Note: Concentrations in the Matagorda bay /Culf area were conservatively estimated as
{ being 10 times lower than those of the Colorado River. E.
~_ .. . . _ - . _ . . - - - - .
I STP ER Table. 5.2-2 MAXIMUM SITE BOUNDARY CONCENTRATION O- COMPARED TO 10 CFR 20 LIMITS Total Annual Maximum Site Boundary MPC Release Ground Level air 10 CFR 20 For Two Units Concentration Table II Limits Radionuclide (ci/yr) (4{ci/ml)* (#ci/ml) i Kr-83m 6.000E+0 2.093E-13 ** Kr-85m 6.200E+1 2.163E-12 1.000E-7 ! Kr-85 6.600E+2 2.302E-11 3.000E-7 Kr-87 1.400E+1 4.883E-13 2.000E-8 Kr-88 9.000E+1 3.139E-12 2.000E-8 Xe-131m 5.400E+1 1.883E-12 4.000E-7 8 Xe-133m 1.300E+2 4.534E-12 3.000E-7 Xe-133 6.800E+3 2.372E-10 3.000E-7
- Xe-135 2.600E+2 9.070E-12 1.000E-7 Xe-138 2.000E+0 6.976E-14 **
I-131 4.400E-1 1.535E-14 1.000E-10 1-133 5.600E-1 1.954E-14 4.000E-10 Mn-54 8.800E-2 3.069E-15 1.000E-9 Fe-59 3.000E-2 1.046E-15 2.000E-9
Co-58 3.000E-1 1.046E-14 2.000E-9 ,' ' s Co-60 1.360E-1 4.744E-15 1.000E-8 Sr-89 6.600E-3 2.302E-16 3.000E-10 SR-90 1.200E-3 4.186E-17 3.000E-11 Cs-134 8.800E-2 3.069E-15 4.000E-8 Cs-137 1.500E-1 5.232E-15 5.000E-8
- Maximum site boundary annual average X/Q is 1.1E -6 h (1 mile NNW)
** Not reported i
5.2-5 Ammendment 8
w-STP ER O NUCLEAR FACILITY GASEOUS EFFLUENTS O LIQUID EFFLUENTS t l " 4 g_ h- ,j J'- .L-. p Q ~ - 4-- % 4 A- t, /
.t '
og L- % ~ ~ m. L. Is
.t. .
~
- C' >
L pc 1 P, Ir
'b- pot ,I3 t' j,,
_s
'"^~'
-- k _
l 21
> T O
FTS2On
; '$ 4 1 DJ
% Plar.t Ir:ges tion t
- - M- - -- _ _ _ _3 ' ~fi __
e j -... Q:( D ~ \ .,
~" o . $
( s$ m % w := ? e y '
~= mw AMENDMENT 8 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 O GENERALIZED PATHWAYS FOR BIOTA OTHER THAN MAN FIGURE 5.2-1
STP ER i 5.3 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON MAN Potential pathways of exposure of man to radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents from the South Texas Project are identified and discussed in Section 5.3.1. Doses to individuals in the environs of the plant from each of the potentially significant pathways were calculated; methodology for and results of the calculations are discussed in the following sections. Doses to individuals and to the population from liquid and gaseous pathways are discussed in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3, respectively. All results presented in these sections were obtained using the calculational techniques
! prescribed in Regulatory Guide 1.109.* Except where noted in discussion of doses for specific pathways, all usage and consumption values, transport times, bioaccumulation factors, dose conversion factors and other constants utilized were those suggested in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
Dilution factors for atmospheric and liquid pathways were calculated according to the methods of Regulatory Guides 1.111 and 1.113, respectively, as dis-cussed in Section 5.2.2. l Direct radiation doses are discussed in Section 5.3.4. 5.3.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS A schematic depicting generalized potential pathways of exposure of man to radionuclides in effluents from the plant is presented in Figure 5.3-1, which has been taken from Appendix H of Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2. There are currently no points of drinking water withdrawal downstream of the site, and the tidal influence on the river's salinity makes it very unlikely that any future withdrawal for consumption will be made. For these reasons, exposure of man from the drinking water pathway was not considered. Three valid permits for withdrawal of Colorado River water for irrigation are held by landowners downstream of the site. Because of salinity levels expected in the river, however, it is unlikely that these withdrawal rights will be exercised. With these exceptions, most of the pathways depicted are expected to provide possibility for exposure from the South Texas Project.
- The relative'importance of the remainder of the potential pathways to man has
, been evaluated by calculating estimated doses from routine operation of the l South Texas Project from each pathway. The assumptions, methodology, results, and conclusions of the evaluation are presented in the following sections.
- Note: All references to Regulatory Guide 1.109 in this section refer to the October 1977 version.
3 i l O-5.3-1 Amendment 8 r
~
F STP ER 5.3.2 LIQUID EFFLUENTS 5.3.2.1 Individual Doses Doses to individuals were calculated for fish and shellfish consumption, and recreational activity (swimming, boating, shoreline activity) pathways. 1 Assumptions, including point of exposure, are described for each pathway in the following paragraphs; the calculated liquid pathway doses are summarized in Table 5.3-1. The maximum individual and population liquid pathway doses are based on radionuclide concentrations in the Colorado River. The impact on the doses 8 presented, if any, from Little Robbins Slough will be evaluated later. Doses to man from the fish consumption pathway were calculated for cases of fish caught in the Matagorda Bay / Gulf area and for those caught in the Colorado River downstream of the plant. As a result of seepage through the ground, the water from the relief wells could be expected to contain some 8 radioactivity. Due to the length of time required for transit and the marsh-like areas downstream of the plant, fishing and recreational activities were not considered in the vicinity of Little Robbins Slough. Radionuclide concentrations in fish were calculated on the assumption that they are in equilibrium with average concentrations in the water as listed in Table 5.2-1. The maximum predicted dose to a single organ from the fish consumption pathway 8 was 7.4E-2 mrem /yr to a teen's liver. Maximum total-body dose was 5.3E-2 mrem /yr to an adult. Both maxima were calculated for fish caught in the Colorado River. Exposure from ingestion of shellfish was estimated using the assumption that invertebrates are harvested from and in equilibrium with waters containing plant effluents at the calculated Colorado River concentrations. Maximum dose predicted was 2.6E-2 mrem /yr to an adult's GI-tract. Maximum estimated 8 total-body dose was 1.0E-2 mrem /yr to an adult. Exposure to an adult, teen and child swimming in or boating on water bodies affected by the plant or engaging in recreational activity on the shore was 8 evaluated. No credit for radioactive decay during transit from the plant outfall to the point of exposure was taken, and doses were based on the Colorado River concentrations. The doses from recreational exposure are sum-marized in Tabic 5.3-1. Maximum predicted total dose to a single organ from recreation pathways was 2.4E-2 mrem /yr to the skin of a teen. Maximum calcu- 8 lated total-body dose was 2.1E-2 mrem /yr to a teen. Examination of Table 5.3-1 reveals that, based on the dose calculation assump-tions described above, the liquid pathways of primary importance in individual total-body exposure will probably be ingestion of finfish exposed to radioac- 8 tive effluents and exposure from shoreline activity. Exposure from shellfish ingestion will generally be lower, and swimming and boating pathways will contribute only a minor amount to the dose from plant liquid effluents. B O 5.3-2 Amendment 8
STP ER 5.3.2.2 Population Doses The population doses were evaluated based on the ingestion of finfish and shellfish caught in the Colorado River (downstream of the plant) and the Matagorda Bay / Gulf area. These population doses are presented in Table 5.3-2. The population doses were evaluated because of the commercial and sports
' fishing activity in the Colorado River and Matagorda Bay / Gulf area (Ref.
