ML20136E528
| ML20136E528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1986 |
| From: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136E507 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-860102, NUDOCS 8601070043 | |
| Download: ML20136E528 (200) | |
Text
.. - . - ~. . . _= ..- -- . . .- .. . . . - - . .. - _ . . . .-
4 i
Instructions for Incorporating Amendment 9 into the South Texas ~ Project Environmental Report-OL i-Remove Pages Insert Pages !
Table of-Contents 1 iii, iv' 111, iv v, vi v, vi vi(a) xi, xii xi, xii xv, xvi xv, xvi
- xvii, xviii xvii, xviii xviii(a) i Chapter 2 2-v, 2-vi 2-v, 2-vi 2.1-1, 2.1-2 2.1-1, 2.1-2 I- 2.2-1~- 2.2-4 2.2 2.2-4 2.2 2.2-12 2.2 2.2-12 4
Figures i 2.2-0 2.2-0 2.2 2.2-6 2.2 2.2-6 Chapter 3 3-v, 3-vi 3-v, 3-vi 3.3-1, 3.3-2 3.3-1, 3.3-2 3.4-1, 3.4-2 3.4-1 3.4-la 3.4-2 3.4-3 3.4-3 3.6-1, 3.6-2 3.6-1 3.6-la f --
3.6-2 3.6-3, 3.6-4 3.6-3 3.6-3a 3.6-4
. 3.6-5, 3.6-6 3.6-5, 3.6-6
, 3.9 3.9-4 3.9 3.9-4 4
Figures
- 3. M
- 8601070043 860102 PDR ADoCK 05000498
.O C PDR l
- I 4
l W2/aa/B261 1 Amendment 9
J-
- Remo'v'e' Pages Insert Pages
(}
Chapter 5 i 5-1, 5-11 5-1, 5-11 i ~5.3 5.3-11 5.3 5.3-11 5.4-1, 5.4-2 5.4-1, 5.4-2 5.6-1 5.6 5.7-1 5.7-1 Chapter 6 6.1-13, 6.1-14 6.1-13, 6.1-14 i 4
6.1-45, 6.1-46 6.1-45, 6.1-46
! 6.1-49, 6.1-50 6.1-49, 6.1-50 6.1-97 6.1-97 6.1-97a 6.1-97b i 6.2 6.2-8 6.2 6.2-8 I
6.2-9, 6.2-10 6.2-9 6.2-11, 6.2-12 Deletion Page 4 --
6.2-19 I --
6.2-20
() Chapter 7 4 7-i, 7-11 7-i, 7-11 1 7.1 7.1-20 7.1 7.1-20 7.1 7.1-36 7.1 7.1-33 Chapter 11 11.1 11.1-4 11.1 11.1-4 i Chapter 12 r
12.1-2 12.1-2 12.1-3 12.1-3 12.2-1,.12.2-2 12.2-1, 12.2-2
--- 12.2-2a Appendix A t
1 Remove entire Appendix A Deletion Page 4
f O
i j W2/aa/B261 2 Amendment 9
Remove Pages Insert Paces Appendix B B-iii B B-6 B B-6 B B-9 Deletion Page B-10 _B-13 Deletion Page Figures B-1 B-1 (Deletion Page)
Appendix C C-81 C-81 Appendix E E-if E-il E-2 E-2 Appendix G (Insert the following at-the end of Appendix F.
A tab for Appendix G will be provided Later).
-- App. G - Cover Sheet
--- G-ii
-- G G-40 Note: Pages without Amendment 9 change bars have been issued for one or more of the following reasons:
Correction of typographical errors Editorial Changes Page number corrections Information carried over to a new page O
W2/aa/B261 3 Amendment 9
- - -. . .-- . . = . -- - . . .. - - - - . - . -. - . - - -
7 STP ER
.O-
- '(,,) TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page 4.3.2 Land Commitments 4.3-1 4.3.3 Vegetation and Wildlife 4.3-2 4.3.4. Commitment of Water Resources 4.3-2 4
CHAPTER 5--ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION 5.1 Effects of Op'eration of Heat Dissipation System 5.5-1 5.2 Radiological Impact on Biota Other Than Man 5.2-1 5.2.1 Exposure Pathways 5.2-1 5.2.2 Radioactivity in the Environment 5.2-1 5.2.3 Dose Rate Estimates 5.2-2
! 5.3 Radiological Impact on Man 5.3-1 -
5.3.1 Exposure Pathways 5.3-1 5.3.2 Liquid Effluents 5.3-2 5.3.3 Gaseous Effluents 5.3-3 5.3.4 Direct Radiation Doses 5.3-4 9
5.3.5 Summary.of Annual Radiation Doses 5.3-5 a
5.3.A Calculation of Annual Average Radionuclide O Concentrations in the STP Cooling Reservoir and the Colorado River 5.3.A-1 5.4 Effects of Chemical and Biocide Discharges 5.4-1 4 5.4.1 Dissolved Solids 5.4-1 5.4.2 Cleaning Wastes 5.4-1 1 5.4.3 Biocide System 5.4-2 t
5.4.4 Effects 5.4-2 5.5 Effects of Sanitary and Other Waste Discharges 5.5-1 5.5.1 Effects of Sanitary Waste ~ 5.5-1 5.5.2 Effects of Other Waste Discharges (Gaseous :
Effluents) 5.5-1 I 5.6 Effects of Operation and Maintenance of the
- Transmissions System 5.6-1 5.7 Other Effects 5.7-1 5.8 Resources Committed 5.8-1
- 5.9 Decommissioning and Dismantling 5.9-1 l CHAPTER 6--EFFLLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND
- MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1 ' Applicant's Preoperational Environmental Programs 6.1-2
! 6.1.1 Surface Waters 6.1-2 l 6.1.2 Groundwater 6.1-14 '
i !
i
! 111 Amendment 9
~ . . , , _ . - , , - . _ , _ _ _ _ . . . - . _ _ . , , _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ , . . . . . . - . . _ - _ . , _ - . _ _ - . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . - - .
STP ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page 6.1.3 Air 6.1-19 6.1.4 Land 6.1-29 6.1.5 Radiological Surveys 6.1-45 6.1-A An Empirical Model for Determining the Salinity Distribution in the Colorado River 6.1-97 6.1-B Mathematical Dispersion Models for Heated Discharges 6.1-98 6.1-C Mathematical Models to Predict Seepage from Cooling Reservoirs 6.1-96 6.2 Applicant's Proposed Operational Monitoring 6.2-1 6.2.1 Radiological Monitoring 6.2-1 6.2.2 Chemical Effluent Monitoring 6.2-7 6.2.3 Thermal Effluent Monitoring 6.2-8 6.2.4 Meteorological Monitoring 6.2-9 6.2.5 Nonradiological Ecological Monitoring 6.2-9 6.3 Related Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs 6.3-1 CHAPTER 7--ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 7.1 Plant Accidents Involving Radioactivity 7.1-1 7.1.1 Introduction 7.1-1 7.1.2 Meteorology 7.1-1 7.1.3 Dose Calculation Methodology 7.1-2 7.1.4 Accident Discussion 7.1-3 7.1.5 Summary of Environmental Consequences 7.1-17 7.2 Other Accidents 7.2-1 7.2.1 Chemical Accidents 7.2-1 7.2.2 Failure of Cooling Reservoir Embankment 7.2-1 CHAPTER 8--BENEFITS AND COSTS 8.1 Benefits 8.1-1 8.1.1 Primary Benefits--Energy Sales 8.1-1 8.1.2 Other Social and Economic Benefits 8.1-2 8.2 Costs 8.2-1 8.2.1 Internal Costs 8.2-1 8.2.2 Temporary External Costs 8.2-1 8.2.3 Long-Term External Costs 8.2-4 CHAPTER 9--ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 7 CHAPTER 10--PLANT DESICN ALTERNATIVES O iv Amendment 7
STP ER
( TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
CHAPTER 11--
SUMMARY
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 11.1 Introduction 11.1-1 11.2 Economic Benefits 11.2-1 11.2.1 Primary Benefits 11.2-1 11.2.2 Other Social and Economic Benefits 11.2-1 11.3 Economic Costs 11.3-1 11.4 Environmental Benefits 11.4-1 11.5 Environmental Costs 11.5-1 11.6 Net Effects of South Texas Project 11.6-1 11.7 Conclusions 11.7-1 CHAPTER 12--ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATION 12.1 Introduction 12.1-1
) 12.2 Agency Approvals 12.2-1 12.2.1 Federal Agency Approvals 12.2-1 12.2.2 Texas Licenses, Perm.t and Other Approvals 12.2-2 12.2.3 local Agencies 12.2-4 12.3 Transmission System Controls 12.3-1 CHAPTER 13--REFERENCES 7
CHAPTER 14--
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS TAKEN APPENDIX A--DELETED 9 APPENDIX B--BASIC DATA FOR SOURCE TERM CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C--RESPONSES TO NRC JULY 5, 1978, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPENDIX D--RESPONSES TO NRC OCTOBER 9, 1978, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPENDIX E--RESPONSES TO NRC APRIL 28, 1982, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 9 O -
v Amendment 9
STP ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page APPENDIX F--RESPONSES TO NRC JANUARY 4, 1985 AND FEBRUARY 11, 1985, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 9
APPENDIX G--RESPONSES TO NRC MAY 16, 1985, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION O
O g Amendment 9
STP ER
-m v
) LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page 1.1-1 Deleted 1.1-2 Deleted 1.1-3 Deleted 1.1-4 Deleted 7 1.1-5 Deleted 1.1-6 Deleted 1.1-7 Deleted 2.2-1 Population Distribution - 1985, 1990, 2000 2010, 2020, 2030 - South Texas Project 2.2-7 2.2-2 Schools Within 10 Miles of the South Texas Project 2.2-13 2.4-1 Gas and 011 Production Fields Within 5 Miles of the South Texas Site 2.4-3 2.5-1 River Water Temperature: USGS Gage Colorado River Near Wharton, Texas 2.5-3 2.5-2 Little Robbins Slough: Changes in Drainage
/~'N Characteristics Due to Reservoir Construction 2.5-5
\ l
'~
2.6-1 Joint Frequency Distribution--All Observations 2.6-2 2.6-2 Joint Frequency Distribution--Extremely Unstable (A) 2.6-3 2.6-3 Joint Frequency Distribution--Moderately Unstable (B) 2.6-4 2.6-4 Joint Frequency Distribution--Slightly Unstable (C) 2.6.5 2.6-5 Joint Frequency Distribution--Neutral (D) 2.6.6 2.6-6 Joint Frequency Distribution--Slightly Stable (E) 2.6-7 2.6-7 Joint Frequency Distribution--Moderately Stable (F) 2.6-8 2.6-8 Joint Frequency Distribution--Extremely Stable (G) 2.6-9 2.6-9 Wind Speed Persistence--All Observations 2.6-10 2.6-10 Wind Speed Persistence--Extremely Unstable (A) 2.6-11 2.6-11 Wind Speed Persistence--Moderately Unstable (B) 2.6-12 2.6-12 Wind Speed Persistence--Slightly Unstable (C) 2.6-13 2.6-13 Wind Speed Persistence--Neutral (D) 2.6-14 2.6-14 Wind Speed Persistent 4--Slightly Stable (E) 2.6-15 2.6-15 Wird Speed Persistence--Moderately Stable (F) 2.6-16 2.6-16 Wind Speed Persistence--Extremely Stable (G) 2.6-17 2.6-17 Vind Speed Persictence--All Observations 2.6-18 2.6-18 Wind Speed Persistence--Extremely Unstable (A) 2.6-19
[ ) 2.6-19 Wind Speed Persistence--Moderately
'n / Unstable (B) 2.6-20 Amendment 7
)
STP ER y) LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Title Pm 6.1-1 Water Chemistry and Physical Parameters, Major Field and Laboratory Studies 6.1-62 6.1-2 Water Chemistry and Physical Parameters, Minor Field and Laboratory Studies 6.1-63 6.1-3 Water Quality Parameters and Methods of Analysis 6.1-64 6.1-4 Major Ecological Characterization Survey Measurements 6.1-66 6.1-5 Minor Ecological Characterization Survey Measurements 6.1-67 6.1-6 Schedule of Cear Utilization (X) for Sampling of Fish and Associated Organism at Each Sampling Station (STP 1973-1974) 6.1-68 6.1-7 Water Quality Parameters and Methods of Analysis 6.1-69 6.1-8 Meteorological Instrumentation for STP Onzite Meteorological Monitoring 7
Program (Operation) 6.1-70 6.1-9 Data Collection and Recording Equipment STP Onsite Meteorological Monitoring Program (Operation) 6.1-71 6.1-10 Vertical T Stability categories 6.1-72
\ 6.1-11 STP Terrestrial Sampling Schedule, 1973-1974 6.1-73 6.1-12 Number and Location of Vegetation Sample Plots and Season of Sampling 6.1-74 6.1-13 Mammal Sampling Locations, Habitats and Dates 6.1-79 6.1-14 Summary of Locations and Number of Bird Study Areas 6.1-81 6.1-15 Specific Bird Census Techniques by Taxonomic Group and Season 6.1-84 6.1-16 Preoperational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 6.1-85 6.1-17 Detection capabilities for Environmental Sample Analysis 6.1-90 6.1-18 A-Weighted Sound Pressure Levels or Common Situation 6.1-92 6.1-19 Aquifer Test Summary 6.1-93 6.1-20 Sector X/Q Values at STP 6.1-94 6.1-21 STP X/Q Values (SEC/M )
Based on T (60m-10m) 6.1-95 6.1-22 Annual Average Ground Level X/Q Values 7 at the Site Boundary Ground Level Release 6.1-96 6.1-23 Average Meteorological Relative Concentration Analysis 6.1-97 6.2-1 Minimum Operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 6.2-13 x1 Amendment 7
/
STP ER LIST OF TABLES (Continued) f Number Title Page 7.1-1 Accident Analyzed in the Environmental Report 7.1-20 7.1-2 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Individual Dose Calculations 7.1-22 7.1-3 Deleted 9 7.1-4 Primary and Secondary Equilibrium Activities 7.1-24 7.1-5 Activity Release to the Environment for Class 3.0 Accidents 7.1-25 7.1-6 Activity Release to the Environment for Class 5.0 Accidents 7.1-26 7.1-7 Activity Release to the Environment for Class 6.0 Accidents 7.1-27 7.1-8 Activity Release to the Environment for Class 7.0 Accidents 7.1-28 7.1-9 Activity Release to the Environment for Small Primary System Pipe Break, Class 8.1 7.1-29 7.1-10 Activity Release to the Environment for Small Primary System Pipe Break, Class 8.2 7.1-30 7.1-11 Activity Release to the Environment for Large Steamline Break, Class 8.5 7.1-31 7.1-12 Summary of Doses Resulting from Accidents 7.1-32 7.1-13 Activity Release to the Environment for Small Steamline Break 7.1-33 ,