5.3-2). The major fishing activity in the Colorado River was sports fishing and consisted almost entirely of finfish with an annual catch of 2.3E + 4 kg/yr. The commercial fishing activity was almost entirely due to shellfish 3 with an annual catch of 4.5E + 3 kg/yr. The major fishing activity in the Matagorda Bay / Gulf area was the commercial shellfish harvest which resulted in an annual catch of 1.84E + 6 kg/yr. Sport fishing in the Matagorda Bay / Gulf area consisted entirely of finfish and about 2.3E + 4 kg/yr was harvested. Consumption of shellfish caught in the Matagorda Bay / Gulf area appears to be by far the most important contributor to the total-body population dose, with finfish consumption accounting for considerably less of the liquid pathway man-rem figure. 5.3.3 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS 5.3.3.1 Individual Doses O Maximum doses to individuals were calculated for cloud submersion, ground U plane contamination, inhalation, and vegetable, milk, and meat ingestion pathways. ' Assumptions, including point of exposure, are described for each pathway in the following paragraphs; the calculated gaseous pathway doses are summarized in Table 5.3-3. Allestimateswerebasedonthecalculatedgaseoush releases given in Table 5.2-2. Each dose was calculated at the location of the highest dose offsite at which the pathway could be assumed to exist. Calculated exposure to an individual from immersion in a cloud containing radioactive efflue'nts was found to be greatest at a residence located 2.8 8 miles north-northwest of the plant. The total-body dose was calculated to be 2.4E-2 mrem /yr, while the skin dose was 6.7E-2 mrem /yr. External irradiation from activity deposited on the ground surfaces was evalu-ated at the same residence. These analyses indicate that a dose of 4.7E-1 g , mrem /yr to the total-body and 5.4E-1 mrem /yr to the skin can be expected from i this pathway. The maximum individual dose esiculated from the air inhalation pathway was 8 found at the residence in the north-norththwest sector, 2.8 miles.from the i plant. The maximum dose to an organ of an individual at this location inhal-ing radioiodine and radioparticulates in the plant effluent was calculated to j be 7 lE-2 mrem /yr to a child's thyroid. Maximum whole-body dose was calculated to be 1.0E-3 mrem /yr to an adult at the same location. B ) O d
- 5.3-3 Amendment 8
STP ER The calculated dose to an individual consuming vegetables grown in a garden adjacent to this residence was also determined. Maximum calculated exposure from this pathway was 4.3E-1 mrem /yr to a child's thyroid, and maximum total-body dose was 6.5E-3 mrem /yr to a child. Cows have been found at 1.0 mile east of the plant. The maximum organ dose 8 from ingestion of milk from a cow grazing year-round 1.0 miles from the plant in the east sector was 3.2E-1 mrem /yr to an infant's thyroid. The adult is expected to receive the maximum total-body dose of 3.3E-2 mrem /yr. Since there is no indication that goats are used as milk animals in the vicinity of the plant, consumption of contaminated goat's milk is not considered an expected pathway to man during the life of the plant, and doses from this pathway were not evaluated. Because non-milk cattle graze on the site, exposure from consumption of meat was evaluated at the point of maximum concentration 1.0 mile east of the plant. The maximum organ dose to an individual from ingestion of meat from a 8 cow grazing year-round at this location was 1.7E-2 mrem /yr to the thyroid of a child. The maximum total-body dose from the meat ingestion pathway was 4.5E-3 mrem /yr to an adult. Results of the dose calculations for gaseous pathways (summarized in Table 5.3-3) indicate that the largest total-body dose will result from the ground plane contamination. Cloud immersion air inhalation, vegetable and milk 8 ingestion pathways make a smaller contribution to the total body dose. 5.3.3.2 Population Doses Population doses from gaseous effluents were calculated for cloud immersion, ground-plane contamination, air inhalation, and vegetable, milk, and meat 8 lh ingestion pathways and are presented in Table 5.3-2. Dispersion factors (T/Q's) and relative deposition were those discussed in Section 5.2.2.2. The estimate of the population distribution projected for the year 2030 (Figure 2.2-6) was used. Total milk, meat, and vegetable production within the 50-mile radius were taken to be 5.20E+6, 1.07E+8, and 6.64E+9 kg/yr, respectively. 8 Staple crop consumption appears to be the most important pathway for total-body population dose. Consumption of cattle products and inhalation do not make a significant contribution to the total-body population dose. Due to limited milk production within the 50-mile radius of the plant, the thyroid dose resulting from milk consumption is negligible. 5.3.4 DIRECT RADIATION DOSES Significant exposure at the exclusion area boundary to direct radiation resulting from plant activities will not exist. The STP will not store radwaste outside any plant buildings. Designated stor-age areas located within buildings are well shielded. Therefore, skyshine will be negligible. The conservatively estimated dose at the exclusion bound- 8 ary would be less than 1.0 mrem /yr for two-unic operation. O 5.3-4 Amendment 8 l l
STP ER Transportation of radioactive materials is discussed in Section 3.8. 8
/~N tj 5.3.5
SUMMARY
OF ANNUAL RADIATION DOSES 5.3.5.1 Annual Individual Doses Maximum individual doses calculated as described in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 were used to evaluate the status of conformance of calculated liquid and gase-ous effluents from the South Texas Project with the requirements of Appendix I 3 to 10 CFR 50. The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table 5.3-4. Beta and gamma doses in air were calculated according to the methods of Regu-latory Guide 1.109. It will be noted that the calculated doses indicate that the plant design conforms to the "as low as reasonably achievable" criteria established in Appendix 1. 5.3.5.2 Annual Population Doses Total-body (man-rem) and thyroid (thyroid-rem) doses to the population within 50 miles of the site were calculated using the methodology set forth in Appendix D of Regulatory Guide 1.109. Specific assumptions used for liquid and gascous pathway calculations are discussed in the following paragraphs; the ree. fits are summarized in Table 5.3-2. In order to assess the relative radiological impact of the South Texas Project on persons in the area, it is useful to compare the calculated population dose 8 from the plant to the dose to be expected to the same population from natural background radiation. Data presented by the EPA's Office of Radiation Pro-
/9 grams (Ref. 5.3-1) indicate that the average total-body dose to an individual V living in Texas from terrestrial and cosmic radiation is about 100 mrem /yr.
Exposure of each person within a 50-elle radius of the plant to this radiation level would result in a population dose of 5.37E+4 nan-rem from natural back-ground in the year 2030. The predicted total-body population dose is about 8 3.7 man-rems from the operation of the South Texas Project (Table 5.3-2), which represents a minute fraction of the background dose. Radiological impact of the plant on the area population is therefore expected to be negligible. O
- 5.3-5 Amendment 8 i
STP ER 5.3.6 REFERENCI. 5.3-1 Klement, A. W. , Jr. , and others, " Estimates of Ionizing Radiation h Doses in the United States 1960 - 2000," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Radiation Programs, Division of Criterin and Standards, Rockville, Maryland, August 1972, 171 p. 5.3-2 John A. Molino and others, " Ingestion Pathway Data to Support Annual Dose Calculation for the South Texas Project Electric Generating 8 Station" Wyle Research Report, July 1984, 155 pp. l l 1 l l l 1 1 O B l O
*~
Amendment 8
O O f O l r l l l Table 5.3-1 f 1
SUMMARY
OF CALCULATED LIQUID PATHWAY DOSES SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Organ Receiving Maximum Dose Total-Body Dose Dose Maximum (mrem /yr) Age Group Organ (mrem /yr) Pathway Location Liver 7.4E-2 5.3E-2 Colorado Teen Fish Ingestion (Adult) River 2.6E-2 1.0E-2 m Shellfish Colorado Adult GI-tract (Adult) 8 q u Ingestion River w Skin 2.4E-2 2.1E-2 Shoreline Colorado Teen 1 (Teen) Exposure River Skin 3.9E-4 9.1E-5 Swimming Colorado Teen (Teen) River Skin 4.5E-5 4.5E-5 Boating Colorado Adult / Teen (Adult / Teen) River l N I 8 \ 8' l E \ f
- l I
f
STP ER Table 5.3-2 's\ PREDICTED DOSES TO THE POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Total-Body Dose Thyroid Dose Percent of Percent of Pathway (man-rem) Total (thyroid-rem) Total Caseous Effluents Plume Immersion 2.2E-1 6.8 2.2E-1 10 Ground Plane Contamination 1.04 32 1.04 48 Inhalation 9.8E-3 41 6.3E-1 29 Vegetable Inges-tion 1.74 54 9.7E-8 Z.1 Cow Milk Inges-tion 1.4E-3 41 1.7E-2 41 8 Meat Ingestion 2.1E-1 6.5 2.6E-1 12 Total, Gaseous 3.2 100 2.2 100 Pathways Liquid Effluents Fish Ingestion 6.0E-2 13 5.4E-3 5 Shellfish Ingestion 3.96E-2 87 1.1E-1 95 Total, Liquid Pathways 4.6E-1 100 1.1E-1 100 Total Population Dose 3.66 2.31 O 5.3-8 Amendement 8 l
(\
~J U t
Table 5.3-3 SUl9 TART OF CALCUI.ATED CASEOUS PATHWAT DOSES SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Organ Receiving Maximum Dose Total-Body Maximum Dose Dose Pathway 1.ocation Age Group Organ (ares /yr) (aree/yr) Cloud Immersion Nearest All Skin 6.7E-2 2.4E-2
- Residence (All)
(2.8 mi NNW) Cround Plane Contami- Nearest All Skin 5.4E-1 4.7E-1 nation Residence (All) (2.8 mi NNW) r Inhalation Nearest Child Thyroid 7.lE-2 1.OE-3 8 Residence (Adult) (2.8 mi NNW) [ Vegetable Ingestion Nearest Child Thyroid 4.3E-1 6.5E-3 'P Residence y (Child) **
.Y (3.4 mi ESE) m
= i t
Cow Milk Ingestion Nearmat Milk Infant Thyroid 3.2 3.3E-2 ; Cow (1.0 mi E) (Adult) i Cow Meat Ingestion Nearest Cow Child Thyroid 1.7E-2 4.5E-3 (1.0 mi E) (Adult) i a i it* ; CD I
O
) U' Table 5.3-4 APPENDIX I CONFORMANCE
SUMMARY
TABLE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Appendix I Criteria South Texas Project Design gg) Point of Dose Type of Dose Objective Evaluation Calculated Dose PointofDog Evaluation Liquid Effluents Dose to total body 5 aren/yr Location of 6.7E-2 area /yr(6) Colorado River (7) from all pathways per site doseoffsite(ghighest downstream Dose to any organ 5 aren/yr Same as above 8.7E-2 arem/yr( } from all pathways Colorado River per site downstream Caseous Effluents Camma dose in air 10 mrad /yr per site Locationofgghighest 0.16 mrad /yr Location of highest dose offsite annual average concen-tration at the site 8 boundary (NW at 0.89 mi) Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr Same as above 0.35 mrad /yr Same as above p per site un 4 Dose to total body 5 ares /yr Location of the( 0.49 aren/yr Nearest residence per site highest dose offsite (NNW at 2.8 miles) Dose to skin of an 15 aren/yr Same as above 0.61 area /yr Same as above individual per site Radiofodines and Particulates Released to the Atmosphere Dose to any organ 15 aren/yr Location of the 3.2 ares /yr I) from all pathways per site highest dose of fsite Nearyt assuwd milk cow' (E at 1.0 mile)
TABLE 5.3-4 (Continued) II} Design objectives as specified in the Commission's Appendix 1 Conformance Option, 40 FR 40816 September 4, 1975.
*(2) Evaluated at a location that is anticipated to be occupied during plant lifetime or tvaluated with respect to such potential land and water usage and food pathways as could actually exist during the term of plant operation.
*(3) Evaluated at a location that could be occupied during the term of plant operation.
(4) Cows are not currently milked at this location. (5) Dose to an infant thyroid from cow milk ingestion. Dose to adult as whole body and teen's liver from fish ingestion, shoreline exposure, swimming and boating in the Colorado River. (7) Fish were assumed to be exposed to average radionuclide concentrations in the Colorado River. (8) Points given correspond to points of dose evaluation under Appendix.I heading. Y Y r, C
- Reproduced f rom Regulatory Guide 1.109.
a n 3
STP ER r l O NUCLEAR FACILITY l GASEOUS EFFLUENTS A e p__ LIQUID [${ S
- EFFLUENTS t
"g
[
$ a p, %
z Direct l l r o ,s
'a % '* % /rradiation i %
p 6Fo$ s FUEL TRANSPORT 1 . ..u
\
4... " e Sh 5 *
%oreligg
~~'.4 . .,,
g+
~
,,,g .
.=.gg p g se.
-2 . ,
*c3-
,ec,
,'_ yp4 gotion ~-
O bY h _4. .
*'"Q* $gQf...
~
i' [_.{ g Ingestion $
^
- ., x-_
O i 4 .. 4
._.-T- -_
_ _ _ . ._ _ 7
~ -
ggg_.______.___._._...___.____._
... y .7w.Of x <
AMENDMENT 8 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 GENERALIZED PATHWAYS FOR MAN FIGURE 5.3-1
STP ER 5.3.A.1 GENERAL During operation of the STP, normal radioactive releases to the cooling water will occur. Each radioactive isotope, depending upon its half-life, will appear in the Cooling Reservoir and subsequently in downstream releases, either through underground seepage flow, surface flow through discharge from relief wells or blowdown to the Colorado River. Normal releases of each radionuclide element are presented in Table 5.2-1. 8 To calculate average annual concentrations in the Cooling Reservoir, a mass flow model has been developed as illustrated on Figures 5.3.A-1 and 5.3.A-2. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the average annual adjusted river flow in the Colorado River contains zero radionuclide concentrations. This is indicated as Q on Figure 5.3.A-1. Makeup waterwillbepumpedtothereservoirtf!?oughthemakeuppumpinglineas l indicated on the figure. Net discharges from the reservoir will B consist of flow for industrial purposes, q , total seepage, Q g , total 1 net evaporation, Q , an wdown, qb. These flows are shown schematically on Figure 5.3.A-1.E As indicated, each flow is defined, and the bases for each flow are referenced. The model for the mass flow diagram used in calculating the average annual reservoir concentrations and the resulting annual average concentrations in the Colorado River downstream of the discharge point is illustrated on Figure 5.3.A-2; all symbols representing flows or concentrations designated thereon are defined either on Figure 5.3.A-2 or Figure 5.3.A-1. In addition to indicating the isotopes released which have significant half-lives, the half-life of the element and the release rate from the O reactor and the resulting calculated reservoir and Colorado River concentrations are shown on Table 5.3.A-1. The following sections describe the analyses performed, and the input data used. 5.3.A-2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS t The method of analysis is illustrated graphically on Figure 5.3.A-2. Although most terms are defined either on Figure 5.3.A-1 or Figure 5.3.A-2, they are reiterated here for clarity: Q Co - Adjusted average flow rate in the Colorado River - 467,137 AF/YR (Ref. 5.3.A-2) 8 QE - Total (Induced plus net) annual average evaporation from the reservoir approximately = 39,000 AF/YR (Table 3.4-4) Q3 - Total annual average seepage from the reservoir - 5,700 AF/YR (Ref. 5.3.A-2) q - Average annual blowdown rate - 13,425 AF/YR (Ref. 5.3. A-2) b O 5.3.A-1 Amendment 8
STP ER q - Estimated annual industrial use extracted from the reservoir - Approximately 2,000 AF/YR (Ref. 5.3.A-2) q p
- Circulating water pumping rate - Eight (8) units at 226,850 8
gpm = 2,927,000 AF/YR (FSAR Section 10.4.5.1) q, - Average annual makeup requirements = the summation of qb + Q3 +QE*91 = approximately 59,717 AF/YR V - Average reservoir volume at average elevation of 43.6 feet (Ref. 5.3.A-2) - 150,000 AF W - Average annual release of isotope in Ci/Yr. Q - Average Colorado River flow downstream - where: Qc =Q Co -9 m *9b+91*95 and qy are relief well flows discharging to the Colorado River, and equal 649 and 350 AF/YR, respectively (Section 2.4.13.3 - Ref. 5.3.A-1) Therefore, Q'c = Q Co -Q S -4 E = 421,844 AF/YR
-91*91*95 8 Q3 -Qsl
- 9s2, where Qsl is the average seepage flow to the Colorado River, and Q is the average seepage to the s2 surface or underground hydrosphere not flowing directly to the Colorado River.
C - The average annual radionuclide concentration in the R Cooling Reservoir, Ci/ft
/ l C
C - Average annual concentration downstream from the discharge of the blowdown point in the Colorado River, Ci/ft . O 5.3.A-2 Amendment 8
STP ER The mass balance eauation in terms of concentration multiplies times flow at le:".~on "A " Figure 5.3. A-2, is: C (qb+OE +9S+91+9 p ~ (9 b # OE # O S + 91 ) + (0R +E) (9p} P This equates to:' C (qb + E9 9S*91+9 p " 9 + Rp To calculate average annual concentrations in the reservoir, the total travel time in the reservoir is determined as follows: V A , (2)
" qb + S p +91+O s representing the total average volume of the reservoir divided by the total flows that will occur through the reservoir on an average annual basis.
Considering the mass balance for steady state flow in the reservoir,
/' [- t in2b (3)
CR (9b i9 p +9*9 (9b+9 p *91*OS
- 9 E) eXP 1 S N N)
From formula (1) the average annual concentration in the reservoir is equal to the following: U CR "I [1 [ W
\
W (43560 ;
\(qb+9 p +S i
- 9 )5 8XP A" )
(t (9gb+9p +9 1+9)) S P Where qb' 9 p' 9 1' S *** W is in Ci/yr, C is in Mt , aM R t is in years. 1/2 The average annual concentration for all isotopes in the Colorado River downstream of the blowdown point are conservatively assumed to be due to j blowdown (13,425 AF/yr) and seepage (5700 AF/yr) contributions. The dilution factor for the river was based on a conservative annual flow rate of the B river. In obtaining these concentrations no credit was taken for cation absorpt. ion or transport time in the soil through which seepage occurs. The results of these calculations are shown on Table 5.2-1. (O _/ 5.3.A-3 Amendment 8
STP ER 5.3.A-3 INPUT DATA As indicated on Figures 5.3.A-1 and 5.3.A-2, the following input data were used:
. Colorado River adjusted annual average flow of 467,137 AF/YR. 8
. Average yearly induced evaporation of 31,250 AF/YR and net natural evaporation of 7,342 AF/YR.
8
. Reservoir volume at an average elevation of 43.6 feet - 150,000.
. Average blowdown of 13,425 AF/YR.
. Circulating water pumping rate of 1,814,800 gpm, or 2,927,000 AF/YR.
5.3.A-4 RESULTS The results of calculations of average annual concentrations of each radionuc-lide in the Cooling Reservoir and in the Colorado River are presented in Table 8 5.2-1. Comparison of the results of these concentrations with Table II, Appendix B, of 10 CFR 20, indicates that radionuclide concentrations in the Cocling Reservoir are less. As indicated, the average annual radionuclide concentration in the Colorado River, downstream from the discharge point, is calculated from an analysis of relief well discharges and underground seepage presented in FSAR Section 2.4.13.3.2.2 (Ref. 5.3.A-1); the results are pre-3 sented on Table 5.2-1. O O 5.3.A-4 Amendment 8
STP ER REFERENCES O 5.3.A-1 Houston Lighting & Power Company, " South Texas Project Final Safety Analysis Report," 1978. 5.3.A-2 Report on South Texas Project Matagorda County, Texas April 1974, by " Turner, Colle & Braden Inc., consulting Engineers, Prepared for Presentation at the Public Hearing 8 Texas Water Rights Commission, Austin, Texas. O l t 1 t i l l O l 5.3.A-5 Amendment 8
- .. - . - .. _ _ .. .=_ -
STP ER l
- O i
Table 5.3.A-1 has been deleted, I l O 5,3.A-6 Amendment 8
' STP ER O i l 1 Table 5.3.A-2 O has been deleted. O I 5.3.A-7 Amendment 8
STP ER E 2,940,000 t a,960,000 \E 2,1f40,000
\
O - o v o f[ F'ROPERTV LIMITS -
! EsSENTw. coouNo l PoNo I sWi I
l YARD { ]~l
$ PLANT ACCESS ROAD l .2 %siTen,s cENTEn -
g . _ fg af ,' f
') '- - . , '%
Lg I I g l [' - L-----, _A AN / j co
~
MAKEUP
.g Q g MAKEUP 1 pump
' E llg-PIPELINE NATURAL nEtocATEo LITTLE j" t.
""T 'ow'^ao HABITAT noesiNs I DIKE YJ . i SLOUGH g
/ .(yl l ' ," N'*
O ,, l* Os o . D 8 4
/ S E LIIIR E l1 t EMBANKMENT SPILLWAY &
BLOWOOWN 4 5+ 9b ,4 o 8 ISLAND I FACILITIES / g 's ~- j"" 8 _ \ - -- g ifeh!^b~ CHANNEL
.Lo PlPELINE o N_
v.s g-
- s. .
a
-N 340,ooo 4
/ 4(l j
s o o; . ani4a caoum una rte o==stuu.
% . -m m.m n, m i. r caoo. * ' '
ninn - so,12T ggcp s,3A 2 ,$
'9 "
'i -!!aa ",:M"!!!d";*.'A'" .
- ygeco efyg oute 2.4-2/in-cn , , ,,,
o AMENDMENT 8 s -, <lQ,",**,gj,",
,,,, jjjfjjyjjjrg
. s ..g,~ ,,g y. g - n.= ~ SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT
-!!;i=:r;nimrta.wii'::.c., UNITS 1 & 2 s =r= ranto::"w,:re
O 8 a i *. <'-u) g - muu or sa==
+ cs+.aw, ic +=@=r=ro=m5 - =s.sf,w?Ar/yc CONCEPTUAL MASS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR CALCULATION OF RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS-
'i '!7Ei/l!!!' EEdt?:IT$"TJ'f5 OPERATING CONDITIONS S ~ 17Zi."!!E Endit:IT$%"f# FIGURE 5.3.A-1
STP ER O \.} co Qc o ~9b+O+Os+9i E Qh (C = 0) A (C')" (C = 0) ' 0 J L 9b (Cg) 33 q = E m (C = 0)V qb + OE + Os +91 A --- 7- -b-y ) A (CR) 5, Q: S
?