7.1-14 Summary of Doses Resulting from Accidents 7.1-34 7.2-1 Chemicals Stored Onsite 7.2-6 8.1-1 Estimated Annual Generation and Sales Derived from the South Texas Project 8.1-5 8.1-2 Estimated Annual Generation and Sales Derived from the South Texas Project (COA) 8.1-6 8.1-3 Estimated Annual Generation and Sales Derived from the South Texas Project (CPS) 8.1-7 8.1-4 Estimated Annual Generation and Sales Derived from the South Texas Project (CPL) 8.1-8 8.1-5 Estimated Annual Generation and Sales Derived from the South Texas Project (HL&P) 8.1-9 8.1-6 Estimated Revenues Discounted to Year Site Begins Commercial Operation 8.1-10 8.1-7 Estimate of Major STP Property Tax Payments by Jurisdiction Houston Lighting & Power Company and Central Power & Light Company 8.1-11 8.1-8 Estimated Annual Dollar Value Added in Manu-facturing Industries Made Possible by Sales to Manufacturing Originating in the South Texas Project Station 8.1-12 8.1-9 Project Value as a Percentage of Total Taxable Value Major STP Jurisdictions 1984 8.1-14 O
xil Amendment 9
i 4
STP ER ;
4
' ' l
). FIGURES I
[ Number Title i f i 1.1-1 Deleted i 1.1-2 Deleted L 1.1-3 Deleted i 1.1-4 Deleted 1.1-5 Deleted 7
- 1.1-6 Deleted 1.1-7 Deleted j 1.1-8 Deleted
)
1.3-1 Deleted 1.3-2 Deleted 2.1-1 Region Surrounding the South Texas Project 2.1-2 Immediate Environs of the South Texas Project 2.1-3 Aerial Photo of Site and Surrounding Areas 2.1-4 Site Layout and Surrounding Areas 2.1-5 Site Boundary, Restricted Area, and Exclusion Area 4 2.1-6 Abutting and Adjacent Properties and Nearby i Developments 2.1-7 Site Development Plan
) 2.2-0 Area Residences Within 4 Miles Off-Site of the Plant Boundary 2.2-1 Population Distribution, 1985 2.2-2 Population Distribution, 1990 2.2-3 Population Distribution, 2000 9
2.2-4 Population Distribution, 2010 1 2.2-5 Population Distribution, 2020
- 2.2-6 Population Distribution, 2030 t 2.2-7 Schools, Parks, and Recreation Areas j Within 10 Miles 2.6-1 Gross Wind Rose
! 2.6-1 Gross Wind Rose, Victoria 1
2.6-3 Gross Wind Rose, Corpus Christi i
! 2.7 1 Land Resources Areas of Texas i
2.7-2 Vegetational Areas of Texas I 2.7-3 Soil Survey 2.7-4 Vegetation and Land Use Types of
- the Proposed Site With Vegetation l l Sample Areas Superimposed t
! 2.7-5 Map of the Lower Colorado River Showing sampling Stations I
t xv Amendment 9 i
l
STP ER FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title 2.7-6 Location of Trawl and Plankton Tow and Seine Stations 1, 2 3, and 5 Phase One Colorado River Entrainment Study (STP 1975-1976), Arrows Direction of Tows 2.7-7 Deleted 2.7-8 Prime Farmland Soils 3.1-1 Plant Profile, East Elevation 3.1-2 Plant Profile, West Elevation 3.1-3 Plant Profile, North Elevation 3.1-4 Plant Profile, South Elevation 3.1-5 Site Region 3.1-6 Plot Plan 3.2-1 Nuclear Steam Supply System Flow Diagram 3.2-2 Rated Power Heat Balance 3.4-1 Site Layout 3.4-2 Reservoir Makeup Facilities 3.4-3 Typical Traveling Vater Screen at Makeup Intake Structure 3.4-4 Plan View Section Typical Traveling Water Screen at Makeup Intake Structure 3.4-5 Makeup Water Discharge Structure 3.4-6 Essential Cooling Pond Layout and Section l9 3.5-la Piping Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System (Sheet 1 of 6) 3.5-lb Piping Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing Syster. (Sheet 2 of 6) 3.5-Ic Piping Diagram: Liquid Vaste Processing Systea (Sheet 3 of 6) 3.5-id Piping Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System (Sheet 4 of 6) 3.5-le Piping Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System, Vaste Evaporator Package (Sheet 5 of 6) 3.5-lf Piping Diagram: Liquid Vaste Processing System, Hiscellaneous Support System (Sheet 6 of 6) 3.5-2 Process Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System 3.5-3 Gaseous and Airtorne Waste Processing System: Flow Diagram 3.5-4 Piping Diagram: Gaseous Vaste Processing System O
xvi Amendment 9
l STP ER O
3 ) FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title 3.5-5 Reactor Containment HVAC System: Composite Diagram 3.5-6 Reactor Containment HVAC Normal Purge Subsystem 3.5-7 Reactor Containment HVAC Supplementary Purge Subsystem
. 3.5-8 Reactor Containment HVAC Penetration Exhaust Subsystem 3.5-9 Reactor Containment HVAC Miscellaneous Supplementary Subsystem 3.5-10 Mechanical Auxiliary Building HVAC Supply Subsystem 3.5-11 Mechanical Auxiliary Building HVAC Flow Diagram 3.5-12 Mechanical Auxiliary Building HVAC Supplementary Subsystem Diagram 3.5-13 Mechanical Auxiliary Building HVAC Exhaust Subsystem Diagram 3.5-14 Turbine Generator Building HVAC System Flow Diagram 3.5-15 Piping Diagram: Condenser Evacuation System O, 3.5-16 Fuel Handling Building HVAC Supply Subsystem Diagram 3.5-17 Fuel Handling Building HVAC Exhaust Subsystem Diagram 3.5-18 Station Air Intake and Emission Diagram 3.5-19 Station HVAC S, stems Composite Air Flow Diagram 3.5-20 Process Flow Diagram solid Waste Processing System 3.8-1 Deleted 9
3.9-1 STP Transmission Cask -
4.1-1 Deleted 4.1-2 Deleted 4.1-3 Construction Sound Measurement Sampling Locations 4.2-1 STP Transmission Routes 4.2-2 STP Transmission Line--Site to Blessing 4.2-3a STP Transmission Line--Tie Point to Holman 4.2-3b STP Transmission Line--Tie Point to Holman 4.2-3c STP Transmission Line--Tie Point to Holman 5.2-1 Ceneralized Pathways for Biota Other Than Man xvii Amendment 9
STP ER FICURES (Continued)
Number Title 5.3-1 Generalized Pathways for Man 5.3-2 Undeveloped Prime Farmland 5.3.A-1 Conceptual Mass Flow Diagram for Calculation of Radionuclide Concentrations--Operating Conditions 5.3.A-la Site Drainage Plan 5.3.A-lb Drainage Plan, Northeast Area 5.3.A-lc Drainage Plan, Eastern Side 5.3.A-ld Drainage Plan, Southern Side 5.3.A-le Drainage Plan, Northwest Area 5.3.A-2 Model for Mass Flow Diagram--Operating Conditions 6.1-1 Map of the Lower Colorado River Showing Sampling Stations 6.1-la Little Robbins Slough Slough Marsh Complex Sampling Stations 6.1-2 Location of Contit.uous Monitoring Stations 6.1-3 Pump Test and Piezometer Locatlon Map 6.1-4 Borehole Depth Chart 6.1-5 Typical Piezometer Installation 6.1-6 Borehole Location Map 6.1-7 Location of Meteorological Tower 6.1-8 Site Exploration Plan 6.1-9 Power Station Plan, Foundation Borings 6.1-10 Power Station Plan, Other Subsurface Exploration 6.1-11 Essential Cooling Pond, Subsurface Explorations 6.1-12 Base Map of Site with 100m Crid Superimposed 6.1-13 Location of Sampling Areas for Vegetation, Mammals and Birds 6.1-14 Site Layout Map in Relation to Location of Sampling Areas for Vegetation, Mammals and Birds 6.1-15 Areas Accessible or Terrestrial Ecological Studies at the Time of the First Quantitative Sampling period, July 30 - August 1973 6.1-16 Areas Accessible for Terrestrial Ecological Studies at the Time of the November 12-19, 1973 Sampling Period 6.1-17 Generalized Design of Nested Plots for Vegeta-tion Sampling 6.1-18 Bird Study Areas 6.1-19 Comparison of MIT and CRFP Model Predictions for Convective Plus Evaporative Heat Exchange 6.1-20 Distribution of Predictions between CRFP and MIT Model Fredictionc for Thermal Performance 6.1-21 Irrigated Crops 6.1-22 Location of Preoperational Radiological Monitoring Stations xviii Amendment 7
STP ER FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title 6.1-23 Alligator Transect Locations 6.1-24 White Tailed Deer Observation Points-and Transect Line A-B 6.2-1 Mcation of Operational Radiological Monitoring Stations 6.2-2 Location of Nonradiological Aquatic Monitoring Stations 9
0 O
Amendment 9 xviii(a) l
STP ER TABLES (Continued)
.O-N/'
Number Title Page 2.7-18 Number, Size Range, and Weight of Important Commercial and Sport Species Taken at Gill Net Stations During July Through September 2.7-35 2.7-19 Catch'by Species and Stations of Less Abundant Fishes Taken by Trawl and Seine During June, August, and October 2.7-35 2.7-20 Number of Individuals of Less Abundant Species of Fish Taken at Gill Net Stations, July Through December 2.7-35 2.7-21 Scientific and Common Names of Macroinverte-brates Collected in Trawl (June, August, October), Seine (October), and Gill Net (July-December) 2.7-35 2.7-22 Invertebrate Species Captured by Trawl and
, Seine During June, August, and October 2.7-35 2.7-23 List of Avifauna Likely To Occur in the
[')
\s-Open Water Marshes of Little Robbins Slough, with Notation of Species Observed During 2.7-35 1973-1974 2.7-24 Amphibians and Reptiles Likely To Occur in Open Water Marsh Area of Littic Robbins Slough 2.7-35 2.7-25 A List of Mammals Likely To Occur in the Open Marsh Area of Little Robbins Slough 2.7-35
/
O 2-v
STP ER FIGURES Number Title 2.1-1 Region Surrounding the South Texas Project 2.1-2 Immediate Environs of the South Texas Project 2.1-3 Aerial Photo of Site and Surrounding Area 2.1-4 Site Layout and Surrounding Areas 2.1-5 Site Boundary, Restricted Area, and Exclusion Area 2.1-6 Abutting and Adjacent Properties and Nearby Developments 2.1-7 Site Development Plan 2.2.0 Area Residences Within 4 Miles Off-Site of the Plant Boundary 2.2-1 Population Distribution, 1985 9 2.2-2 Population Distribution, 1990 2.2-3 Population Distribution, 2000 2.2-4 Population Distribution, 2010 2.2-5 Population Distribution, 2020 2.2-6 Population Distribution, 2030 2.2-7 Schools, Parks, and Recreation Areas Within 10 Miles 2.6-1 Gross Wind Rose 2.6-2 Gross Wind Rose, Victoria 2.6-3 Gross Wind Rose, Corpus Christi 2.7-1 Land Resources Area of Texas 2.7-2 Vegetational Areas of Texas 2.7-3 Soil Survey 9
2-vi Amendment 9
STP ER CHAPTER 2 k L),/
THE SITE 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND LAYOUT The South Texas Project (STP) is located in southwest Matagorda County, approximately 12 miles south-southwest of Bay City and 10 miles north of Matagorda Bay. The location of Unit 1 will be 96 02'53" west longitude, 28 47'42" north latitude (3,188,699 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 exclusion area and railroad spur are also shown.
The exclusion area is an oval shaped area, having a minimum boundary distanco from the center of each containment building of 1430 meters. The center of p_s the exclusion area " oval" is a point 93 meters directly west of the center of
- ) the Unit 2 reactor containment building. The point is also the center of the 5 N - '
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 adjacent to the western boundary of the site. Figure 2.1-4a shows an approximately 10-acre area north of Exotic Isle and west of the Colorado River that is not part of the STP property. 8 A High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) terminal will be operated by Central Power Light Company on a 17 acre tract in the exclusion area which will be 6 leased to the HVDC Project by the owners of STP. The HVDC terminal is shown in Figure 2.1-4.
l7 An Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and 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 textured concrete blocks. The EOC will be 8 staffed only during emergency situations. A staff of 55 persons will be Q310.1 maintained at the Training Facility. The facilities are located on Figure 2.1-5.
The abutting and adjacent properties as well as developments near the site are shown on Figure 2.1-6.
\_j 2.1-1 Amendment 9
STP ER The local relief of the area is characterized by fairly flat land, approxi-c:tely 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 Kally 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 ca a broad band parallel to the Texas Gulf Coast. Of the approximately 50,240 ceres within a"5-mile radius of the site, bottomland comprises 19 percent; the rcmaining 81 percent is upland. The bottomland includes 52 percent cleared 1:nd and 48 percent wooded area, most of which, with the exception of two crall islands, is classified as agricultural. The upland consists of 91 parcent cleared agricultural land, 8 percent woodlands, and 1 percent industrial.
Major road access to the site is from farm-to-market road (FM) 521 and 7 (FM) 1468. FM 1468 intersec.ts FM 521 approximately 350 feet west of the main g c:nstruction plant entrance intersection. The site development plan, shown on Figure 2.1-7, reflects the major features of plant development. The main clement 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 n ar the Gulf, some hunting is done along the lower reaches of the river.
R:creational 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 Colorado River from the site. The area between the cooling reservoir and the C:lorado 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 crea of riparian influence, that area is a natural lowland habitat and will be ellowed 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-cpment and operaticn are provided at the visitors' center.
O 2.1-2 Amendmen 8
STP ER b
v 2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY, LAND, AND WATER USE 2.2.1 Population and Population Distribution 2.2.1.1 Poculation Within 10 Miles. Figure 2.2-1 shows the 1985 population distribution within 10 miles of the STP. These population data reflect information collected by field surveys in 1984 and 1985. Figures 2.2-2 through 2.2-6 show corresponding projected populations for the years 1990, 9 2000, 2010, 2020 and 2030. The population projections were developed using a linear annualized growth rate (Ref. 2.2-11). This data is also presented in tabular form in Table 2.2-1.
The closest incorporated communities are Bay City and Palacios. Both, however, are outside the 10-mile radius. The nearest full-time residence is in the west-southwest sector approximately 12,600 feet from the reactors.
Two developments, Selkirk Island and Exotic Isle,'are located approximately 4 miles southeast of the reactor containment buildings. Selkirk Island is a 1,100-acre island development operated as a community. The project includes 420 homesites of which 401 are within five miles of the STP. 7 The other development, Exotic Isle, is a much smaller area and is a resort /
retirement complex. The island is divided into 84 lots. Together the deve-lopments represent 504 home or retirement sites (Ref. 2.2-10). The 7 resort /home/ retirement nature of the development makes them primarily recreational facilities. Selkirk Island provides, for its residents, boating, fishing, and hunting capabilities along with a swimming pool. During the hd warmer months, approximately 35 people per day use the swimming facilities (Ref. 2.2-5). There are three piers, 45, 40, and 30 feet in length, maintained for the use of residents of Selkirk Island. It is expected that approximately eight boats can dock at the facility at any one time.
Approximately 25 boats per day during weekends are launched from the boat ramp at Selkirk (Ref. 2.2-5). Seven duck blinds are maintained for hunting activities, and fishing is done from individual properties. Approximately 75 hunters use the facilities during the 3-month season. Selkirk Island provides a 5-acre marina for the use of property owners.
The subdivision development of Citrus Grove, 4 miles southwest of the site, has 15 dwellings consisting of 9 occupied houses and 6 mobile homes. The yI remaining land is being offered for sale in 400-acre lots. Robbins Ranch, 4.5 miles south of the site, was planned to be developed as small irrigated farms; however, these plans have not materialized. There are no seasonal or perma-nent dwellings in the area. There are 14 seasonal owellings on the Exotic Isle development. Excluding Selkirk Island and Exotic Isle, there are 40 7 occupied dwellings (including mobile homes) located within five miles of the STP. Population data for these developments are included in the population wheels on Figures 2.2-1 through 2.2-6.
Since most people purchasing homesites in the developments are dof )
retirement investments, a number of people may reside in these hok .p ally until their retirement. See Figure 2.1-6 for location of the s g ,,
Island Exotic Isle developments with respect to the plant site.
O 2.2-1 Amendment 9
STP ER 2.2.1.2 Population Between 10 and 50 Miles. The population projections for 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020 and 2030 between 10 and 50 miles from the STP were lh determined in accordance with the method described below. These projections are shown on Figures 2.2-2 through 2.2-6, and are shown in tabular form in Table 2.2-1.
The population projections were developed using 1970 and 1980 final Census Data with Rice Center's Rural Growth Allocation Model developed for this work by Rice Center / Dames & Moore in 1980/1981 (Ref. 2.2-7), and updated for the STP project in 1982 (Ref. 2.2-8). The 1970 and 1980 final Census Data were obtained for the eight counties located within 50 miles of the STP: Brazoria, Calhoun, Colorado, Fort Bend, Jackson, Matagorda, Victoria and Wharton.
Census tract or minor census division data were compiled. Land use data, growth conditions and study area control totals were updated to reflect recent changes. The Growth Allocation model (Ref. 2.2-7) was then " calibrated" on the 1970-1980 base period by adjusting attractiveness factors in each of the census tracts to match each tract's share of growth during the base period.
Forecasts were then made for the eight-county region.
The areal proportion of each tract within each sector was measured. For tracts without significant urban population, it was assumed the population was evenly distributed. Ucban populations located in more than one sector were allocated in proportio.; to the 1980 census population to the tracts containing the urban area. The proportion was considered a constant for projections to 2030.
2.2.1.3 Transient Population 2.2.1.3.1 Visitor's Center: As previously discussed in Section 2.1, a visitor's information center has been constructed east of the STP site.
(Figure 2.1-5.)
2.2.1.3.2 Migrant Labor Force: A recent inquiry of the Matagorda County Agricultural Extension agent and the Texas Employment Commission revealed that there are no migrant workers within 10 miles of the plant. The mechanized nature of agriculture of the county has minimi=ed hand labor (Ref. 2.2-10) .
2.2.1.3.3 Seasonal Homes: According to information published by the Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas State Data Center, and the 1980 U.S.
Census of Housing, there were 381 vacant seasonal and migratory housing units in Matagorda County in 1980. The resort / retirement communities of Selkirk Island and Exotic Isle located 3.5 miles southeast of the plant area provide the only seasonal dwelling within 5 miles of the site. These two developments represent a total of about 30 seasonal dwellings and 120 permanent dwellings (Ref. 2.2-10).
2.2.1.4 Population Center. The nearest " population center," as defined in 10CFR100, is the city of Victoria, Texas, which has a 1980 population of 50,695. Its nearest corporate boundary is 59 miles vest of the plant.
Projections indicate, however, that the population of Bay City will exceed 25,000 by the year 2010. For this reason Bay City has been designated as the population center. The distance to Bay city, approximately 12 miles, is considerably greater than the distance required by 10CFR100, i.e., 1-1/3 times the low population zone distance.
2.2-2 Amendment 9
STP ER I ) 2.2.1.5 Public Facilities and Institutions. Two surveys, one in July 1973
's / and a second in October 1977, were conducted to determine existing and planned public facilities and institutions such as schools, hospitals, prisons, and parks within 10 miles of the plant. an assessment of socioeconomic conditions, completed in 1980, updated some of the information provided in the 1973 and 1977 surveys. The results of the surveys and assessment are reflected in the subsections below.
2.2.1.5.1 Schools: There are no schools within 5 miles of the site. Schools within 10 miles of the plant are listed in Table 2.2-1 and indicated on Figure 2.2-7. Only three schools are within 10 miles of the plant: Tidehaven High School (8 miles NNW) and Tidehaven Intermediate School (8.5 miles NNW), both located in El Maton, Texas, and Matagorda Elementary School in Matagorda, Texas (8 miles SE). Four schools in Palacios are just over 10 miles from the plant; Palacios High School, Palacios Junior High School, Eastside Elementary School, and Central Elementary School (Ref. 2.2-1). The institution of higher education closest to the plant is Wharton County Junior College, 37 miles to the north.
2.2.1.5.2 Hospitals: There are no hospitals within 10 miles of the plant.
The only hospital facilities within the county are Matagorda General Hospital located in Bay City and Wagner General Hospital in Palacios. The Matagorda , --
General Hospital has three surgical rooms and 116 beds (Ref. 2.2-9). Included in the facility is a 28-bed convalescent center. Also located in Bay City is the Bay Villa Convalescent home. This facility, with a 106-bed capacity, 3,-
provides convalescent nursing facilities to area residents. The Matagorda
,s County Health Department is located in the county courthouse and maintains a
( ) staff which includes one registered nurse and one health inspector (Ref. 2.2-1 V and 2.2-2).
Wagner General Hospital in Palacios provides general medical and surgical facilities for persons in the southwestern end of the county. The hospital has a 43-bed capacity and staff of 59 (Ref. 2.2-5 and 2.2-9).
2.2.1.5.3 Prisons: There are no prisons within 10 miles of the plant site (Ref. 2.2-1).
2.2.1.5.4 Parks and Recreational Areas: Parks and other recreational areas within 10 miles of the plant are indicated on Figure 2.2-7. The recreational facilities closest to the site are all privately owned. Oliver's Bait Camp (1) (numbers refer to Figure 2.2-7), 10 miles east-southeast of the plant, has 2 acres of land providing boating and fishing facilities. Old Box Factory (2), 10 miles east-southeast of the plant, also has 2 acres of land and also provides boating facilities. Carlton's Park (3), 10 miles southeast of the plant, has 2 acres of land and has boating and fishing facilities (Ref.
2.2-4). The U. S. Fish and Wildiffe Service has plans to purchase or lesse the Mad Island Marsh Complex south of the site to preserve it as a prime waterfowl wintering area (Ref. 2.2-6).
2.2.1.5.5 Diversion Pro 1ect at the Mouth of the Colorado River: The project is situated on the Texas Coastline approximately one mile south of Matagorda (see Figure 2.2-8). The river diversion features are to be located in Matagorda Bay and the Colorado River delta adjacent to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (CIWW) near the town of Matagorda.
2.2-3 Amendment 9
STP ER The project, initiated in May, 1984 and projected to be completed in the summer of 1988, is intended to enhance the Bay's commercial productivity and take advantage of incider.tal opportunities to provide flood control and reduce navigation hazards and navigation maintenance dredging. Project details and impacts are discussed in the Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact Statement, March 1981, 2.2.1.5.6 Zoning: Mat agorda County and Bay City do not have isnd use zoning l9 regulations or a planning commission. The only land use regulations within the county are deed rrstrictions for subdivisions. The county government for Matagorda County is a county commission made up of four precincts, each having a county commissioner. The STP is located in Precinct 3. No building permit was required for the STP site.
2.2.2 USE OF ADJACINT LANDS AND WATERS The most important industry in Matagorda County is agriculture. The 1982 Census of Agriculture indicates that approximately 188,500 acres of land in Matagorda County are in harvested cropland. Approximately 60,500 acres in the county were irrigated in 1982.
Crop productior. in Matagorda County includes grain sorghum, rice, corn, wheat, cotton, soybes.ts, and turf grass. The 1984 planted acreages for the various crops in Mata;orda County are as follows:
Grain Sorghum 75,372 ac.
Corn 14,152 ac.
Cotton 3,939 ac. 7 Rice 39,113 ac.
Wheat 3,589 ac.
Soybeans 17,212 ac.
Turf Crass (estimate) 17,000 ac.
Acreage Conservation Reserve (set aside acreage) 18,187 ac.
As indicated above, almost twice as much grain sorghum as rice was grown in the county in 1984. The total value of agricultural products sold in Matagorda County in 1982 was in excess of $54,000,000 with grain crops accounting for over $37,000,000.
O 2.2-4 Amendment 9
STP ER REFERENCES Section 2.2:
2.2-1 NUS Corporation, Demonrachv. Land and Water use Survey, (Rockville, Maryland, 1973).
2.2-2 Bay City Chamber of Commerce, Matanorda County Fact Book (Bay City, Texas, 1971).
-2.2-3 American Hospital Association, The AHA Guide to Health Care-Field (1971).
2.2-4 Houston-Galveston Area Council, Parks Recreation and Ooen Space (1971).
2.2-5 Brown & Root, Inc., 1977 Demonrachv. Land and Water Use Survey, (Houston, Texas).
2.2-6 U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Wetland Preservation Program, Category 8, Texas Gulf Coast (March 1977).
2.2-7 Rice Center, 18 County Population and Emoloyment Forecast, (December-1980, revised January 1981).
. sm
-( 2.2-8 Rice Center, Correspondence to Dames & Moore regarding updating population forecast, (June 15, 1982). 5 2.2-9 NUS Corporation, Revised Assessment of Socioeconomic Conditions at the South Texas Proiect, (Rockville, Maryland, 1980).
2.2-10 Espey, Hutson and Associates, Inc., Correspondence to HL&P updating socio-economic information, (October, 1984). 7 2.2-11 Espey, Huston and Associates, Inc., Correspondence to HL&P regarding updating population forecast, (August, 1985). 9 I'r O
, 2.2-6 Amendment 9
STP ER
't
(%
e oO "3
o o 'ERh4$3X a m- "RANEg%
--m 5
g NEE 6UE36 *EE$$k* $
m R
2 g' ;! G "#2:252 y r
\
e 5 j n :
y n
-[ oooomg3oooouooo; g
, , u e - -
-A E E -
!e a -
. 1 a w
a y' =N
~
a
- y
. - m o 4 aooooooooomoooo g ,E 4
~
E E "
oooooooooooooooo o l
i 5 C
I
- oooooooooooooooo o i-f B
W "IW!"5WN"!Rh*$3! $
l
- 2
- - (v l
i
. 2.2-7 Amendment 9 L; i
O- O O TABLE 2.2-1 (continued)
POPULATION O!STRIBUTION 1985. 1990. 2000. 2010. 2020. 2030 SOUTM TEMAS PROJECT 1990 (See Figure 2.2-2)
DIRECTION DISTANCE (Niles) 01 12 23 34 45 5-10 10 20 20-30 30-40 40-50 N 0 0 4 0 0 30 2,982 1,867 14,992 5,947 NNE 0 0 0 0 0- 90 22,707 2,298 6,893 7,719 NE 0 0 0 0 0 37 2,810 7,937 21,189 16,726 ENE 0 0 0 0- 3 482 1,889 3,509 21,856 67,308 9 E 0 0 0 2 0 47 864 1,067 0 407 ESE O 0 0 112 82 64 233 0 0 0 SE D 0 0 51 59 461 0 0 0 0 us
" 0 $
. SSE O 0 0 0 0 149 45 0 0 Y S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m SSW 0 0 0 0 2 7 171 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 0 13 64 220 0 2,027 1,453 WSW 0 0 6 2 21 120 5,334 1,592 14,096 8,797 W 0 0 0 0 12 127 642 845 1,922 4,672 WNW D 0 0 0 32 404 732 1,515 8,805 2,611 NW D 0 0 0 20 245 819 1,430 1,751 2,579 NNW 0 0 0 12 11 7 941 4,%7 13,907 3,592 TOTAL 0 0 10 179 255 2,334 40,389 27,027 107,438 121,811 k
a,,
N N
(~N U TABLE 2.2-1 (Continued)
POPULATION 015TRIBUTION - 1985. 1990. 2000. 2010. 2020. 2030 SOUTN TEMAS PROJECT
-j 2000 (See Figure 2.2-3) j
! DIRECTION DISTANCE (Miles) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40 50
, N 0 0 5 0 0 36 3,661 2,584 17,385 7,094 NNE O 0 0 0 0 107 26,651 2,392 7,957 9,416 NE O 0 0 0 0 44 2,914 9,566 25,124 21,160 ENE O 0 0 0 4 576 2,201 4,198 26,855 79,928 .