(C') AVERAGE RESERVOIR 96+9 p
@y > VOLUME - V A
(CR) 9b+O+O E s PLUG FLOW, CR
+93+9p V 91 m (Cg)
Q 'd h (CR+ 9) p REACTOR Ca
< RELEASE 4 9p W 9p NOTES: (1) SEE LE/TND FIGURE 5.3. A-1 (2) W = AVtdAGE ANNUAL RELEASE OF ISOTOPE IN C1/Yr VA= RESERVOIR VOLUME AT AVERAGE ELEVATION OF 43.6 FT. tro ,000 AF (FIG. 2.4.8-7)
CR = RESERVOIR ISOTOPE CONCENTRATION IN C1/FT.3 Qh = AVERAGE COLORADO RIVER FLOW DOWNSTREAM, AF/YR Q = AVERAGE SEEPAGE FLOW TO COLOltADO, AF/YR 3 Q = AVERAGE SEEPAGE NOT TO COLORADO, AF/YR 3 O s
=Q 3, +Q 52 AMENDMENT 8 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT n UNITS 1 & 2 U MODEL FOR MASS FLOW DIAGRAM (OPERATING CONDITIONS)
FIGURE 5.3.A-2
STP ER 5.4 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES ,-x Nonradioactive chemical wastes in the plant effluent will result from the ( ) makeup demineralization system, themical c1 caning wastes at startup, auxiliary boiler blowdown, sanitary waste treatment, and the biocide waste system. These systems are described in Subsections 3.6.1.1, 3.6.1.2, 3.6.1.4. 3.7.1, and 3.6.2, respectively. The effect of the sanitary waste discharge is dis-cussed in Section 5.5. 5.4.1 DISSOLVED SOLIDS Dissolved solids will form the greatest part of the chemical wastes discharges into the cooling reservoir. The largest producers will be the makeup deminer-alization system and the condensate polishing demineralizer. The maximum 8 amount of waste water produced per day by the demineralizer system will be 88,455 gallons. Table 3.6-1 gives a volumetric breakdown of waste water flows resulting from each step in the regeneration schedule for one regeneration of a cation-anion mixed-bed train. An approximate waste water analysis resulting from one day of maximum regener-ation of the demineralizer is presented in Table 3.6-2. A tabulation of this analysis with ambient conditions of the river at the reservoir makeup pump station location (determined during a study conducted from June through October 1973) and with projected maximum concentration in the cooling reser-voir at the end of the first year of operation and the maximum concentration during the 40 years of plant operation and with Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR) standards for the Colorado River, is presented in Table (} 5.4-1. A comparison of the regenerative wastes with ambient river concentra- \_ ' tions indicates that only sodium chloride, sulfate, and excess sodium hydrox-ide will be present in higher concentrations in the regenerative waste dis-charge than those values measured in the Colorado River. Discharge to the cooling reservoir over the operating life of the station will result in the accumulation of the vastes over and above ambient concentrations in the amounts listed in Table 5.4-1. Ef fects of reservoir blowdown on the Colorado River are felt to be insignificant since the incremental increases due to regeneration waste discharges are within the ranges recorded for ambient river conditions. 5.4.2 CLEANING WASTES Prior to operational startup, internal surfaces of the reactor vessel and all piping and equipment of the primary coolant and secondary feedwater circuits will be chemically cleaned as described in Subsection 3.6.1.2. Initial flushing will remove nondissolvable material. The condensate feedwater system will be subjected to chemical cleaning. The heated solution will be treated 8 for the removal of metal ions, neutralized, and discharged to the reservoir or removed from the site by a licensed waste handler. The auxiliary boiler will 7 also be subjected to alkaline cleaning. The waste waters associated with this I cleaning will be handled as described in Section 5.4.1. 7 l 5.4.3 BIOCIDE SYSTEM The biocide system for controlling slime growth in condenser tubes and circu-(} ( ,/ lating water lines is described in Section 3.6.2. I 5.4-1 Amendment 8
STP ER Chlorine in the form of a sodium hypochlorite solution will be applied period-ically to the circulating water intake structure and the essential cooling pond. Shock treating will be performed three times a day using 20-minute chlorination periods. The interconnection of the circulating water pumps necessitates shock treatment of all three of the condenser shells at once. The actual operating chlorine dosage will be determined by a residual chlorine monitor located in the condenser's effluent header. The chlorine dosage will be controlled so that a chlorine residual of no more than 0.2 parts per mil- 7 lion remains in the condenser effluent being discharged into the cooling res-e rvoi r . 5.4.4 EFFECTS 5.4.4.1 Surface Water Effects The effects of water temperatures, turbulence, and additional chlorine demand in the cooling reservoir will result in rapid depletion of the chlorine resid-ual. Therefore, the chlorine residual resulting from biocide treatment is expected to have negligible effect on the cooling reservoir. It is expected that there will be minor effects on biota in the immediate area of the dis-charge outfall into the cooling reservoir. Approximately 5,000 pounds of 3 weight percent sodium chloride solution will be discharged to the reservoir l7 daily as a by-product of the sodium hypochlorite generation process. This addition will not significantly affect the sodium chloride concentration of the reservoir. Blowdown water will be discharged from the cooling reservoir to the Colorado ll River. At these times, the Colorado River flowrate will be at least eight 7 times that of the blowdown. This will result in excess concentrations less than or equal to one-ninth of the discharge excess concentrations during that portion of the time at which discharge occurs. At these concentrations, the discharges from the reservoir will meet the requirements of the TWQB for this portion of the Colorado River and will not affect the use of water downstream. Seasonal variation in concentrations within the cooling reservoir will be due to variations in ambient intake water conditions, evaporation rates, and makeup and blowdown schedules for the cooling reservoir since the STP site is located along tidal reaches of the Colorado River. Intake concentrations of major chemical components will vary considerably with salinities of the intake water. Comparisons made in this section between plant waste discharges and ambient conditions were based on data taken when concentrations of major chem-ical components in the Colorado River should be near their lowest values because of the high river flow at the time of the study. Therefore, during periods when river flow is low and chemical concentrations of the intake water are much greater, there will be even less effect due to the waste discharges. The aquatic biota near the plant site is typified by both fresh water and estuarine forms, most of which are tolerant of the stressful conditions char-acteristic of that area. Those that are not tolerant can be classified as temporary or occasional inhabitants and will not be found under all environ-mental conditions. Because most inhabitants of the Colorado River near the plant site are adapted to the r.atural stressful conditions present, the chemi-cal discharges from the plant are anticipated to have no adverse environmental effect on them since these contributions will be minor compared to ambient conditions and natural variations of these conditions. 5.4-2 Amendment 7
STP ER 5.5 EFFECTS OF SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE DISCHARGES n 5.5.1 EFFECTS OF SANITARY WASTE Sanitary wastes will be collected and treated in an onsite sewage treatment plant, the design of which will meet requirements of the Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR), formerly the Texas Water Quality Board, and Texas Department of Health (IDH) . The sanitary waste treatment plant will be of the extended-aeration type, with facilities for effluent disinfection by postchlorination. Descriptions of the sanitary waste load and the waste treatment system are presented in Section 3.7.1 and Section 3.7.2, respectively. Expected volumes of sanitary waste for a two-unit plant are as follows: Number of Units Population gpd/ Person M 2 500 30 15,000 The treated sewage effluent will be discharged to the main cooling reservoir. 7 The activated sludge process is expected to result in an 87 percent reduction in biochemical oxygen demand (BOD g ) concentration from 150 ppm in the influent 8 resulting in a level of 20 ppm. A similar reduction in total suspended solids will result in a concentration of 20 ppm in the effluent. A free chlorine 17 residual of 1 ppm as required by the TDWR will be maintained in the effluent. (pj This free chlorine residual will be further reduced when the flow is commin-gled in the main cooling reservoir. 7 BOD data obtained at the intake site (station 2) in the aquatic ecology study 5 ranged from 1 to 2 ppm. It is expected that the contribution to the total BOD S 1 ad by the sewage effluent will be an insignificant portion of the total BOD of the reservoir. Blowdown of the cooling reservoir will result in fur-5 ther mixing by the Colorado River. The large volume of water available for mixing contained in the cooling reser-voir, warm seasonal water temperatures, and constant low BOD input will likely disallow any seasonal buildup in BOD concentrations.5 De extenske mixing of the sanitary waste effluent in the 5cooling reservoir vill also result in an insignificant buildup of other sewage constituents. The sanitary waste effluent will contribute some nutrients to the cooling reservoir, but, because of the relatively small quantities involved, the effect on aquatic life will be negligible. There will be no adverse environ-mental impact due to sewage effluent on the cooling reservoir or the Colorado River. 5.5.2 EFFECTS OF OTHER WASTE DISCHARGES (GASEOUS EFFLUENTS) Gaseous products of combustion will be periodically released to the atmosphere q by the emergency diesel generators, diesel-driven fire pumps, and auxiliary boilers, as discussed in Section 3.7. Q The effects of exhaust emissions from testing these units will be minimal. {7 5.5-1 Amendment 8
STP ER p~ points, when detailed data were available from adjacent areas of similar vegetation. () Vegetation structure was determined from dominant individuals at each observa-tion point and classified as: trees, woody plants > 20 ft in height; shrubs, wood plants <20 f t in height; emergents, rooted herbaceous or semi-woody plants with most of the vegetation portion above the surface of the water or wet soil surface; floaters, herbaceous plants with vegetation parts princi-pally on the water surface; and submergents, herbaceous plants with vegetation parts principally below the water surface (Ref. 6.1-34 and 6.1-35). Emer-gents, the most extensive vegetation type in the wetlands, were subdivided into three height classes: short, <; 1.5 f t tall; mid,1.5-5 f t tall; tall,
>5 ft tall. Areas, with less than 5 percent cover were classified as open water or bcre land.