E O O 0 3 0 56 1,153 1,425 0 431 ESE 0 0 0 134 98 77 312 0 0 0 9 SE O 0 0 61 70 550 0 0 0 0 g f SSE O O O O 0 178 60 0 0 0 Q
y S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g
- SSW 0 0 0 0 3 8 201 0 0 0 W SW 0 0 0 0 16 77 259 0 2,234 1,679 WSW 0 0 7 3 25 143 6,227 1,653 14,383 11,254 W 0 0 0 0 15 151 801 974 2,426 5,140 WNW 0 0 0 0 38 481 944 1,840 9,146 3,125 NW 0 0 0 0 24 292 1,056 1,606 2,409 2,762 NNW 0 0 0 15 13 8 1,169 5,749 16,111 4,159 TOTAL 0 0 12 216 306 2,784 47,609 31,987 123,670 146,148 e
a
? -
e
O O O TABLE 2.2-1 (Continued)
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION - 1985, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030 SOUTN TEMAS PROJECT 2010 (See Figure 2.2 4) i 4
DIRECTION DISTANCE (Niles) f 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10 20 20-30 30-40 40-50 N 0 0 6 0 0 43 4,323 3,080 19,910 8,211 WNE O 0 0 0 0 128 31,240 2,409 9,338 11,163 NE 0 0 0 0 0 52 2,946 11,120 29,512 26,149 ENE O 0 0 0 5 687 2,499 4,955 32,597 93,355 E O O 0 3 0 66 1,457 1,800 0 460 9
ESE O O 0 160 117 92 393 0 0 0 m g SE 0 0 0 73 84 657 0 0 0 0 Q y SSE O 0 0 0 0 212 75 0 0 0 m W
1 O
S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 .0 3 9 240 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 0 19 92 309 0 2,444 1,905 WSW 0 0 8 3 30 171 7,113 1,725 14,709 13,773 W 0 0 0 0 17 180 977 1,111 2,944 5,614 WNW D 0 0 0 46 574 1,174 2,175 9,495 3,644 NW 0 0 0 0 28 348 1,323 1,815 2,360 2,956 NNW 0 0 0 17 16 9 1,450 6,3% 18,101 4,888 i
TOTAL 0 0 14 256 365 3,320 55,519 36,586 141,410 172,118 N
8 i
8 n
i
f h
\ ()
TABLE 2.2-1 (Continued)
POPULATION DI$TR!BUTION - 1985, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030 SOUTN TEMAS PROJECT 2020 (See Figure 2.2-5)
DIRECTION DISTANCE (Niles) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10 20 20-30 30-40 40-50 N 0 0 8 0 0 51 5,442 3,480 22,436 9,341 NNE O O O 0 0 153 35,.2% 2,539 10,924 12,883 NE O 0 0 0 0 62 3,140 12,728 34,684 30,413 ENE O O O O 6 819 2,861 5,823 38,364 106,930 E O O 0 4 0 79 1,765 2,181 0 490 9 ESE 0 0 0 191 140 109 477 0 0 0 SE O O O 87 100 783 0 0 0 0 f SSE O 0 0 0 0 253 91 0 0 0 y y S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'o
[ SSW 0 0 0 0 4 11 260 0 0 0 g SW 0 0 0 0 23 109 335 0 2,657 2,134 WSW 0 0 9 4 36 204 8,200 1,803 15,051 16,342 W 0 0 0 0 21 215 1,106 1,251 3,475 6,060 WWW 0 0 0 0 55 685 1,345 2,517 9,851 4,171 NW 0 0 0 0 34 415 1,506 2,002 2,678 3,152 NNW D 0 0 21 19 11 1,625 7,147 20,482 5,477 TOTAL 0 0 17 307 438 3,959 63,548 41,471 160,602 197,393 N
a 8
n
O O O
<- ' TABLE 2.2 1 (Continued)
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION - 1985, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030 SOUTH TEMAS PROJECT 2030 (See Figure 2.2 6) ,
O!RECTION DISTANCE (Niles) 0-1 12 2-3 34 4-5 5-10 10 20 20-30 30 40 40-50
- N 0 0 9 0, ,,0 61 6,141 4,103 24,806 10,605 NNE O 0 0 0 0 182 39,792 2,804 12,200 14,559 ME O O O 0 0 74 3,669 14,337 40,247 34,023 ENE 0 0 0 0 7 977 3,399 6,742 44,551 121,524 E O O O 5 0 95 2,100 2,594 0 525 9 ESE 0 0 0 227 167 131 567 0 0 0 SE O O 0 104 119 934 0 0 0 0 SSE O O 0 0 0 302 109 0 0 0 to f S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y y SSW 0 0 0 0 5 14 315 0 0 0 ers G SW 0 0 0 0 27 131 406 0 2.939 2,438 WSW 0 0 11 5 43 243 8,207 1,905 15,509 19,761 W 0 0 0 0 25 257 1,298 1,438 4,182 6,744 WNW 0 0 0 0 65 817 1,574 2,975 10,314 4,865 NW 0 0 0 0 41 495 1,761 2,255 3,083 3,374 NNW 0 0 0 25 23 14 1,888 7,937 21,900 5,981 TOTAL 0 0 20 366 522 4,727 71,226 47,090 179,731 224,399 N
3 8
e .
en ~
DOSSEY NNW '
CLM y w
= Jl , /~~ /
_, % NW r'
?
~ ~ ~ ,- /
/
, f,s ,
l
/ ,/ j' 8 !b' ./ \
l N T- '-- I" ~ l /
e' / t i
h O r
/ .V l nl gb f i t ,- !),g e --- -
a i s l'an i i . // I __
.J. f
__ __-__ -- .w [ _ _ A_(,)___,_ ( I _. pio I -'
ys ' t li g.. - - - - - l -
( _
,f 1 ^\ / J , v
"g ..
,, - )$
NII ,
,s' @ ,
k.. -
3
' I i e" SIMPSONVILLE\ / e aI
/- f al N ,/
- wSW -- lt i si g
J l e . x l 0 (
~i
~
/ s q '~ .. -
}( ll' t_L_,.----___ _ !
! _ l'.'"J._ _ - p ', g
\
,. i \
_ ,l
STP ER NNE \
r j -
, i :
L s NE g
s
.. g
( 1 g .
)
ENE
<o' o
s -
s' n..% T1
% , m't" / g E B.T W MILE.S y % HAW
_$ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ .nabya
, ' \ a. .
_l.
1EEMm I I I s %7 "
/ 2' ,
~. WILLOW k .
', LAKE mas me e e SITE BOUNDARY
.,d.-
ESE
,i 6 ,1 RESIDENCES WITHIN 5
J,b @ = 4 MILES OF THE PLANT SITE NEAREST FULL TIME RESIDENCE
,% TO THE PLANT SITE f$I EXOTIC ISLE Lots)
'\' N O FULL TIME RESIDENCE
' /
12 PART TIME RESIDENCES SE ,, SELKIRK ISLAND (384 LOTS) j
^/ l
' /- 96 FULL TIME RESIDENCES 11 PART TIME RESIDENCES m me as M M Amendment 9 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 AREA RESIDENCES WITHIN 4 MILES uon m 0FF-SITE OF THE PLANT BOUNDARY SCALE FIGURE 2.2-0 o 1 2 3 i
__f uit t s giiiiiiiii i i 160/070013_-OL ~~
i TOTALS !
1985 Annulus 0-1 MI. 1-2 Ml. 2 - 3 M l. 3-4 Ml. 4-5NI. O - 5 M l. O-10 MI.
Population O O 9 162 231 402 2501 N
NNW NNE 27 88 6
NW . NE o
10 33 220 O o 0 is WNW ENE g g 363 4 0 29 0 3
O. O U 0 o 0 o O
W 11 4 ll 0 0 o o o' r O 3 2 0 42 E o o 4 C' 5 o oo0 o g 5
,g o 101 19 O 74 10 8 o o 58 0 48 ESE WSW 12 o o 53 58 2 415 0
S SSE S
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTIOli BASED ON FIELD SURVEY RESULTS, 0 - 10 MILES 50UTH TEXAS PROJECT, 1985 FIGURE 2.2-1 Amendment 9
TGTALs 1990 0-1 MI. l-2 MI. 2 - 3 M I. 3-4 N1. 4 - 5 M t. 0-5 MI. 0-10 Mt.
Annulus Population o O 10 17 9 255 444 2778 N
NNW NNE so I 90 NE NW g O 37 245 II 2o 0 0 12 ENE WNW o 0 482 404 4 0 0 3 32 O O O 0 O o 0
O 2 0 47 g W 127 12 O O
- O <
i ,
5 6 0 g O O 4 II2 O
0 82 21 o g s4 s20 g g Esg WSW si 13 O O O 59 64 4si 2 o 0
SSE S
i
\ E'
.m. a.
TOTALS Annulus 10-20MI 20-30Ml 30-40ML40-50MI. 10-50 MI. 0 -5 0 MI.
Population 40,389 27,027 107,438 121,811 296,665 299,443 N
NNW NNE 5947 3592 7719 NW NE 14,992 2579 13,907 6893 16,726 1751
- 4967 2298 WNW ENE 2611 1430 937 67,308 g
2982 di 8805 "
21,856 \
819 2810 1515 3509 \
732 1889 :
W 4672 1922 845 642 to 2778 to 864 1067 0 407 E l
30 30 I l 4o 5334 233 40 i 60 #' ""'-
1592 0 171 0 45 0 0 0
WsW g,,
2027 0 0 0
1990 ssW -
ssE s
Amendment 9 T1 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 APERTURE CARD POPULATI0t; OISTRIBUTION, 0-10 and 10-50 MILES, SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, 1990 A
' ho AvailaWe On
- Aperture Cant FICURE 2.2-2 74s/#7e43-02, -
2000 TOTALS Annulus 0-1 Ml. 1-2 Ml. 2 - 3 M I. 3-4 Mt. 4 - 5 M I. 0-5 M1. 0-10 M1.
Population O O 12 216 306 534 3 31s i
2 N
NNW NNE 36 lO7 i
- a i NW NE O
292 13 24 0 o is 0
WNW ENE 48f 0 5 576 0
38 4 0 0 0 o 0
o 0 0 o o O
W 151 15 O O 1 O O O<. , 0 3 3 0 56 E o 4 3 0oO ,34 25 O O 98 14 3 0 o 77 0 0 ESE WSW si 30 70 0
S SSE S _._
)
i
2000 TOTALS Annulus 0-1 Mi. 1- 2 M I. 2 - 3 M l. 3-4 Ml. 4-5 MI. 0-5 MI. O-10 MI.
Population O O 12 216 306 534 3318 N
NNW NNE 36 107 8
NW NE o
292 13 24 0 o 15 0
48: O 5 576 0
38 0 o O O O O Oo o O O O
W ist 15 o O o O o- , o 3 0 5s E 3
7 5 t o o o 10 3 0oO ,
25 0 0 98 14 3 0 o 77 0 0 ESE WSW si 16 O 70 O
0 II 550 3
S SSE G -
I 2000 TOTALS Annulus 0-1 MI. 1-2 Mt. 2 - 3 M t. 3-4 MI. 4-5 MI. 0-5 Ml. 0-10 MI.
I Population O O 12 216 306 534 3318 N
NNW NNE l l
36 <
107 .
a l NW NE )
o 292 83 24 0 15 0
4ei 6 57s o o 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
W 151 15 O O 1 O O o<r O 3
3 0 ss E O o 4 7 3 O o o go 3 000 ,34 25 0 0 98 14 3 0 o 77 0 0 ESE WSW si 16 0 0 70 0
TOTALS Annulus 10-20Mi 20-30M1 30-4 0Mih 0-50Mi. 10-5 0 MI. 0-50 Mi.
Population 47,609 31,987 123,670 146,148 349,414 352,732 N
NNW NNE 7094 4159 9416 NW NE 2762 16,111 7957 21,160 2049 '
5749 2392 WNW ENE 3125 1606 9566 79,928 3661 1169 9146 '6>'gN 26,855 1056 N 1840 4198 j 944 2201 }
W 5140 2426 974 801 50 3318 'O 1153 1425 0 431 E i
30 30 I i 40 6227 312 , 40 I 50 *- * "-
1653 / 0 14,383 / 0 11,254 201 0
60 / 0 WSW -
ESE 0 0 2234 0 0 1679 0 0 \0 0 SW SE 0 0 0
2000 ssW ssE s
Amendment 9 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT TI UNITS 1 & 2 APERTURE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, CARD 0-10 and 10-50 MILES, SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, 2000 Also Availabla On
.rAperture Card FIGURE 2.2-3 76p/o790M-69 -
TOTALS 2 010 Annulus 0-1 Ml. 1-2 MI. 2 - 3 M t. 3-4 Mt. 4 - 5 M t. 0-5 Ml. 0-10 Mt.
Population O O 14 256 365 635 5955 i
N N'NW NNE 43 12 8 g
NW NE o
348 16 28 0 0 0
17 ENE WNW o O 687 574 46 o 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 E W 18 0 17 O O O O O' r O 3 3 0 O O 4 0 0 0 3 O 160 g
30 o gi7 O O 171 o 0 ESE WSW 73
! 19 0 0 0 84 92 3 657 0 SE SW 9 212 O
S SSE S -
l 1
l I
h %.
TOTALS Annulus 10-20Mi 20-30M1 30-40ML4 0-50Mi. 10-5 0 Mi. 0-50 Mi.
Population 55,519 36,586 141,410 172,118 405,633 409,588 N
NNW NNE 8211 4888 11,163 NW NE 19,910 2956 18,101 9338 26,149 2360 2409 6396 WNW ENE 1815 93,355 3644
/ 1450 4323 g =
9495 9' 32,597 g
2175 4955 p
1174 2499 W 5614 2944 1111 977 go so 1457 1800 0 460 E 20 3955 2o l 4o 7113 393 do '
- 0 *-
1725 14,709 240 g 75 13,773 0 0 0
WsW EsE 0 0 2444 0 1905 0 0 0 0
sw sE O O 0
2010 ssW ssE s
Amendment 9 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT TI UNITS 1 & 2 APERTURE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, CARD 0-10 and 10-50 MILES, SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, 2010 Also Available On FIGURE 2.2-4 Aperture Card
~-
2020 TOTALS Annulus 0-1 Mt. 1- 2 M t. 2 - 3 M 1. 3- 4 M t. 4-5 Mt. 0-5 M t. 0-40 MI.
m Population o o gy 3o7 438 762 4721 t ,
N NNW NNE SI 15 3 11 NW g NE 415 Ig 62 34 . O o O g
WNW O o ENE 685 8 0 838 o
55 O O OOO O o W 215 21 O O O o o O 4 o 79 E O o 4 8 s u 0 0 10
( 4 0 ist 36 0 14 0 O 109
- U" 0 0 WSW ,7 ESE 23 O O goo 109
[ 4 7g3 SW 0 '
SE l
11 . 253 ;
S SSE G I I
l l
l
, (
I I !
I
TOTALS Annulus 10-20MI 20-30Ml 30-40ML 4 0-5 0MI. 10-50 MI. 0-50 Mi.
Population 63,548 41,471 160,602 197,393 463,014 467,735 N
NNW NNE 9341 5477 12,883 NW NE 3152 20,482 10,924 30,413 2678 3480 34,684 7347 2539 2002 12,728 4171 S 106,930 1625 5442 9 9851
- 1506 3140 2517 5823 1345 2861 )
W 6060 3475 1251 1106 30 no 1765 2181 0 490 E to 4721 20 i 4o 8200 477 do i 1803 0 335 0 15.051 0 260 91 16,342 0 0 0 WsW ESE 2657 0 0 0
2134 0 0 0 0
sW SE O O O
i2E20 ssW ssE l
s Amendment 9 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT T1 UNITS 1 & 2 APERTURE POPULATI0ri DISTRIBUTIOff, 0-10 and 10-53 MILES, CARD SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, 2020 Also Available on FIGURE 2.2-5
' Aperture Card
==
~
2030 TOTALS
, Annulus 0-1 Mt. 1-2 MI. 2 - 3 M I. 3-4 Ml. 4 - 5 M t. 0 - 5 M I. 0-10 MI.
i Population O O 20 366 522 908 5635 1
4 N
NNW NNE si 182 14 NW o NE 495 23 74 41 O O WNW o O ENE 0 8 0 977 37 4 65 0 0 7 t
o O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 23t 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 95 E
- O O 4 5 i i II O O , O 10 i 5 227 43 0 0 16 7
(
243 131 0 o WSW o 0 ,o, ESE
'l' 27 O O , ,9 0
'3' #
S SSE l 6 i
t s
ed e7 %
- - . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . - , ______,_m - . - - _ , _ _ - - - - ~ - . .
e TOTALS -
Annuluo 10-20Mi 20-3SMl 39-40ML4 0 - 5 G M I. 10-50 MI. 0-50 MI. ,
Population 71,226 47,090 179,731 224,399 522,446 528,081 N
NNW NNE 10,605 '
5981 14,559 NW NE 3374 21,900 12,200 34,023 3083 M
- 7937 2804 WNW ENE 2255 4865 1888
" d
- 10,314 , 1 1761 3669 2975 6742 1574 3399 W 4182 1298 to 2100 2594 0 525 E 6744 1438 5635 to l 30 30 40 8207 567 do g, -
1905 0 406 0 15,509 0 315 109 19,761 0 0 0-WsW ESE 0 0 2939 0 2438 0 0 0 sW SE 0 0 0
2030 ssW ssE Amendment 9 l
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 Tl POPULATI0ff DISTRIBUTI0ft, APERTURE ;$^"lxy-yg]s(U2030 CARD FIGURE 2.2-6 b Available on l ff - -f --
. . - _ - . .- .. . . - . - . _ ~ - , . . - . = . _ ~ . _ . . _ . . . .
A ?
STP ER
[ ' FIGURES Number Title 3.1-1 Plant Profile, East Elevation 3.1-2 Plant Profile, West Elevation 3.1-3 Plant Profile, North Elevation 3.1-4 Plant Profile, South Elevation 3.1-5 Site Region
,. 3.1-6 Plot Plan -
3.2-1 Nuclear Steam Supply System Flow Diagram 3.2-2 Rated Power Heat Balance 3.3-1 Plant Water Use Diagram l 3.3-2 Typical Relief Well a
! 3.4-1 Site Layout
? ..
.] 3.4-2 Reservoir Makeup Facilities 4
3.4-3 Typical Traveling Water Screen at Makeup Intake Structure 3.4-4 Plan View Section Typical Traveling Water Screen at Makeup Intake Structure 3.4-5 . Makeup Water Discharge Structure 3.4-6. Essential Cooling Pond Layout and Sections 9 3.5-la Piping Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System (Sheet 1 of 6) 3.5-lb Piping Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System (Sheet 2 of 6) 3.5-lc. Piping Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System (Sheet 3 of 6) 3.5-ld Piping Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System (Sheet 4 of 6) 3~5-le Piping Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System (Sheet 5 of 6)
O 3-v Amendment 9
STP ER
/
FICURES (Continued) /
Number Title j 3.5-lf Piping Diagrain: Liquid Waste / Processing System, Miscellaneous Support' Systems (Sheet 6 of 6) /
3.5-2 Process Diagram: Liquidehaste Processing System 3.5-3 GaseousandAirborneNasteProcessing System Flow Diagram /
3.5-4 Piping Diagram: Gaseous Waste Processing System ,
3.5-5 Reactor Containment HVAC System: Composite Diagram 3.5-6 Reactor Containment HVAC Normal
- Purge Subsystem Diagram 3.5-7 Reactor Containment HVAC Supplementary Purge Subsystem Diagram 3.5-8 ' Reactor Containment HVAC Penetration Exhaust Subsystem Diagram 3.5-9 ,- Reactor Containment HVAC Miscellaneous Supplementary Subsystem Diagram 3.5 410 Mechanical Auxiliary Building HVAC Supply Subsystem Diagram
'.5-11 Mechanical Auxiliary Building HVAC Flow Diagram
~
3.5-12 Mechanical Auxiliary Building HVAC Supplementary Subsystem Diagram 3.5-13 Mechanical Auxiliary Building HVAC Exhaust Subsystem Diagram 3.5-14 Turbine Generator Building HVAC System Flow Diagram 3.5-15 Piping Diagram: Condenser Evacuation System O
3-vi L
l STP ER N 3.3 PLANT WATER USE
-Most water used by the plant is for heat dissipation. A cooling reservoir serves as the primary heat sink. The cooling reservoir and associated facilities are discussed in Section 3.4.
The circulating water pumps take water from the 7,000-acre cooling reservoir and pump it through the main condensers. There the circulating water receives the heat load given up by condensing steam. The heated water returns to the reservoir where it cools, primarily by evaporation. Auxiliary water from the main reservoir is used for mechanical equipment cooling and sealing in the turbine-generator building. This water is supplied by the open-loop auxiliary cooling water pumps. After passage through the turbine auxiliary heat exchangers, the heated water returns to the cooling reservoir.
' A major portion of the seepage water from the reservoir is collected by approximately 670 relief wells located around the reservoir at the landside ,
! toe of the reservoir embankment. The relief wells have been designed and I located to discharge into existing or proposed site drainage ditches. Flow Q321.
from the relief well system are described in detail in Section 5.3.4. A 01
- typical relief well installation is shown on Figure 3.3-2.
The two units of the plant have an essential cooling pond (ultimate heat sink) which serves as the essential water supply. Details this of this pond are found in Section 3.4. Water is drawn from the essential cooling pond by the essential cooling water pumps, and is distributed to heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems, the diesel generator heat exchanger, the component O cooling water heat exchanger, and other miscellaneous coolers. The heated water is then returned to the essential cooling pond. Water flow paths to and from the essential cooling pond and the cooling reservoir are shown on Figure i 3.3-1 and quantified in Table 3.3-1. l3
-Service water is taken from onsite wells and first treated by natural i sedimentation in the setting basin where it is also ozonated for bacteriostasis. It is then coagulated in-line with polyelectrolyte and filtered through dual media (activated carbon and sand) pressure filters. 9 Service water is then supplied to several of the plant closed loop systems, the fire protection system, and the makeup domineralizer system. Drinking Q291.
19 water will be chlorinated. Treatment of sanitary waste is described in Section 3.7. l1 Closed-loop systems using this service water include the primary, secondary,
- component cooling, and safeguards systems. The water is domineralized prior 1~ to use in these systems. After filling the systems initially, small i quantities of water as needed will be required on-a continuous basis to replace leakage and draining of equipment as shown on Figure 3.3-1 and noted in Table 3.3-1. The fire protection tanks are emergency makeup water from the cooling reservoir. For potable uses, water from the service water supply is filtered and chlorinated. Figure 3.3-1 shows the flow paths of the service 3
! water and Table 3.3-1 provide yearly average flows.
3.3-1 Amendment 9 l
STP ER Radioactive liquid waste from Icaks and equipnent drains is collected and processed in the radwaste process system. The radwaste process and condensate polishing systems are described in Section 3.5.
3 Forced evaporation at normal maximum power levels (based on an 80 percent capacity factor) is approximately 19,300 gallons per minute.
O O
3.3-2 Amendment 3, 10/10/80
1 j STP ER 3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM In accordance with the discussion in the Introduction to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2, pertaining to the " Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating i License Stage," this section is not addressed except to note the following
! changes, since no updating of the corresponding material presented in the Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage (ER-CP) was necessary.
3.4.1.2 Essential Cooline Pond
{
{ The maximum flood elevation in the essential cooling pond was increased from j 28.8 to 31.0 ft. This increase resulted from a change in the normal maximum i operating elevation from 25.0 feet above mean sea level, previously, 26.0 feet
] above mean sea level and from a revision in the'~ Probable Maximum Precipitation
-(PMP) estimate. The change in normal maximum operating level was due to a refinement in design which permits the normal operating range, i.e., between 7 i elevations 25.6 and 26.0, to stay above the elevation at which plant shutdown
- is initiated, i.e., elevation 25.5. This change does not alter any of the environmental conclusions discussed in the ER-CP Stage. Essential Cooling i Pond layout and sections are shown on Figure 3.4-6. 9 4
3.4.1.3 Soillway for the Cooline Reservoir The maximum design flow rate for the reservoir spillway was previously i indicated as 4,300 cubic feet per second. The final design is 4,200 cubic feet per second. This difference results from a refinement in design. The change is not considered environmentally significant. The flow is conveyed to the Colorado River through a 150-foot wide sodded earthen channel designed for i a maximum velocity of approximately 8 feet per second. The maximum expected .
mean velocity for this channel is 5.6 feet per second. This corresponds to 9 4 spillway flows resulting from Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) on the MCR.
, Therefore, no significant erosion of spillway channel is expected,
- j. In the ER-CP Stage, Section 3.4.1.3, a discussion of an excavated channel to divert flood flows in the west branch of the Colorado River through the spillway discharge channel was presented. In the final design, this channel was omitted since, during times of high flow in the Colorado river, it would
} cause waters to back through the spillway channel and inundate the west branch. Under the final design, flood flows in the west branch will create a backwater effect until water overtops the north portion of the spillway discharge channel where it crosses the west branch. These floods, however, usually correspond to floods in the Colorado River which result in high water levels in the spillway discharge channel as well. No significant I
environmental impact is expected to result from this change.
3.4.1.5 Reservoir Makeun Facilities J
Final design of the makeup pumping facilities resulted in some changes to the number of traveling screens, width of traveling screens, and design of trash racks. These changes do not alter any of the environmental conclusions discussed in the ER-CP.
1 The reservoir makeup facilities are required to divert water from the Colorado j
! River into the cooling reservoir to makeup water lost to evaporation, 4
O
} 3.4-1 Amendment 9
. - . . . _ . .. . .- . - - _ _ .. _.. .- ._-_ . _ _ . ~.. _ ~ ~ . - . - . - . . . -
, STP ER ;
b blowdown, and seepage and to offset storage loss due to the intermittent b operation of the station. The location of the makeup facilities, shown in Figure 3.4-1, is the same as that described in the ER-CP. The facilities consist of a traveling water screen intake structure, a sharp crested weir, and a 538,800 gallon-per-minute (1,200 cfs) capacity pump station. The 7 reservoir makeup facilities are shown on Figure 3.4-2. The screened intake
.; structure consists of coarse trash racks, stop los guides, and 24 sets of l 10-foot wide traveling i
4 1
i i
i i
i f
1 4
I 1
i t
}
l i
i i
1 3.4-la Amendment 9 A
v r.- ,, r~n.w,-_,,,,nn,-, ,vn,.,-.n,.,,, e n-,..,..e...--n,,._, ,,--en - - - -
,- . . , , , , - - - . - .,,w-w ,--------m.
9 0 a 5.,
, -). (
- j STP ER water screens. .The mesh size for the traveling water screens is 3/8 inch.
(' ' The trays on the screens collect.the trash while traveling upward. They are
, , c, leaned by water jets from the screen wash pumps which wash the ecliections in e S'the trays down to a sluice.
, The trash rack,on the upstream side of the screen intake structure is a coarse i
har screen forithe purpose of excludinF large objects, such as floating logs, j from the vicinity of the traveling water screens. This trash rack consists of
.a series of bays 12.5 feet in width extending from elevation -10.1 to eleva-tiorc 21.0 feet mean sea level with an incline from the river toward the struc-l ture of 2.1 horizontal units to 12, vertical units. The trash rack will be I-supported en each side of each bay'by a slotted beam and on the bottom by the
' fconcrete foundation of the screen intake structure. As shown on Figure 3.4-2,
' there are 28 complete trash rack bays. The racks consist of 3/8-inch steel i
i;i
~
bars at 3-3/8-inch centers held vereit. ally by steel support framing on the
~, back. They are assembled in sec. ns (four sections to a bay) for ease of 4
- placement. The spacing of the bags is uninterrupted in the vertical plane
- ,. sufficient to permit the " teeth"'of the trash rake to pass from the bottom to
], top in its removal of trash.
l The traveling screens are placed inside the area cordoned by the trash racks and are aligned parallel to river flow along the west bank of the Colorado
~
,q
'N River' as shown on Fi'gure 3.4-2. AtypicaltravelingscreenisshownonFigure 3.4-3. . Figure.3.4-4 shows the trays:placed at the fore front of the concrete sidewall supports to allow: free passage of fish at the face of the upstream l- tray.. As can be seen on Figure 3.4-24 24- screens with 3/8-inch mesh are b' b"'
provided with their bottom el'evation qt -10.0 feet mean sea level and the base on-the equipment housing for the head: terminal at elevation 21.0 feet mean sea i
e' level.- The effective ares 2 a 10-foot width of traveling screens is 67.9 7
\j percent of the gross art .. the screen. Consequently, for 24 sets of
[ traveling screens and a water surface elevation in the Colorado River at the makeup pumping facilities of bl.0 foot mean sea-level, the net area will be 1,230 square feet.