Vascular plant nomenclature was based on Correll and Johnston (Ref. 6.1-31), Correll and Correll (Ref. 6.1-36) and Gould (Ref. 6.1-37). Algal determina-tions were based on Prescot t (Ref. 6.1-38). Unidentified specimens were col-lected for positive identification, curated according to standard techniques, and deposited in the NUS Herbarium in Clear Lake, Texas, for permanent refer-ence. An index of water depth at each vegetation observation point was recorded in accordance with conventional wetland classes: wet, no standing water at surface face; shallow, water depth 0-0.5 ft above the ground surface; deep, water depth 0.5-3 ft; and excessively deep, water depth greater than 3 ft [) U (Ref. 6.1-34). At several of the.. vegetation observation points, the salinity of standing water was recorded with a Beckman Model RSS-3 Salinometer. Also, soil samples were collected from the' upper 0.5 f t of the soil and analyzed for total solu-ble salt concentration using an Industrial Instruments RD-B15-Solu-Bridge. Determinations were based on air-dried soil samples mixed with two parts water by volume (Ref. 6.1-59). Conductivity readings (mmhos/cm) of soils were con-verted to salinity (ppt) using a multiplier of 0.64, and soil salinity was equivalent to 25'C. Various salinity classification schemes have been used. The schemes differ in the salinity levels selected as the boundaries between classes (Ref. 6.1-40). This variation has led to considerable confusion concerning the description of wetlands vegetation, because information on species tolerance is often presented according to salinity classes. The Ekman system of describing salinity classes closely approximates techniques used by wetland plant ecologists and was adopted for the STP study. The Ekman salinity classes are: fresh, 0-0.5 ppt; slightly brackish, 0.5-3 ppt; moderately brackish, 3-10 ppt; highly brackish,10-17 ppt, saline, 17 ppt. Ecologists debate the break between fresh and brackish more of ten than the break between brackish and saline classes. Discrepancies at the fresh-brackish interface probably occur because wetland vegetation studies have demonstrated "naturn1" di continuities in plant communities that occur near this portion of the salinity regime. On the other hand, these discrepancies may, in part, represent an artificiality due to varying methods of measuring salinity. (} \/ 6.1-37 Amendment 7
STP ER Information obtained from field observations and aerial photography was used to prepare a vegetation map of the study area. A Bausch and Lomb Model ZT4 Zoom Transfer Scope was used to superimpose photographic details onto a topo-graphic base map at a scale of 1:6000 (i.e., 1 inch = 500 ft). A key for dstermining dominant species mixtures from the infrared aerial photographs was tcde. The infrared color tones and textures for dominant species at field observation points were described using Munsell-Foss color charts (Ref. 6.1-41 end 6.1-42). Where species occurred in a variety of substrate conditions (e.g. , from exposed soil to deep water), several color tones and textures were e: signed to the same species. Designation of vegetative cover types was based cn the structure of individuals in the uppermost stratum; vegetation suttypes w;re based on dominant species in all state. Dominant species had relative ebundance of 4 or greater except, where plant cover was sparse, species having cbundance estimates of 3 were considered dominant. The minimum area of indi-vidual vegetation subtypes included on the map was 0.25 acre. b.1.4.3.4 Baseline Sampling Program - Mammals. The mammal sampling program consisted of two phases:
- 1. A qualitative phase designed to verify the presence of all species likely to occur on the STP site, and to identify important species (species defined by the AEC guidelines, March 1973, and the Texas Parks and Wild-life Department as rare, endangered, commercially or recreationally valu-able, or critical to the structure and function of the ecosystem); and
- 2. A quantitative phase designed to characterize the seasonal plant-mammal associations by obtaining seasonal indices of the relative abundance of small mammals in areas sampled for vegetation.
Salection of sampling sites was based on both dominant vegetation and degree of disturbance (e.g., grazing, application of 2,4-D). Sampling locations are indicated in Figure 6.1-13. The associated vegetation types and the map coor-dinates of mammal sampling sites are shown in Table 6.1-13. Areas M21 through M26 were first sampled for mammals during the November sampling trip. The qualitative phase, which was expanded to include newly accessible areas, involved surveys of 26 areas. The presence of larger mammals was verified by means of day and night time observation, photography of tracks, interviews with local residents and personnel from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart-m:nt, road kills, and the identification of scat. Smaller mammals were cap-tured with live traps, kill traps, and pit traps. Species difficult to iden-l tify in the field were collected and curated as voucher specimens. All speci-l mens collected were subsequently identified. General and regional references on identification include Hall and Kelson (Ref. 6.1-43), Burt and Grossen-h:ider (Ref. 6.1-44) and Davis (Ref. 6.1-45). Specific plant communities were sampled seasonally for small mammals to pro-vide indices of relative abundance. Live traps or snap traps were placed in two 450-ft lines with paced 50-ft intervals between traps and between lines. Kill traps and pit traps were places in areas most likely to be frequented by the species being sought. Captured animals were identified as to species, sex, age (adult or juvenile) and breeding conditions where obvious (e.g. , lactating or pregnant females). All animals captured alive were toe clipped and released. Estimates of relative abundance were based on Davis (Ref. 6.1-45) and Overton (Ref. 6.1-46). p 6.1-38 Amendment 8
STP ER 6.1.5.6 Fish A I I Radioactivity in the liquid effluent from the plant will be available to the fish in the Cooling Reservoir, the Colorado River, and to a lesser extent the l7 West Branch of the Colorado River and Little Robbins Slough through the water and their food chain. Because of area accessability, sampling reliability, limited sample volume and minimal fishing use, only the cooling reservoir and the Colorado River will be sampled. Although off limits to fishermen the 7 cooling reservoir will be sampled because of its prime location. Since some i of the Colorado River fish may be enten by man, this food chain will be moni-tored. In this region of the Colorado River, there is some local sport fishing and minimal commercial fishing. Fish will be collected semi-annually or in season from the Cooling Reservoir, about 2 miles downstream from the reservoir blowdown structure, and up river from the site beyond plant dis- 7 charge influence. A minimum of two species will be taken that are representative of the fish types used for human consumption and will include fishes with different feeding habits. The flesh of the fish samples will be subjected to a gamma isotopic analysis. 7 6.1.5.7 Agricultural Products The lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), which regulates the majority of irrigation water in the vicinity of the site, indicates that these waters originate above the Bay City Dam which is not influenced by plant discharge. 7 No routine sampling program will be required. In the event these conditions change, the following will be performed. In the area surrounding the plant site, there are diversified agricultural activities. Since the primary interest is the potential dose to the public, the samples will be limited to those crops directly consumed by man or that reach man indirectly through the food chain. Samples will consist of pasture grass, rice, grain sorghum and broad leaf vegetation. They will be collected, when available, at local farms in the area which are irrigated by water that may contain diluted plant effluent. These samples will be subjected to a gamma isotopic analysis. Radiciodine will be analyzed in broau leaf vege-tation during the operational phase only. Figure 6.1-21 shows the location of irrigated crops in the site area. Milk samples are likely to be unobtainable due to the lack of dairy animals in l7 the vicinity of STP. If available, one sample will be taken from milking + animals in each of 3 areas where doses are calculated to greater than 1 mrem /yr. Sampling frequency will be semi-monthly when animals are on pasture and monthly at other times. Analyses will be gamma isotopic and iodine-131. Samples of broad leaf vegetation grown in locations of highest calculated annual average ground-level 7/Q, if milk sampling is not performed, will be 7 collected monthly when available and analyzed gamma isotopically. 6.1.5.8 Domestic Meat At least one sample of meat will be obtained semi-annually from farms located within 10 miles of the plant. The flesh will be subjected to gamma isotopic 7 d analysis. 6.1-49 Amendment 8
STP ER 6.1.5.9 Game ; Game will be obtained on site or within 10 miles of the site, when available. 7 The edible tissue will be analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. 6.1.5.10 Program Summary Table 6.1-16 summarizes the environmental monitoring program. The table describes sample media, sampling locations, type of sampling, collection 7 frequency, methods of analysis and analysis frequency. The design and implementation of all radiological environmental surveillance activities shall be performed by Houston Lighting and Power Company. Radio-logical environmental surveillance shall be performed in such a manner as t 7 meet the intent of USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.15 " Quality Assurance for Radio-logical Monitoring Programs" (Rev. 1, February 1979). In addition, the analysis laboratory will be required to participate in an NRC approved Inter-Laboratory Comparison Program to provide assurance of the accuracy of analysis. Detection capabilities for environmental sample analysis are provided in Table 6.1-17. This preoperational environmental monitoring program will be instituted approximately 2 years prior to issuance of the Operating License except radio-iodine monitoring which will begin no less than six months prior to this issuance.
,y 9
6.1-50 Amendment 7
STP ER TABLE 6.1-22 ANNUAL AVERAGE GROUND LEVEL X/Q VALUES AT THE SITE BOUNDARY" GROUND LEVEL RELEASE c Based on Meteorological Data for July 21, 1973 to September 30, 1977 Wind Exposure Distance X/Q 3 Direction Direction (meters) (sec/m ) S N 1,521 1.0 x 10 -6 SSW NNE 1,555 4.1 x 10"
~
SW NE 1,586 3.4 x 10 WSW ENE 1,600 2.1 x 10" W E 1,567 2.7 x 10"
~
WNW ESE 2,971 8.5 x 10
-8 NW SE 6,889 4.0 x 10
~
NNW SSE 6,428 7.2 x 10
-7 N S 5,936 1.0 x 10
-7 NNE SSW 6,560 1.2 x 10 4,426
-7 NE SW 2.4 x 10 ENE WSW 3,419 2.9 x 10"
~
E W 2,160 6.0 x 10
~
ESE WNW 1,889 6.6 x 10
-6 SE NW 1,792 1.0 x 10
-6 8 SSE NNW 1,631 1.1 x 10
- The site boundary is the STP property limits except in those cases where FM 521 is closer, in which case the boundary is taken as the inside boun-dary to the FM 521 right-of-way.
b Winds at 10 meters and T(60m-10m).
- Data period of July 21, 1976 through Septemgber 30, 1976 is unavailable.
6.1-96 Amendment 8
9 l g RAILROAD SPUR N. N g - I I
\ -SITE l BOUNDARY r s
\
- ESSENTIAL 1 OCLING l.
OND I I i . O __ _m.% _ N 521 h
- b. .
l. 1 .
! 4 k.,% N
. .~ . . _
.I KELLY)-
LAKE zh.'. *. ct E
.:*(.
ol o g:! ,
,)TR ANSECT.1 3.5..km ..\
# e:H g \
" "Ik a N4 ROAD N h kE k-hh$~Y.d'v.:
*l oi %%
9d COOLING RESERVQlR :$ j.ggC95' w
;:f \i >g! @
L NN";DCdD'[ s$.,v?s M D 8 TRANSECTi. 7 u i- t - mr-a!! :: s[
~i :': 3.0km 5
'"%-( i g;yQ.?i 20
- 1
- : 'l 3
Q'_s, .* p. , ;-sw
- , gi:
a , .:,:l :: e e
- ' : : -( 4,,',< ., ,7; 3 o '
- . : . c o
ol: . .1 :i
. . s
.,;. ,,4
. .w:,.
d i .$- i: l ;: i i: h -
'.'.E.
m l ::f. : !' : 0 ;4.,vf:. ~%,',s.:D- .
.*I E
! TRANSECT 8 :
l! ! : :: y 5.4km : h, h 4- rg .,,.w M,TA!1[?;pf,,. . , I:.! j i i: l i i: d bF%'^5 Ll i:4 : t. :: n' w,%e p. W;-M d,: h+ c y+ l*- : ;. .t , n y. n
. r. : ,%,lowoOWN CAN A L'"
- '. ,4
- f TRAN55di'fA * 's '%.b
~ "q1
. 4a4 4
. y.,a _ y,y;ym.,7.,,w y m m e r,. swr _o- ,p.