4{
,. The operation of the traveling water screecs will be intermittent since the f ioperation of the. makeup pumping station is intermittent. The sluice which receives debris is capable of being diverted either to the river or to the :
, trash baskets located at each end of the structure. During times of collec-
, . tion of excessive amounts of, debris, the tr' ash basket-will be used. During times of collection of excessive numbers of-fish, fish collected on the screens will be returned by way of the sluice back to the river. The design
- of the intake structure complies with criteria of the Environmental Protection
.. Agency in that it provides free passage for fish. The maximum design approach
_q : velocity to tiie traveling screens is 0.50 feet per second based on a maximum l7 1 I.
^
pumping rate cf 538,800 gallons per minute and a corresponding minimum eleva-f,b
- k. tion of -0.95' feet mean sea level. Elevation -0.95 feet mean ses level is deternined_by assuming a water surface elevation'of -1 foot mean sea level at
]/Ny the' crossing of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway JCIW) and the Colorado River
., with an upstream freshwater inflow of 2,48% cubic feet per second passing
, / through the Bay City gage. This is the minimum'riverflow required to permit
. 538,800 gallons'per minute to be pumped. Figure 2.5-12 of the ER-CP indicates
(- , that 99.98 percent of the time, the water surf ace elevation at the CIW is 01 - , above '-0.95 feet mean sea level; or the water surf ace elevation at the GIW is i .[ elevation -1.0 foot mean sea level or lower 0.02 percent of the time. In f addf tion, by examining Figure 2.5-5 of the ER--CP, it can be seen that a river 4
e
.f.
1 3.4-2 Amendment 7 Ns. -, - . ' N
. . _ . ~ _ _ . _ _ . __- . . . _ _ ._ _ _ . ___ _ _. . _ . .
STP ER flow of 2,480 cubic feet per second is equalled or exceeded about 21% of the I~') time. The probability of occurrence of a flow of 2,480 cubic feet per second M during the 0.02 percent of time which produces the design maximum approach velocity of 0.50 feet per second is therefore concluded to be inconsequential.
A sharp-crested weir, 300 feet long, is located between the screen intake structure and the pumping structure. The crest elevation is set at elevation t -2.2 feet mean sea level which would allow inflow of tne upper strata of river flow to ensure the best available quality of intake water. Two siltation basins, one on each side of the weir (Figure 3.4-2), are constructed to ,
provide a quiescent sons where settleable sediment conveyed by the makeup '
water can settle out. Extreme circumstances may dictate a need to dredge the 9 basin. Dredgings from the s11tation basin will be disposed of on site in the Q291.
vicinity of the cooling reservoir makeup intake pump facility. ' 10
. A sharp-created weir, 300 feet-long, is located between the screen intake structure and the pumping structure. The crest elevation is set at elevation
-2.2 feet mean sea level which would allow inflow of the upper strata of river l flow to ensure the'best available quality of intake water. Two siltation basins, one on each side of the weir (Figure 3.4-2), are constructed to provide a quiescent sons where settleable sediment conveyed by the makeup
!' water can settle out. Extreme circumstances may dictate a need to dredge the basin. Dredgings from the siltation basin will be disposed of on site in the
, vicinity of the cooling reservoir makeup intake pump facility.
l The pump station consists of four pumps with a capacity of 107,760 gallons per
- minute (240 cfs) and four pumps with a capacity of 26,940 gallons per minute 1 (60 cfs). Each pump occupies an individual sump to avoid flow interference ,
with other pump operations. The flow will be discharged into header manifolds connecting to two 1.2-mile long, 108-inch-diameter pipe lines leading to a discharge structure in the reservoir. The makeup discharge structure has a i protected apron and baffle blocks to dissipate the energy of the makeup pump discharge prior to its entry into the reservoir (Figure 3.4-5). The invert of '
the 108-inch lines passing through the embankment is placed above the maximum level for standard project flood at 50.5 feet above mean sea level to prevent backflow during high reservoir water levels. The water discharges into a plunge pool which dissipates the energy and distributes the flow evenly across i the 30-foot width of the apron. The water then passes over the approach weir
.to the apron and flows between and over the baffles, down the apron located on the interior slope of the embankment to the reservoir water surface.
l- None of the above described changes are considered to have changed the F environmental conclusions of the ER-CP.
The circulating water discharge structure was indicated in the ER-CP as being 750 feet west of the circulating water intake structure. The final' design indicates this to be 740 feet. Similarly, the invert elevation of the dt.scharge levies was indicatad as 7 feet above mean sea level in the ER-CP.
Final design has located them at 8.25 feet above mean sea level. All of the above changes are the result of refinements in design and do not alter the
- environmental acceptability of the structure.
4 i
l 3.4-3 Amendment 9 l-
STP ER 3.6' CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE WASTES 3.6.1 CHEMICAL VASTE SYSTEMS Nonradioactive chemical wastes are produced by the following major systems:
- 1. Makeup domineralizer water system (MDWS)
- 2. . Chemical cleaning wastes (startup)
- 3. Condensate polishing domineralizer system (CPDS)
- 4. Auxiliary boiler blowdown
- 5. Oily waste treatment
Wastes released by the six systems listed above are produced by chemical additives used in the particular process.
The wastes discharged from these systems fall into three basic categories as follows:
- 1. Floating materials such as oils, grease, and other solids that are lighter than water are treated in the oily waste treatment unit as described in Subsection 3.6.1.5.
- 2. Suspended matter consists of insoluble material that results in turbidity.
or coloring of system vaste effluents, for example, that which might result from backwashing the domineralization system or from chemical cleaning.
- 3. Dissolved solids make up the greatest part of the chemical wastes discharged by the above systems. The greatest producers of dissolved substances are the MDUS and CPDS which use acid and caustic in the process.
No significant quantity of sludge is produced by the MDWS. Influent to the 9 system is service water treated as discussed in Section 3.3. Biocide treat- Q291 ment of the condenser's circulating water is discussed in Section 3.6.2. 19 3.6.1.1 Makeue Demineralizer Water System The MDWS provides high quality makeup water primarily to the steam cycles of the plant's two power units. The MDUS consists of two sodium cation soft-7
. eners, three cartridge filters and four reverse osmosis banks followed by two
- parallel domineralizer trains, each having a cation bed, an anion bed, and a i . mixed bed. The two domineraliser trains share a vacuum degasifier and acid and caustic regeneration systems. The two sodium cation softeners hava a
- capacity of 400 gallons per minutes each and supply softened feed water to the i
reverse osmosis system. The reverse osmosis system has a product capacity of 7 468 gallons per minute and a maximum brine flow of 144 gallons par minute l corresponding to a 75-percent recovery. Each domineralizer train has an operating. capacity of 220 gallons per minute. The degasifier has maximum capacity of 440 gallons per minute and reduces the carbon dioxide
! concentration to 10 parts per million (as C0 ). Each cation unit contains 173 l cubic feet of strongly acidic cation resin. 2The cation resin is regenerated 9 3.6-1 Amendment 9 L
6 STP ER
- with sulfuric acid. Each anion unit contains 99 cubic feet of strongly basic gg
~
anion resin. The anion resin is regenerated with sodium hydroxide. Each I mixed-bed unit contains 30 cubic feet of macorporous cation resin and 30 cubic
, feet of macroporous anion resin. The mixed-bed units are regenerated in place.
1 1
4 a
f l
9 4
4
{
t 9
3 3.6-la Amendment 9 j
l'
_ , , _ . . . , - - . ~ . . . _ , . . . _ . . , - .. , _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . - _ _ - - - _ - . _ _ _ . -.--.. .. - .._ _ _--
. -. - - .- . -. - - . . .- -- ~ . - - _ _ - - - - . . - . -,
o
. t >
STP ER Regenersnt rinse from sodium cation softeners and the brine flow from the f
reverse osmosis unit are routed to the plant neutralization basin. 7 At normal operating condition, reverse osmosis product water is treated by one
, domineralizer train. Under-this condition, each cation unit will produce 1,300,000 gallons of water per service run and will require regeneration every
, 98 hours0.00113 days <br />0.0272 hours <br />1.62037e-4 weeks <br />3.7289e-5 months <br />. Each snion unit will' produce approximately 590,000 gallons of water
- 7 per service run and require regeneration every 45 hours5.208333e-4 days <br />0.0125 hours <br />7.440476e-5 weeks <br />1.71225e-5 months <br />. The mixed-bed unit
- is regenerated periodically.
The maximum amount of waste water-produced when each train is regenerated is
, about 49,500 gallons. The brine vaste from the reverse osmosis system is 7
approximately 210,000 gallons per day maximum.
The maximum production of regenerant waste occurs when the reverse osmosis i unit is out of service. Under,this condition, the sodium cation softeners, l7
- the cation and anion demineralizers remove the majority of the ionic impuri-
, ties from the well water and are followed by the mixed-bed domineralizer, which produces the required effluent quality. However, because of the increase in dissolved solids loading, the cation and anion unit service runs are reduced to 6 and 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />, resp'ectively. The mixed-bed unit requires regener-i ation every 75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br />. The maximum amount of waste water produced, both primary . trains and one mixed-bed unit being regenerated, is 49,5M gallons.
The reverse osmosis product analysis on which the design of the MDWS was based shows that the main constituent of>the influent cations is sodium, which
! necessitates the use of countercurrent regeneration when regenerating the primary cation units.'The analysis also shows that over half of the total anions are made up of bicarbonate alkalinity which is economically removed as 4
carbon dioxide by the degasifier, thereby reducing the volume of anion resin
, required in the primary units. The resulting backwash, epent regenerant, and l rinse wastes are collected in the makeup domineralizer equalization pit. At l7
- the regenerant dosages specified above and based on a no'rmal day's regenera-tion schedule, the resulting day's waste solution has a pH between 10.0 and 11.0. Wastes are equalized and neutralized to a pH of 6 to 8 in the neutral-
- ization pit. The neutralized waste is pumped from the neutralization pit to the plant neutralization basin prior to sending it to the circulating water
- .outfall. This process is represented schematically on Figure 3.6-1.
The well water fed to the reverse osmosis unit requires acidification to pre-I, vent CaC08 precipitation in the reverse osmosis module due to the concen-1 tration effect. The acid dosage is 0.54 pounds of 66*B sulfuric acid per 1,000 l7 gallons of feedwater. For one day's operation at 360 gallons per minute of z feedwater, 280 pounds of acid are used. The quantities of chemicals used per l7 j regeneration are 1,038 pounds of 66*B sulfuric acid for the cation unit. 594 pounds of 100-percent sodium hydroxide for the anion unit, 180 pounds each of
- 66*B sulfuric acid and 100-percent sodium hydroxide for the mixed bed unit.
j Therefore, under normal operating conditions, the quantities of chemicals used j .per day.for regeneration average 1,100 pounds of 66*B sulfuric acid and 650 l j pounds'of 100-percent sodium hydroxide. Total sulfuric acid used per day by 7 l
j the MDWS is about 1,382 pounds.
LI j There is no seasonal variation in the amount or quality of wastes discharged
] by~the MDWS. The primary cause of variation in the discharge quantity and l- quality is operational demand.
t j 3.6-2 Amendment 7
. . . . . . ~ . - - _ . _ . _. - .. - . . - _ - . - - - . - . - - -
4.
I STP ER Table 3.6-1 lists the volumetric waste water flows resulting from each step in
- v .
the regeneration schedule for one regeneration of a train consisting of cation bed, anion bed, and mixed bed.
t
' Table 3.6-2 presents an approximate waste water analysis resulting from a day's maximum regeneration schedule. .
3 . 6 .1'. 2 Chemical Cleaninn Wasteo (Startuo) h- Before initial plant startup, and before any radioactive material is introduced into the reactor, the internal surfaces of the reactor vessel and
- -all piping and equipment of the primary coolant system are subjected to
. flushing and the secondary feedwater condensate system is subjected to hot alkaline cleaning to ensure removal of any grease, oil, and other
. preservatives that might be present in the condensate feedwater and shell sides of heaters. Cleaning of the reactor and primary coolant system is in
- accordance with Westinghouse specification PS597760. All piping and components of the reactor core are flushed with water. Initial flushing
, removes nondissolvable material such as metal chips, turnings, dust, cloth, or like material.
The condensate feedwater system is subjected to alkaline cleaning with a solution'of demineralized water containing the following chemicals:
(
- 1. 6% chelant solution.
. 2. Ammoniated EDTA (ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid) with 0.2% to 0.3%
inhibitor and 0.5% surfactant.
{
The cleaning temperature will be 180*F to 200*F. The solution will be recirculated through the contractor's heat exchanger to maintain the cleaning temperature. The cleaning solution will remove iron oxide, oils and protective coatings that may be present in the condensate, feedwater and shell-sides of the heaters. The inhibitor and surfactant are biodegradable
- and the constituents are not considered to be hazardous material.
The chemical wastes, rinses and passivating solutions will be routed, to the 7
!- organics basin and chemical-cleaning vaste pond. The chemical wastes will be
- processed in the metal cleaning waste section of the non-radioactive chemical j waste system for removal of iron and the resultant solution will be neutralized in the neutralization basin. The neutralized solution will be pumped to tha main cooling reservoir.
The auxiliary boiler will be subjected alkaline cleaning with a solution of demineralised water containing the following chemicals: ,
! 1. 2,000 ppm trisodium phosphate (2,000 ppm Na 3 0 PO 4or 4,600 ppe 3
Na 3
04.12 H 2O)
- 2. 2,000 ppm disodium phosphate (Na2 HPO4 )
- 3. Compatible wetting agent The alkaline cleaning solution contains a 0.1-percent wetting agent, which is a biodegradable detergent surfactant such as Ha111 burton's Pen-Six, or equal, i
3.6-3 Amendment 9 p
,- - . _ ._, _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ . _ - . . _ _ . _ - . . . - - ~
. .. -. . -- - . - . . . .-.. ..- .. .- ...- - .. - . . = - - - . . _ _ . _
2 i
' STP ER 4
Flushing water will be treated and sampled prior to discharge to the reservoir i ' to ensure compliance with permit limitations. If permit limitations are not l7 met, flushing water will be trucked off-site. 9
.g ,
4 4
i i
J
?
j.
l
! k
[
t
[
t 4
i e
1 a
4 e i
I N
1 t
i a
i'.
i
- j. '
3.6-3a Amendment 9 E
_ - - -*e-t-frsm,-m- r------y+- , .weyogw-,- me w ww= ww g y e w, , ww y.p many, ..