1 5.k,m g,q q,y,,ag erru.rr.k>. -
* : ................. .=. .....................m...... ,.r._ _.._ w. :4.u. ,.';_ ggps,.-
.w.um.,s**.;;;;f.*... . . TRANSECT 3
5.1km
'* LEVEE
..- TRANSECT
- ENDING POINTS i 1 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 ALLIGATOR TRANSECT LOCATIONS FIGURE f. 1-23 i
Amendment 7 l
- - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _..- -,.- m.. _ . . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ , _ . _.__- __,-. -.- , , , _ .
. - - . - --------.~...,,
's R AD "y -
Q I N ..- SITE
\
I IBOUNDARY r~ n
\
/
E SSENTI AL l 1 COOLING ' , o POND - I i ,, FM $21 J' s ._.2,
\
~
. N 4..._.b p-- - s 3
, KELLY I * ----
; , LAKE g x r 08 .
oi ., . . . - . _ . . . , Ol N\ Nf a81 g 'g.'% %>taOAO Ns Ei h; l "A" c
+-
3I ; 5 : s , . , m; ,g2.~, ,.A oi (.. e COOLING RESERVOIR ;. . M).'p.rcg : -
.s .
' C.
x! i.u u , - E - !s %.,,A,v,5;'[,a,b'.j( O P 4. p."'
~
i n
!lpG'481 '
rj U; d, t i I [ *. sS'4.sQ.. tc$..\,s':- :5 $ 2,- c ;
+ Q:'5;.i . ; .,n; :. x>o
- 8. l
. p I a
L. -*
. w.'6. c.';,y ..
O
<i :
d Ul O 1 g . A*
%p.
s...n T, i -i Q#+.,Pd'% dI [73 3 g q n .
*l *
*c'[.s*Y"s.**.Y C. .
D.* l'j%59..,g.p,
.- R. 's._ '-
- s i
- es g, i
, c a
[. i f e'Q'U.9.*5.'i , - 2; .
.- v., - . . . . .,; s .'
lj+i i
},
g 7g .
. *. h',.:.EXQ,,%TcM%:J
**a 6 2-g I F,4 # j *. sN" ca,. ,,, s.
r d d . ' f-M'AN e p,)d' .i,; *4Jf4
' v ;2.' Y. '
1 "B" if *ogO'%, i'.'D. s ,S;'T l -
,, wDOWN CAN At'~
w ,.. p , s. , T,
-. b.y _. _.y ,;_ . w. ..ngw Nm, ,+ .r s. 3;no ,, , . . . . . ./ ik'('. yf.f',h.(
\ .
-...w... A - -- c. s su .
.. r-c_o,,,."4.s s
,s',h, ,ss_s.. y--'. s . .?. , d,n .
. ..s,,,,.- - m El Reservior Dike S Observation Points
..... Transect Line SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 WHITE TAILED DEER OBSERVATION POINTS AND TRANSECT
' LINE AB FIGURE 6.1-24 Amendment 7
STP ER 6.2.1.2.5 Analytical Sensitivity. The detection sensitivities of the various f- s program elements are listed in Tables 6.1-17. Samples will be analyzed as ( ) described in the program summary (Table 6.2-1). 7 6.2.1.2.6 Data Presentation. Reporting units will be the same as in Table 6.1-17. The standard deviation of the net counting rate will be computed using the gross counting rate and the background counting rate. Suitable statistical methods will be used to determine whether a count is significant. 6.2.1.2.7 Routine Data Reporting Requirements. Reports on environmental radiological manitoring sample analyses will be subm.it-ted in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Technical Gpecifications. These reports will be summaries of the results of the envi'ronmental activities and assess-ments of the observed impacts of the plant operation on the environment. 6.2.2 CHEMICAL EFFLUENT MONITORING The South Texas Project chemical effluent monitoring program has been designed to meet all the chemical effluent control requirements stipulated b,y-Texas State and Federal regulatory agencies. The anticipated er.viron-mental effects on the lower Colorado River are estimated to be insignifi-
. cant. The analysis of these effects is presented in Sections 5.1, 5.4, 10.2 and 10.3. Nevertheless, all effluent streams likely to contain chemical contaminants will be monitored to ensure compliance with the requirements.
The effluent monitoring program will bc coordinated with the ecological moni-toring program reported in Section 6.2.5. [~)
\/
The plant effluent flows entering the lower Colorado River will range from 80 to 308 cfs. In addition, there will be other waste streams which will dis-charge into the cooling reservoir. These screams will arise from the Sanitary Sewage Plant wastes, demineralizer neutralization tanks, and treatment of auxiliary boilers. 6.2.2.1 Cooling Reservoir Blowdown The blowdown from the reservoir will be scheduled in accordance with the procedure outlined in Section 3.4. The reservoir water makeup will be obtained from the lower Colorado River. The effect of evaporation of the cooling reservoir water on total dissolved solids is discussed in Section 5.1. Effects of chlorine addition to the 8 circulating water to control microbiological growths are also discussed in Section 5.4. The blowdown operation will be monitored so asf to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory standards and to assist in determining reasonable op",r-ating procedures and to prevent potential deleterious effects arising from the following:
- 1. Deviation of the pH beyond the all'owable range.
- 2. High concentrations of free residual chlorine.
b 6.2-7 Amendwent 8
STP ER To prevent the above situations from arising, the following monitoring opera-tions will be carried out during plant operation:
- 1. The blowdown pH will be monitored to ensure compliance with applicable liquid effluent regulations.
- 2. Total residual chlorine Icvels will be checked to keep the residual with-in the discharge criteria.
6.2.2.2 _ 0ther Waste Streams All the ef fluent streams entering the cooling reservoir will be operated and controlled in such a manner as to minimize the effects on the Cooling Reser-voir blowdown water quality. Some of the significant sources of these streams cre:
- 1. Low volume waste water from demineralizer neutralization tanks.
- 2. Low volume waste water from floor and yard drains.
- 3. Treated sanite y sewage effluent.
- 4. Boiler blowdown.
- 5. Metal cleaning waste water.
Monitoring requirements (parameters, sampling methodologies, and sampling frequency) of these waste streams are designed to comply with limitation and requirements of the NPDES permit. 6.2.3 THERMAL EFFLUENT MONITORING The operational thermal effluent monitoring system is designed to provide a scheme of surveillance of the heated discharge plume to ensure compliance with etate and federal regulatory requirements. Long-term thermal conitoring is included in the surface water monitoring program. These data, in ceajunction with short term thermal monitoring, will te uo.;d te verify coapliance with thermal discharge standards and verify the predictive models described in Section 5.1. 6.2.3.1 Effluent Monitoring A monitoring system has been established to monitor the blowdown water temper-ature as it is discharged to the Colorado River. This effluent monitoring station will be utilized to ensure compliance with state and federal require-ments concerning heated discharge. 6.2.3.2 Short-Term Monitoring Detailed thermal measurements to verify the predicted isotherms in both the river and the cooling reservoir will be initiated af ter the water temperature in the reservoir has been elevated by operation of the plant. These studice will be undertaken during the first year of operation, and will measure the temperature distribution with respect to depth and surface area. A sufficient 6.2-8 Amendment 7
STP ER CHAPTER 8 BENEFITS AND COST 8.1 BENEF1TS 8.1.1 PRIMARY BENEFITS--ENERGY SALES The South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, will supply 2,500 Mwe of reli-able base-load electric power to meet the projected needs of industrial, com-mercial, residential, and other customers of the participating utilities. As indicated in Section 1.1.1.2, the current schedule adopted by the partici-pants' Management Committee contemplates one 1250-megawatt nuclear unit begin ,3 , ning commercial operation in 1987 and another in 1989. Each unit will gener I g aee 8,212 million kilowatt-hours annually at an assumed capacity factor of 75 ! percent. An assumed loss factor of 6.7 percent will allow 7,662 million kilowatt-hours to be available for sale each year from each unit or 15,325 million kilowatt-hours for both units. This is shown in Table 8.1-1. The relative shares of the participants in the project is as follows: City of Austin (C0A) 16.0 Percent City Public Service Board of San Antonio (CPS) 28.0 Percent Central Power and Light Company (CPL) 25.2 Percent 1
/~')s \s. Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) 30.8 Percent Total 100.0 Percent A projected proration of the kilowatt-hour sales for each unit of the STP is shown by major user classes on lines eight through eleven of Table 8.1-1.
Each user class kwh is the summation of the energy proration of the four par-ticipants. A consumption allocation for each of the four participants is shown on Table 8.1-2 through 8.1-5. The average annual growth in the peak demand and the total net system generat-ing capability for the participating utilities has been projected in Chapter 1. The revenues resulting from the sale of this electricity constitutes a mear.ure of the primary benefit of the South Texas Project. The projected amount to be paid by users is shown on Table 8.1-6. That amount is $14.5 billion, dis-counted to the present value as of 1984, the first year of operation of Unit
- 1. This amount is based on a forecast of a composite 5.87 cents /kwh in 1984 3 with this rate escalated for the 32-year period at 1.058 percent annually. A discount rate of 10 percent is used to convert these annual revenues to present worth. The 10 percent rate is the estimated composite cost of capital of the participating systems.
O O 8.1-1 Amendment 8
STP ER 8.1.2 OTHER SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 8.1.2.1 Payments to Government Agencies A variety of taxes and franchise and other payments will be collected by the cppropriate governmental authorfties. 7' Property owned by CPS and COA, which is 44 percent of the property value, is publb: property and therefore exempt from property taxation. In early 1978 Matagorda County, on behalf of itself, the State of Texas, and other political subdivisions for which it collects taxes filed suit asserting that the undivided interests owned by CPS and COA are subject to property taxes. CPS cnd COA requested and were granted a summary judgment by the state trial court 3 holding the interests of CPS and C0A to be exempt. Matagorda County appealed that decision through the appellate courts of the state, which appellate 4 courts sustained the decision of the trial court. As shown on Table 8.1-7, maximum annual property taxes resulting f rom the STP cre estimated to be $28.75 million. Table 8.1-9 presents STP taxable value as 7 c percentage of the total taxable value of each major jurisdiction. Part of the revenues of the participants will be subject to state, city, and Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) sales taxes. The state sales taxes are
$180.2 million life-of-plant benefit or $18.8 million annualized. The city sales taxes are $77.5 million life-of-plant benefit or $8.1 million anr.ual- 3 ized. MTA taxes, which are en11ected by CPS and HL&P, are $15.0 million life-of-plant benefit or $1.6 million annualized.
The transmission circuits are described in Section 3.9.1. Those subject to ad valorem taxes are the circuits from the site'to Velasco Substation, the site to Blessing Substation, and CPL and HL6P's portion of the site to Danevang Tie Point. The combined county ad valorem taxes on these transmission lines are estimated to be $11,677 during the first year of operation. The combined 3 school ad valorem taxes are estimated to be $37,390 during the first year of operation. Franchise payments to incorporated cities are estimated to amount to $129.9 million for the life of the plant. The annualized or levelized payment is 3
$13.6 million.
The State of Texas gross receipts tax paid by HL&P and CPL would amount to
$74.1 million for the life of the plant or an annualized amount of $7.7 mil-lion. COA and CPS do not pay the state a gross receipts tax.
Total additional benefits to the municipal participants, including transfers of revenues to the general funds of San Antonio and Austin from the utilities systems in these municipalities, may be estimated to be a life-of-plant amount of $557.2 million for San Antonio and $454.9 million for Austin. Based upon revenues estimated in Tabic 8.1-6, the annualized or levelized amounts are 3
$$8.2 million for San Antonio and $47.5 million for Austin.
O 8.1-2 Amendment 7
STP ER 8.1.2.2 Payrolls and Employ O (j The operation and maintenance. si the 'iTP will require a presently estimated 1334 permanent employees. The net present life-of-plant value of wages will l8 amount to $155.4 million. The levelized wage amount is estimated to be $16.4 l million annually. For the first full year of operation of both units, the 3 wages are estimated to be $8.86 millior (in 1986 dollars). l The STP will cause an increase in employment for the area over and above that of the permanent staff employment. It is estimated that approximately 680 new permanent service jobs will be created in the region of the State of Texas 2 surrounding the plant (Ref. 8.1-1). The net present life-of-plant value of the wages of these jobs amounts to $176.3 million or a levelized annual rate Q340.12 of $18.5 million. 3 8.1.2.3 Value Added in Regional Production The installation of the STP generating units will make available the power needed by regional manufacturing industry to provide for the production of goods amounting to an estimated $3.3 billion of value added each year. The l3 determination of this value is described in Table 8.1-8. 8.1.2.4 Other Benefits A visitors' center has been constructed at the site to provide the public with l3 information about the plant. The profile of the plant can be clearly seen
- from the visitors' center and from relocated FM 521. The lowland habitat l3
( 'd between the reservoir and the Colorado River will remain in its present natu-ral state. O V 8.1-3 Amendment 8
[ x (' v TABLE 8.1-7 Estimate of Major STP Property Tax Payments by Jurisdiction 7 Houston Lighting & Power Company and Central Power & Liaht Company Taxing Authority 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Matagorda County: Ceneral Fund $5,332,000 S 5,625,000 $ 5,722,000 $ 5,722,000 $ 5,722,000 $ 5,722,000 8 5,722,000 Navigation District No. I 2,312,000 2.439,000 2,481,000 2,481,000 2,481,000 2.481,000 2,481,000 Palacios Seavall Commission 2.307.000 2,434,000 2,476,000 2,476,000 2,476,000 2.476,000 2,476,000 Hospital District 2,136,000 2,254,000 2,293,000 2,293.000 2,293.000 2,293,000 2,293.000 Special Ad Valores (Road) 1.557,000 1,643,000 1,671,000 1,671,000 1,671,000 1,671,000 1,671,000 Drainage District No. 3 1,495,000 1,577,000 1,604.000 1,604.000 1,604.000 1,604.000 1,604,000 8 Palacios Independent School District 11,651,000 12.291,000 12,503,000 12,503,000 12,503,000 12,503.000 12,503,000 Estimated Total Taxes $26,790,000 S28,263,000 S28,750,000 $28,750,000 $28,750,000 $28,750,000 $28,750,000 Assumptions: m (1) Taxes are estimated for each year from expected project balances as of December 31st of the preceding year. un - Payment of taxes will normally be at the end of January of the year following the tax year. (e.g., 1984 Y .L taxes are based on project expenditures through December 31, 1983 and will be paid at the end of January r=s 1985.) " 7 (2) Estimated taxes represent the combined amounts applicable to Houston Lighting & Power Company's 30.8% ownership interest and Central Power & Light Comapny's 25.2% ownership interest. The remaining 44% of the South Texas Project is owned by tax exempt entities. (3) The above estinstes assume continuation of 1983 tax rates throughout the 1984-89 period (except for Palacios Seavall Commission, which was created during 1984, and will levy taxes at a statutory 104 per $100 tax rate). The South Texas Project's large annual additions to the listed jurisdictions' tax base would normally be expected to offer the opportunity for tax rate reductions. While the listed estimates may be overstated to the extent of future tax rate reductions,.the amounts and timing of such rate reductions, if any, are not presently determinable. (4) The estimates assume continuation of the valuation methodology currently being used. (5) Dollar value is in the year stated. (6) 1988 is the first full year of operation of Unit 1; 1990 is the first full year of operation of Unit 2. 8 E E G
O . O O TABLE 8.1-9 PROJECT VALUE AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE - MAJOR STP JURISDICTIONS 1984 STP Taxable Value Jurisdiction's Total South Texas Project (STP) as a Percentage of ' Jurisdiction 1984 Taxable Value 1984 Taxable Value" Total Taxable Value Matagorda Country: General Fund $2,489,826,816" $803,895,360 32.3% Hospital District 2,489,826,816" 803,895,360 32.3 a Special Ad Valorem (Road) 2.489,826,816 803,895,360 32.3 Navigation District No. I 1,023,807.118 b 803,246,240 78.5 Palacios Seawall Commission 1,023,807,118 803,246,240 78.5 7 b 7 Drainage District No. 3 1,023,807,118 803,246,240 78.5 y, 5 b Y Palacios Independent School District 1,183,547,839 803,246,240 67.9 m so 1 , Includes $26,000,000 estimate of unfinalized value for bank stock and shrimp boats. Includes $10,000,000 estimate of unfinalized value for bank stock and shrimp boats. Taxable values shown are the combined amount applicable to Houston Lighting & Power Company's ! F 30.8% avnership interest and Central Power & Light Company's 25.2% ownership interest. The
@ remaining 44% of the South Texas Droject is owned by tax-exempt participants.
i a
~
i
STP ER Question 372.03 Identify the dates of initiation and completion of the filling of the Cooling Reservoir, and the program proposed to examine possible effects of the reservoir on local meteorological conditions.
Response
The Cooling Reservoir water level is currently being maintained at 28.0 MSL. On approximately August 1, 1985, filling operations will be initiated to raise the water level to 35.0 MSL. Subsequent filling operations have not been 8 scheduled. See the response to Question 372.09 (page C-81) for a discussion of the possible effects cf reservoir operation on local meteorological conditions. s 1 i O C-73 Amendment 8
STP ER 8 APPENDIX F SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 2 RESPONSES TO NRC JANUARY 4, 1985 and
// FEBRUARY 11, 1985 REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION O
O e e h
SIP ER RESPONSES TO NRC O JANUARY 4, 1985 and FEBRUARY 11, 1985 REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS NRC Question Number Amendment Q&R Page Number 290.1 8 F-1 290.2 8 F-2 290.3 8 F-3 290.4 8 F-4 291.1 8 F-5 291.2 8 F-6 291.3 8 F-7 291.4 8 F-8 291.5 8 F-9 291.6 8 F-10 291.7 8 F-11 291.8 8 F-12 291.9 8 F-13 0 310.1 310.2 8 8 F-14 F-15 310.3 8 F-16 310.4 8 F-17 310.5 8 F-18 310.6 8 F-19 310.7 8 F-20 310.8 8 F-21 310.9 8 F-23 310.10 8 F-23 O F-1 Amendment 8
STP ER Question 290.1 O Page 3.9.) - All the substations mentioned in text need to be shown on Figure 3.9-1. an. 4.2-1.
Response
ER-OL Figures 3.9-1 and 4.2-1 will be amended to show all substations. l O O F-1 Amendment 8
STP ER L Question 290.2 It is not stated that the transmission lines will be built according to the National Electrical Safety Code. If this is the case it should be so stated.
Response
ER-OL Section 3.9 will be amended to indicate that the transmission lines have been or will be built in accordance with the National Electrical Safety Code. O O F-2 Amendment 8
STP ER Question 290.3 Figure 4.2-2, 4.2-3A, 4.2-3C should have the name of the appropriate substation indicated.
Response
ER-OL Figures 4.2-2 and 4.2-3C will be amended to show the name of the appropriate substation. t !O O F-3 Amendment 8
m.__. . __ _ _ _ _ __ . . . _ _ _ _ , . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..____ _ _ . . . . . ___ f STP ER Question 290.4 Figure 2.7-8 prime farmland is missing; also 2.7-7.
Response
ER-OL Figure 2.7-8 (Amendment 7) shows areas of prime farmland on the STP site. ER-OL Figure 2.7-7 has been deleted (Amendment 7). L .I O 1
- O F-4 Amendment 8 P
STP ER Question 291.1
- 1. b
%/ Update the description of aquatic ecology on the basis of new data and i
information collected since issuance of the FES-CP.
Response
No new data or information has been collected since issuance of the FES-CP which would change the description of aquatic ecology presented in ER-OL i Section 2.7. I i i i !O 1 I
}
l t O t F-5 Amendment 8
STP ER Question 291.2
'O Update the description of threatened and endangered aquatic species included on the State of Texas and the Federal lists.
Response
No changes have been made to the threatened and endangered aquatic species as listed in the ER-OL, O f 2 i i i O i F-6 Amendment 8
i STP ER Question 291.3 Update the estimates of annual commercial and recreational finish and shellfish harvests in the vicinity of the STP. The estimates should be based on an average of the five most recent years of available data and encompass surface waters 80 km (50 miles) downstream of the site.
Response
This information is included in ER-OL Section 5.3.2.2. O I I O F-7 Amendment 8 1
. . ~ , - - - - , , - - - , - - , , - . . . - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
STP ER Question 291.4 Describe the distribution and current abundance of the Asiatic clam, Corbicula, in the Colorado River in the vicinity of the STP and in the STP ' cooling reservoir and essential cooling pond.