___ _ ,w---,-pmy ._. 97--we-9,
. . - - - - ~ _ - _ . . _ - . . - . _
STP ER 3.6.1.3 Condensate Polishing Domineralizer System t
0 V The function of the CPDS is to remove impurities from the condensate stream and to produce a high-quality effluent capable of meeting chemistry specifica-
- tions for feedwater to the steam generator.
i The CPDS is located between the condensate pvap discharge and the gland steam L condenser and consists of seven cation bed domineralizers followed by seven l7 mixed bed domineralizers and their associated regeneration equipment. A bypass valve is provided to allow manual routing of the condensate flow around the CPDS during startup or with the occurrence of high differential pressure
- across the CPDS. 7
!' Equipment is provided for external regeneration of the domineralizar resins.
5 The regenerant waste is collected and monitored for radioactivity. If radio-activity in excess of prescribed limits is detected, the vastes are neutral-i ized and transferred to the collection tank in the liquid waste processing system (LWPS). When the radioactivity concentration in the regenerant wastes
'i s below prescribed limits, the wastes are transferred to the plant neutral-ization basin.
I i
The normal operating condition is with the mixed bed in the hydrogenated form, l7 no primary-to-secondary steam generator leakage and acceptable condenser
! inleakage. Under this condition, the frequency of regeneration is twelve cation charges and six mixed bed charges per day. However, the minimum rate i of regeneration will be limited to about one-half of these values by the time t required to sample and transfer the regenerate vaste. The vaste volumes are 7 as follows:
e cation bed - 26,800 gallons
! e mixed bed - 42,000 gallons
! For two-unit operation, the maximum number of polisher vessel regenerations per day that the external regeneration system can complete is two cation resin
] charges per day and one mix bad charge per week. -
i 3.6.1.4 Auxiliary Boiler Blowdown l
- The plant has two oil-fired auxiliary boilers. Each boiler is able to produce
! 145,000 pounds of steam per hour. Makeup water for the boilers is taken from i
the plant demineralized water storage tank. Since this makeup water is extremely low in solids, not more than 9 gallons of blowdown per minute from 2
each boiler is expected.
7 i
i 3.6-4 Amendment 7 s
_..._.._..-_.-.___,-_.,._.._.._.___,__,.,_._-_.,.-s._ _ , . _ . . - . _ . _ .
f I STP ER 3.6.1.5 Oily Waste Treatment-(
l Small amounts of oily wastes may occasionally rssult from the normal operation of equipment in the turbine-generator building, diesel generator building,
, machine shop, firewater pumping building, and lighting diesel generator 7 building. The floor drains of that building are therefore connected to an oily waste surge tank. The surge tank content is routinely processed through a gravity oil separator, at.d skimmer. This system also serves to contain
! spills which may result from equipment failures, although the probability of l7 such failures is remote.
L In the event of a power transformer failure, any oil spilled will be collected in the curbed transformer area. The oil or oil-water mixture is transferred by gravity to the oily waste surge tank. The oil-water mixture is transferred by pump to a gravity separator and skimmer along with an air floatation unit to reduce the total oil content to less than 15 milligrams per liter. The 7
- effluent water is pumped to the plant cooling reservoir. The separated oil is transferred to a storage tank and disposed of offsite by a licensed contractor.
. 3.6.1.6 Circulatina Water-System Each of the plant's two units is served by a condenser having 96,234 titanium tubes. No corrosion inhibitors are added to the circulating water stream. l7_
Tube fouling by biological growths is treated by sodium hypochlorite injection and is discussed below.
i' 3.6.1.7 Steam Generator Blowdown System
{
During power plant operation the steam generator blowdown is routed back to
, the condenser hotwell through filters and mixed bed demineralizers. The mixed 7
, bed resins are not regenerated. Depleted resin is replaced with a fresh charge and disposed of as a potentially radioactive solid waste.
3.6.2 Biocide Waste Sys11B Each unit is served by a three-shell condenser and uses the cooling reservoir to supply circulating. water. Four circulating pumps are interconnected by a 4
common discharge header serving the condenser. The effluent from the three shells is discharged through a common effluent header into the cooling '
reservoir. r The actual operating chlorine dosage is determined by a free residual chlorine l9 291.23 monitor located in the condenser's erfluent header. When the free chlorine i- residual reaches 0.2 parts per million, an alarm is sounded. Thus the 7
! . chlorine dosage is controlled so that a chlorine residual of no more than 0.2 parts per million remains in the condenser effluent being discharged to the cooling reservoir.
Chlorine in the form of a sodium hypochlorite solution is applied periodically 9
- to the circulating water intake' structure and separately, to the essential Q291.
cooling water system pump intake structure to control slime growth in the 123 11 i
O 3.6-5 i Amendment 9
. - . . - _ , ~ - . . _ ,.,._ .m,.,.mm-y__ -.mm._r._,.,., _ , ~ . . . , . _ , , - _ - . _ _ . , , . _ . . _ . , , , _ . . , _ _ - ,.
.--..,.,.,-y_,,,_-,-
STP ER system heat exchangers and piping. Shock treating is performed three times a 9 day on each system using 20-minute chlorination periods. The interconnection Q291.
of the circulating water pumps necessitates shock treatment of all three of 23 the condenser shells at once. The shock chlorination of the total 907,400 gallons per mieute circulating water, 52,500 gallons per minute essential cooling water at.4 93,294 gallons per minute auxiliary cooling water flow is accomplished with a maximum dosage of 6 parts per million for three 20-minute periods a day by the onsite sodium hypochlorite generation system. With two units in operation, the amount of hypochlorite solution required will be doubled.
Although it is not routinely measured, the total residual chlorine present in 9 the condenser effluent being discharged to the reservoir or in the essential Q291.
cooling water discharged to the essential cooling pond, is the sum of the free 23 available chlorine and the combined available chlorine, which is chlorine in chemical combination with ammonia or organic nitrogen compounds. The total Kjeldahl nitrogen (total organic nitrogen plus ammonia) of the Colorado River fluctuates throughout the year from 0.37 to 0.69 milligrams per liter as nitrogen at the point along the river where the reservoir makeup is taken.
The fraction of the concentrated reservoir Kjeldahl nitrogen which combines with the sodium hypochlorite during each 20-minute cooling water treatment period cannot be established.
The hypochlorite solution from the hypochlorination system is diffused into the intake bay of each pump.
The actual chlorine dosage is tabject to seasonal variation. During the summer months, with the increased chlorine demand, the maximum dosage of 6 parts per million may be required whereas in the cooler winter months, a lesser chlorine dosage may suffice.
O 3.6-6 Amendment 9
i STP ER 3.9 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES 3.9.1- General Descrintion 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.(COA) 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 single circuit 9 steel towers from the site to Blessing Substation. The modified transmission Q290.
routes are shown in Figure 3.9-1. The right-of-way corridor which contains 14 the circuit from Danevang Tie Point to Holman Substation is 100 feet wide.
The right-of-way corridor which contains the circuit running from the site to Blessing Substation is 150 feet vide. 9 All transmission lines have been or will be built in accordance with the 8 National-Electrical Safety Code. Q290.
02 3.9.2 Tvoes of Land Crossed By The Rinht-Of-Way Types of land crossed by the modified transmission routes are the same as those described in the Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage, Section 3.9.2. Land cover in the modified rights-of-way include woodland, O 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 Adiacent To Rinht-Of-Way 3.9.3.3 STP Site to Blessinn Substation YI 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 100-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 9 1
STP ER 3.9.3.5 ranevang Tie Point to Holman Substation The land adjoining the transmission corridor from Danevang Tie Point to H;1 man Substation is primarily agricultural and grazing land. Two small rcsidential communities fall within the 2-mile wide corridor. The town of Glidden about one mile from the route and the town of Ammannsville about cne-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 farmation 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-ctation is located in the coastal prairie and marsh formation while the n:rthern 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) ar.d pasture while the northern portion of the route traverses cropland (primarily field crops), pasture, and scattered woodland, cavannah, and scrubland.
3.9.5 WILDLIFE ALONG TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDORS M:mmalian and herptile species which occur in the vicinity of the modified r:utes 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 Surstation include passerines, raptors, and waterfowl. Passerines and cimilar groups and raptors are common in the prairie, woodland, and cropland creas. Waterfowl commonly feed in cropland areas or utilize scattered wet cradow and streamside habitats along or near the proposed route. Common waterfowl species in this area include the snow, white- fronted, and Canada grese and several species of ducks. The red-winged blackbird, savannah cparrow, and eastern meadowlark are common on prairie and cropland. The C:rolina 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 wel . as woodland types.
3.9-2 Amendment 8
STP ER
-[~' 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 Endannered Species Examination of topographic maps and aerial photography of the modified QTE2 transmission line routes, field observations on and in the vicinity of the g routes, and review of documents (References 3.9-1 through 3.9-7) indicate that l no Federal or state endangered species are permanent residents in the vicinity of the modified transmission line routes. Migrant or transient species (pere-grene falcon and bald eagle) could occur in the vicinity of the routes during migration (spring and fall) periods. No proposed endangered plant sp.cies are expected in the vicinity of the modified transmission line routes.
3.9.6 RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
'i 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.
f-s 3.9.7 TRANSMISSION LINE VISIBILITY FROM PUBLIC ROADS
-- Visibility terms and criteria applicable to the unmodified routes are unchanged from those discussed in Section 3.9.7 of the Environmental l9 Report-Construction Permit Stage.
3.9.7.5 Degree of Visibility Alona Modified Transmission Line Routes l9 The degrees of visibility in terms of highway miles for pubife roads crossed or parallel by the modified transmission line routes are sumtarized 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 visib'.11ty results from the total of 304.3 miles of transmission line along the ove'.all proposed transmission system.
3.9.8 ELECTRICAL EFFECTS 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 Modified transmission lines will terminate at Blessing and Holman Substations.
3.9-3 Amendment 9
l STP ER Blessinn Substation (CPL)
One new 345-kilovolt transmission line from STP will terminate at an addition to the existing Blessing Substation. The addition will be built on property QTEl currently owned by CPL and will occupy about 2 acres adjacent to the existing facilities, which occupy about 3 acres. The total CPL substation property consists of about 11.2 acres of flat, grassy terrain and is surrounded by wooded areas that provide for low visibility from the adjacent road (State Ilighway 35). The unused portions of the property are occasionally leased for grazing. The 345-kilovolt substation addition will be in operation by 1986 9 with ties into the CPL transmission network. lQ290.
14 lloiman Substation (COA)
One 345-kilovolt transmission line from STP will terminate at the new lloiman Substation. The substation will occupy about 8.8 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 QTEl little traffic and the site was not used for crops or grazing at the time of ccquisition. The 345-kilovolt substation was energized in 1981 with ties into 9 the transmission networks of the City of Austin and Lower Colorado River lQ290.
Authority. 14 O
O 3.9-4 Amendment 9
6" VHR R EIN FORCED CONC. PROTECTION 12 " T H K . 30
< 30
- 6- SolL -CE M EN T &
3 E L . 2 6,0 EL.17 0 EL.2 6.0 3 '3 3 '. ,
mw =- -- . g ---- ,
I CATEGORY I p WITH 6" THK CATEGORY I FILL - IS" THK . CONCRE TE. PR EMBANKMENT WITH SOIL- CE MENT 6" THK. REINFORCED SEC. A-A
. CONCRETE PROTECTION i
{~\~~~~]
I p
DISCHARGE STRUCTURE l IEMBANKMENT
.= = = = = j SWITCHYARD ly
< p-4 ..
=
I l 4p~ %
t _ _ _ _ _ _J ;
N IINTAKE STRUCTURE x ... N s.
g
.' k. 1. N
-- \s
\
rn .-
=n N
.0 .
- *(Q/
\
/
% N bg DI 5
. f- g- .
Y %g /
--$4
, , , 1
) \
< A x, a . m m 1 V ' A ..
i
( kr DISCH. INTAKE 5* o 4 > _ ___
NOTE:
GRID BASED ON " TEXAS COORDINATE I_.[. SYSTEM SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE" m
.~.
so , ,2 7g g. ,
EL. 3 4 O
\ EL.26.0 E L'. 2 .
4' 1 EL.17.0 L G OU L 26 Ov n----,
, , ~
y - ------.
7
\,s,,,UR
'lLL DIKE NON-CATEGORY I FILL EMBANKMENT WITH RE NFORCED 15" THK. SOIL- CE MEN T PROTECTION SOIL - CE M E N T g a
NOTE' .
m SHADED AREA REPRESENTS DESIGN BASED e PROPERTY ON SEISMIC CATEGORY I . /
a LIMITS RELOCATED a F M 521 !