Response
The applicant has confirmed the presence of Corbicula sp. in the STP cooling reservoir and therefore presumes that Corbicula sp. are also present in the i Colorado River. The presence of Corbicula sp. in the essential cooling pond has not been confirmed. The applicant has conducted no monitoring to determine the distribution or current abundance of Corbicula sp. in either the i cooling reservoir or the Colorado River. The applicant's response to NRC IE Bulletin No. 81-03 providing additional information concerning the presence of Corbicula sp. at the STP, will be provided under separate cover. F-8 Amendment 8
STP ER Question 291.5 (s,') s During times of collection of excessive amounts of fish on the traveling water screens, the fish are to be sluiced to the river according to the ER-OL. Provide the location of the sluice return at the river in relation to the intake and discharge, and provide the design specifications of the sluice-return system.
Response
The location of the fish bypass pipe on the reservoir make-up pumping facility (RMPF) is shown on ER-OL Figure 3.4-2. The bypass pipe is constructed of 1-foot diameter schedule 40 PVC sewer pipe. All material washed off the trav-eling screens is routed to either the refuse baskets located at each end of RMPF or to the fish bypass pipe. The bypass pipe discharge 1- located at a point several feet downstream of the RMPF and approximately 2 ft below normal water elevation. The bypass pipe incorporates removable plugs to facilitate cleaning operations. O O {} F-9 Amendment 8
STP ER Question 291.6 Update the assessment of entrainment and impingement impacts on the basis of the ASLB required studies (see LBP-75-46, ASLB Findings No. 44 and No. 48).
Response
Impingement /entrainment monitoring is currently conducted during reservoir filling operations. The assessment of entrainment and impingement impacts will be updated as soon as sufficient data have been collected. o V F-10 Amendment 8
STP ER g Question 291.7 Provide a copy of the information submitted by the HL&P on June 28, 1982 regarding the clean Water Act Section 316(b) Demonstration (see NPDES Permit Part III. "Other Condition" No. 11).
Response
A copy of the information is provided under separate cover. O O F-11 Amendment 8
STP ER Question 291.8 Provide a bibliographic listing and reprint copies of all journals and profes-sional conference proceedings publications (by applicant and applicant's con-sultants) that have resulted from aquatic studies and monitoring of the STP site vicinity.
Response
The applicant is unaware of any such publications. O O F-12 Amendment 8
i STP ER Question 291.9 i Provide a bibliographic listing of all technical. papers that have been
- prepared by state and Federal agencies and private organizations that resulted i form studies or concerns with aquatic resources of the STP site vicinity.
.t E , Response i
! The applicant is unaware of any such technical papers.
i 1 I t i 1 f i 4 1 i 1 s e i l b l l 1- F-13 Amendment 8 l l 4 i
STP ER Question 310.1 s Provide a description of changes in the station's external appearance or lay-out which have been made subsequent to the description provided in Chapter 3 of the CP-FES.
Response
A current description of the station's external appearance and layout is pro-vided in Chapter 3 of the ER-OL. No significant changes in either station appearance or layout have occurred since publication of the CP-FES. As noted in Chapter 2 of the ER-OL, an HVDC terminal will be operated on a 17-acre tract inside the exclusion areas. In addition, an Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) and a Training Facility have been located approximately 3/4 mile east of the Units on the main plant entrance road. Both facilities are located in one 43,000 square-foot single story structure constructed of neutral-colored texture concrete blocks. The EOF will be staffed only during emergency situations. A staff of 55 persons will be maintained at the Training Facility. ER-OL Section 2.1 will be amended to include a description of these facilities. 3
'N
( i i p l l F-14 Amendment 8 I l l
STP ER 1 Question 310.2 l O, Chapter 8 of the ER-OL indicates that 252 employees are anticipated for opera-i
]
tion of South Texas Project. Is this an estimate of the average annual number of workers that will be required during operation of the two units? If this total does not include contractor employees, please provide en estimate of such employees.
Response
i ! Total STP staff during operations is expected to be approximately 1,334 workers. In addition, approximately 500 employees will be on site during unit outages. I i i l 1 ! O v 4 i i i } i I O F-15 Amendment 8 _ g'
i
- STP ER i
4
- Ouestion 310.3 i
Identify the likely residential location (i.e., names of communities, coun-
- ties) of the operating workers. Identify any anticipated impacts on the affected communities' facilities and services (i.e., schools, hospitals, water
- and waste treatment, fire, police) that would result from the workers j residence. List facilities and services that would require expansion or addi-tions to capacity. Provide the same information for any STP plant demands on
! community services. i i 1 Fesponse The majority of the operating workers are expected to reside in Matagorda and surrounding counties (includes Calhoun, Jackson, Wharton, Fort Bend, and Brazoria Counties). Of those workers residing in Matagorda County, the major-ity are expected to reside in either Bay City or Palacios. Presented below are estimates of STP operation-phase worker residence distribution. These projections are based on current plant operating staff residences. Since local community facilities and services have adequately accommodated the STP construction workforce, which is significantly larger than the maximum operational workforce, no significant impacts on these facilities and services from the operating workers are expected. Also, no expansion or additions to facilities and services are anticipated due to the operating workers. Operation of the STP plant is not expected to place any demands on community services. Residence Residence Distribution Distribution County' (%) Matamorda County l%I Matagorda 69.7 Bay City 74.6 Brazoria 13.7 Palacios 12.2 Wharton 5.7 Other 13.2 Calhoun 3.8 Victoria 2.8 Other 4.3 O F-16 Amendment 8
STP ER Question 310.4 Provide an estimate of the average annual workers payroll for the tvd units l (give the year in which the dollars are stated).
Response
-The average annual worker payroll for both units is expected to be approxi-mately $63 million (in 1989 dollars).
P 1 .i 1 i l I i i 1 i i. d I ! i
- l l
. O i F-17 Amendment 8 t f' l
STP ER i Question 310.5 O. Provide an estimate of the avercge annual dollar amount of local purchases of I materials, and supplies resulting from the operation of the two units. Include a definition of the local area in preparing the estimate (i.e., coun-ties , maj or towns , SMSA) . Give the year in which the dollars are stated.
Response
The applicant estimates that approximately $700,000 (in 1991 dollars) will be spent annually on local purchases of materials and supplies. The majority of these purchases are expected to occur in Brazoria, Harris, Matagorda, Calhoun and Wharton counties.
'A
+ l O I i i i i ) i i l I 4
- O i
i j F-18 Amendment 8
STP ER
- Question 310.6 \-- With reference to Table 8.1-7 in the ER-OL, provide in tabular form a dollar
, estimate of the taxes attributable to the two units of STF. For each of the units first full five years of operation, provide the dollar estimates by type of tax and by taxing jurisdictions (excluding Federal taxes). With reference to Table 8.1-9 in the ER-OL, provide the taxes attributable to STP operation.
Response
Table 8.1-7 has been amended to provide the requested tax payment information, by taxing jurisdiction, for the requested years of operation. The percentages shown in Table 8.1-9 represent the percent of total tax revenue attributable to STP for each jurisdiction for ad valorem taxes only. Several of these jurisdictions may have other minor sources of revenue; therefore, the percentages represent maximum contributions attributable to STP. p. i ! s,s O F-19 Amendment 8
STP ER Question 310.7 Identify any places where traffic congestions or problems of interference with patterns of local traffic .tay be anticipated due to plant operation or main-tenance. Discuss anticipated measures that would be undertaken to alleviate such possible situationf.
Response
No significant traffic problems are anticipated due to plant operation or maintenance. The recent completion of FM-1468 from Buckeye to FM-521 (see ER-OL Figure 2.1-2) should further minimize the likelihood of any traffic congestion. t i O i l l l l l l l l l i i F-20 Amendment 8
STP ER Question 310.8 With reference to Section 2.3 in the ER-OL, identify any impacts to cultural resources (sites in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) which could potentially result from the operation and naintenance activities related to the plant and transmission lines. Update the information on cul-tural resources activities since the CP-FES.
Response
In response to comments: received from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Texas Historical Commission (THC) (see FES-CP pages A-4 and A-40), the applicant conducted field surveys of the transmission line routes in January, 1975. A report was prepared (Ref. 1) and the proposed routes were reviewed by the THC (Ref. 1, Exhibit 6) with respect to impacts on National Register sites. In 1979, the applicant conducted a study involving transmission line route modifications described in ER-OL Section 3.9.1. Field surveys of the STP-Blessing and Tie Point-Holman segments were conducted by the Texas Archeological Survey (TAS). The TAS study (Ref. 2) concluded that construction of these segments would have no adverse impact on identifiable cultural resources. These route modifications were reviewed by the Texas Historical Commission, which concluded that the modifications would not affect properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Ref. 3). In April,1985, the applicant conducted a literature / records review of the existing STP site and transmission line facilities with respect to operating and maintenance impacts on sites on or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. This review indicated no adverse impacts on any such sites would occur. The applicant has requested the THC to review the STP area within a 10-mile radius of the site and to review the transmission line routes with respect to operating and maintenance impacts on sites on or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. The THC response is pending. t
- Reference 1: Dillehay, T.D. , et. al. , "An Evaluation Synthesis of Impact on j Cultural Resources of the South Texas Project Transmission l Network", Research Report No. 51, Texas Archeological Survey,
! March, 1975. Reference 2: Dibble, D.S., et. al., "An Archeological and Historical Survey of Areas to be Affected by Construction of STP Modified Trans-mission Line Routes", Texas Archeological Survey, Technical ! Bulletin No 25, February, 1979. Reference 3: Personal Correspondence, LaVerne Herrington (THC) to R. W. Lawhn (HL&P), August 24, 1984. lO i F-21 Auendment 8
STP ER l Question 310.9 Provide copies of any correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Office or other entities relating to any potential operating impacts of the l plant and transmission lines on cultural resources in or eligible for the l National Register.
Response
See response to Q310.8. l l l l 1 O V O F-22 Amendment 8
STP ER Question 310.10 O I The methodology used to obtain the 1970 demographic information presented in the original Section 2.2 is discussed in Section 6.1.4.2.1. However, since the base information is being prepared by the applicant and will be submitted in a subsequent amendment
Response
The information presented in Section 6.1.4.2.1 describes methodology used in collecting baseline demographic data and is retained in the ER-OL for historic purposes. Updated demographic information is being prepared by the applicant and will be submitted in a subsequent amendment. i i l F-23 Amendment 8 e
- - - - - - . - - - - . -_ - _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}