ESSENTIAL COOLING POND a
sN :
\\
\\ , i
] '
[
KEl // /
[ VISITOR'S : Tl 8 CENTER APERTURE
)
8 ! CARD
/ -
I O : Also Available on l m. ; VAparture card m a E- u; "
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT l soO rEET PLANT ACCESS ROAV UNITS 1 & 2 m
l N 360,000 HEAVY HAUL ROAD] ESSENTIAL COOLING POND LAYOUT AND SECTIONS Figure 3.4-6 Amendment 9 j
f h
L i-STP ER O
r i
G CHAPTER 5 -- ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PIANT OPERATION CONTENTS Section Title Page 5.1 Effects of Operation of Heat Dissipation System 5.1-1 5.2 Radiological Impact on Biota Other Than Man 5.2-1 5.2.1 Exposure Pathways 5.2-1 ;
5.2.2 Radioactivity in the Environment 5.2-1 i 5.2.3 Dose Rate Estimates 5.2-2 l 5.3 Radiological Impact on Man 5.3-1 5.3.1 Exposure Pathways 5.3-1 5.3.2 Liquid Effluents 5.3-2 5.3.3 Gaseous Effluents 5.3-3 5.3.4 Direct Radiation Doses 5.3-4 l9 5.3.5 Summary of Annual Radiation Doses 5.3-5 5.3.A. Calculation of Annual Average Radionuclide 5.3.A-1 Concentration in the STP Cooling Reservoir
! and the Colorado River 5.4 Effects of Chemical and Biocide Diuenarges 5.4 1
- 5.4.1 Dissolved Solids 5.4-1 l 5.4.2 Cleaning Vastes 5.4-1 l 5.4.3 Biocide System 5.4-2 5.4-4 Effects 5.4-2 5.5 Effects of Sanitary and Other Waste Discharges 5.5 1 5.5.1 _ Effects of Sanitary Waste 5.5-1 l 5.5.2 Effects of Other Waste Discharges (Gaseous 5.5-2 Effluents) 5.6 Effects of Operation and Maintenance of the Trans- 5.6-1 mission System l
5.7 Other Effects 5.7 1 5.8 Resources Committed 5.8 1 5.9 Decommissioning and Dismantling 5.9-1 l'
l l
l O
1 I 51 Amendment 9 1
STP ER TABLES Number Title Page 5.2-1 Expected Concentration of Radioactive Materials in Environmental Media from Liquid Effluents of the South Texas Project 5.2-4 5.2-2 Expected Maximum Offsite Concentrations of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous Effluents from the South Texas Project 5.2-5 5.3-1 Summary of Calculated Liquid Pathway Doses 5.3-7 5.3-2 Predicted Doses to the Population Within 50 Miles of the South Texas Project 5.3-8 5.3-3 Summary of Calculated Gaseous Pathway Doses 5.3-9 5.3-4 Appendix I Conformance Summary Table 5.3-10 5.3.A-1 Calculated Annual Average Radionuclide Concentre.tions in the STP Cooling Reservoir and in the Colorado River 5.3.A-6 5.3.A-2 Average Peak Radionuclide Concentrations for Flow to Relief Wells Under Operating Conditions 5.3.A-7 5.3.A-3 Estimated Seepage From the STP Cooling Reservoir 5.3.A-8 5.4-1 Cycle Makeup Domineralizer Waste Flow Composition 5.4-4 O
5-11 Amendment 1, 11/22/78
STP ER q
t j 5.3 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON MAN w-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 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 (RG) 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 RG 1.109.
Dilution factors for atmospheric and liquid pathways were calculated according to the methods of RG 1.111 and 1.113 respectively, as discussed in Section 5.2.2.
Direct radiation doses are discussed in Section 5.3.4.
5.3.1 EXPOSURE PATHVAYS 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 f
-~ has been taken from Appendix H of RG 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 futuse 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 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, 8
A
)
5.3-1 Amendment 8
STP ER 5.3.2 LIQUID EFFLUENTS 5.3.2.1 Individual Doses Doses to individuals were calculated for fish and shellfish consumption, meat g consumption, and recreational activity (swimming, boating, shoreline activity) pathways. 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.
Doses to man from the fish consumption pathway were calculated for fish caught in Little Robbins Slough, Colorado River and for those caught in the Matagorda Bay / Gulf area. Based on the possibility that fishing could occur on Little Robbins Slough this pathway was evaluated and found to result in the maximum fish ingestion dose. The radionuclide concentrations in Little Robbins Slough were assumed to be the same as those fcund in the reservoir with the exception 9 of cesium. Credit is taken for the red.uction of cesium during its transit through the soil. This results in a maximum predicted dose to a single organ from the fish consumption pathway of 8.2E-1 mrem /yr to the teen liver and a maximum total body dose of 5.8E-1 of mrem /yr to an adult.
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 total-body dose was 1.0E-2 mrem /yr to an adult.
Based on the possibility that a cow grazing on the site might obtain drinking water from the reservoir, the meat ingestion pathway was evaluated. Since no milk cows will be found on site they were not evaluated. The largest dose to a single organ from meat ingestion was calculated to be 1.9E-1 mrem /yr to the adult liver with a total-body dose of 1.7E-1 mrem /yr to an adult.
9 Exposure to an adult, teen and child swimming or boating on water bodies affected by the plant or engaging in recreational activity on the shore was evaluated. Since no recreational activity will be allowed on the reservoir this contribution was taken from the Colorado River. No credit for radioac-tive 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 summarized in Table 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 calculated total-body dose was 2.lE-2 mrem /yr to a teen. 8 Examination of Table 5.3-1 reveals that, based on the dose calculation assumptions described above, the liquid pathways of primary importance in individual total-body exposure will probably be ingestion of finfish exposed 9 to radioactive effluents and exposure from shoreline activity. Exposure from shellfish ingestion will generally be lover, and swimming and boating pathways will contribute only a minor amount to the dose from plant liquid effluents. 8 O
5.3-2 Amendment 9
STP ER n
l 3 5.3.2.2 Population Doses G
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 dones 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 (Reference 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 almos entirely due to shellfish with an annual catch of 4.5E + kg/yr.
The major fishing activity in the Matagorda Bay / Gulf arca was the commercial shellfish harvest which resulted in an annual catch of 1.84E + 6 kg/yr. Sport fishing in the Matagorda Bay /Culf area consisted entirely of finfish and about 2.3E + 4 kg/yr was harvested.
Consumption of shellfish caught in the Matagorda Bay / Gulf arec 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 (n) Maxi.aum dose to individuals were calculated for cloud submersion, ground plane
\' contamination, inhalation, and vegetable, goat milk, and meat ingestion l9 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. All estimates were based on the calculated gaseous l8 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 effluents was found to be greatest to an assumed individual located 2.0 miles north of the plant. The total-body dose was calculated to 9 be 3.06E-2 mrem /yr, while the skin dose was 8.4E-2 mrem /yr.
External irradiation from activity deposited on the ground surfaces was evaluated at the same location. These analyses indicate that a dose of 6.82E-1 mrem /yr to the total-body and 7.98E-1 mrem /yr to the skin can be expected from this pathway.
The maximum individual dose calculated from the air inhalation pathway was found in the north sector, 2.0 miles from the plant. The maximum dose to an 9 organ of an individual at this locations inhaling radioiodine and radioparticulates in the plant effluent was calculated to be 9.15E 2 mrem /yr to a child's thyroid. Maximum whole-body dose for this pathway was calculated 9 to be 1.4E-3 mrem /yr to and adult at the same location.
t V
5.3 3 Amendment 9
- . _ ~ . - -
STP ER The calculated dose to an individual consuming vegetables grown in a garden adj acent to the residence 4.0 miles NNW of the plant was also determinad.
Maximum calculated exposure from this pathway was 3.35 mrem /yr to a child's thyroid, and raaximum total-body dose was 2.93E-1 mrem /yr to a child.
Goats have been found at 5.4 miles ENE of the plant. The maximum organ dose from ingestion of milk from a goat grazing year-round at this location was 1.77E-1 mrem /yr to an infant's thyroid. The adult is expected to receive the maximum total-body dose of 4.49E-3 mrem /yr. The consumption of contaminated 9
cow's milk is considered ct the location of the nearest milk cow (4.8 mi WNW) which results in an infant thyroid dose of 1.2 arem/yr (Reference 5.3-3).
Exposure from consumption of meat was evaluated at the point of maximum concentration .93 miles NNW of the plant. The maximum organ dose to an it.dividual from ingestion of meat from a cow grazing year-round at this location was 2.02E-1 mrem /yr to the thyroid of a child. The maximum total body dose from the meat ingestion pathway was 5.47E-2 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, l8 ground-plane contamination, air inhalation, and vegetable, milk, and meat ingestion pathways and are presented in Table 5.3-2. Dispersion factors lf (x/Q's) and relative deposition were those discussed in Section 5.2.2.2. The estimato 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.
Staple crop consumption appears to be the most important pathway for total-body population dose. Consumption of cattle products and inhalation do g 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 storage areas located within buildings are well shielded. Therefore, skyshine will be negligible. The conservatively estimated dese at the exclusion boundary would be less than 1.0 mrem /yr for two-unit operation. 8 O
5.3-4 cmendment 9
i STP ER A)
(V Transportation of radioactive materials is discussed in Section 3.8. l8 5.3.5 SUFMARY OF ANNUAL RADIATION DOSES Naximum individual doses calculated as described in Section 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 were used to evaluate the status of conformance of calculated liquid and gaseous effluents from the South Texas Project with the requirements of 8
Appendix I to 10CFR50. 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 RG 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 I.
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 RG 1.109. Specific assumptions used for liquid and gaseous pathway calculations are discussed in the following paragraphs; the results 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 natural background radiation. Data presented by the EPA's Office of Radiation Programa (Reference 5.3-1) indicate that the average total-body dose to an individual living in Texas from terrestrial and cosmic radiation is
,, -s about 100 mrem /yr.
Exposure of each person within a 50-mile radius of the plant to this radiation level would result in a population dose of 5.28E+4 man-rem from natural l9 background in the year 2030. The predicted total-body population dose is 3 about 3.41 man-rems from the operation of the South Texas Project (Table l9 5.3-2), which represents a minute fraction of the background dose. Radiolog-ical impact of the plant on the area population is therefore expected to be negligible.
O 5.3-5 Amendment 9
STP ER
(
V}
5.3.6 REFERENCE 5.3-1 Klement, A.W., Jr., and others, " Estimates of Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United States 1960 - 2000," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Radiation Programs, Division of Criteria dn 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 8 Cenerating Station" Wyle Research Report, July 1984, 155 pp.
5.3-3 HL&P letter to USNRC, M.R. Wisenburg to G.W. Knighton, ST-HL-AE-1327, dated August 23, 1985 which transmitted a copy of the report entitled "Wyle Research Report - WR 84-24, Ingestion Pathway Data to Support Annual Dose Calculations for 9 the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station."
O O
5.3-6 Amendment 9
~
m s Tame 5.3-1 Appfett t conFoanancE asseneY taste SERITW TEMAS peOJECT organ Receiving seemisam pose seenisnm Dose Tota 1-Sody Pathessrs Locatiers Age Gro e Organ (aresm/yr) Dose (arem/yr Fish Ingestion Little Teen Liver 8.2E 1 5.9E-1 (Adult)
Robbins Slough
$hettfish Colorado Adult GI-Tract 2.6E 2 1.0E-2 (Adutt) cn u Ingestion River N b M 4 shoreline Colorado Teen Skin 2.4E-2 2.1E-2 (Teen)
Eaposure River 9
Suisuming Colorado Teen Skin 3.9E-4 9.1E 5 (Teen)
River soeting Colorado Adutt/ Teen skin 4.5E-5 4.5E-5 (Adutt/ Teen) seeat Ingestion Little AdJit Liver 1.9E01 1.7E-1 (Adult) achbins stough N.
Q.
E -
e
STP ER
( Table 5.3-2 PREDICTED DOSES TO THE POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Total-Body Dose Thyroid Dose Percent of Percent of Pathway t (man-rem) Total (thyroid-rem) Total Gaseous Effluents Plume Immersion 1.88E-1 6.4 1.88E-1 10.4 Ground Plane Contamination 7.95E-1 27 7.95E-1 44 Inhalation 8.39E-3 <1 5.48E-1 30 Vegetable Ingestion 1.74 59 9.74E-1 *1 9 Cow Milk Ingestion 1.44E-3 *1 1.67E-2 *1 Meat Ingestion 2.13E-1 7.2 2.64E-1 14.6 Total, Gaseous Pathways 2.95 100 1.81 100 8
Liquid Effluents Fish Ingestion 6.0E-2 13 5.4E-3 5 Shellfish Ingestion 3.96E-2 87 1.1E-1 5
,9_5, Total,' Liquid Pathways 4.6E-1 100 1.1E-1 100 Total Population Dose 3.41 1.92 9 1
Reference 5.3-3 provides the site specific information that was used in the analysis. '
9 l
O 5.3 8 Amendment 9 I
t
l V / -
5
- ~
l - -
- ' E - .
s Tatde 5.3-3 L StsWWWY OF CALCULATED GASEOUS PATuWAY DOSES SOUTN TEMAS PuGJECT organ Receiving j maniam Dose Total-Sody Miniaan Dose Dose I
PatNeef Location (1) Age Grongs Organ (arem/yr) (eremVyr) i f Cloud Ismersion Assasumed meerest Att Skin 8.39E-2 3.06E-2 i IMiwiduet ,
(ALL) l (2.0 miles us i
Graanut Plane Contamination Assammed meerest Alt Skin 7.98E-1 6.82E-1 ,
i trufiridual (Att) I
'(2.0 miles m) os i Y -
lw 't h tation Assammed meerest Child Thyroid 9.15E-2 1.39E-3 m (b ~
Indivi & st ( A<) 9 (2.0 mites u) vegetable Ingestion me est mase Garden Child Thyroid 3.35 2.93E-1 (4 0 miles WW)
, (Child)
. Goat Milk Ingestion , Ne> rest Milk Goat Infant Thyroid 1.77E-1 4.49E-2 (5.4 mites EuE) (Adutt)
Cow Meat Ir:gestion meerest Cow Child Thyroid 2.02E-1 5.47E 2 l
,- (0.93 miles muu) (Adult)
- h a
l 3 Cow Mitt Ingestion meerest Milk Cow Infant Thyroid 1.2 1.23E-2 '
g (4.8 mi WWW) (Adutt) o ,
I M {
6 t
r (1) Reference 5.3-3 provides the site specific information that was used in the analysis.
I I
I l
, - , - - - , - ._-- _ .-y -- 7
N ,O ^-
U l
l J U l
Tatde 5.3-4 APPfe!X I CoutonewsCE SLsetARY TASLE StWTN TEMA! Pe0 JECT Appendix I Criteria South Texas Project Design Point of Dose Point of Dose
- Type of Done Objective (1) Ewetuation Calculated Dose Evaluation (8)
Lie 4id Effluents (9)
Dose to total body 5 mreuvyr Location of the highest 5.9E-1 mrem /yr (6) Little Robbins stough from a!L pathueys per site dose offsite (2) l Dose to any organ 5 aream/yr same as above 8.3E-1 ares /yr (6) Little Robbins stomph
! from att pathuays per site tn l
- caseous Effluents (9)
N w
.'. =
O Gamme dose in air l 10 mrad /yr Location of the highest 0.16 mrad /yr Location of highest per site dose offsite (3) amust average concen-tration at the site 9 j botadery ( w at 0.89 mi) seta dose in air 20 mrad /yr same as above 0.35 mrad /yr same as above per site I
j Dose to total body 5 area /yr Location of the (2) 0.71 mree/yr nearest resience l per site highest dose offsite ( w at 2.0 miles) l I
y Dose to skin of an 15 mreevyr same as above 0.88 arem/yr same as above
$ individual per site c.
B
$ Radiciodines and Particulates Released to the Atmosphere e .
- Dose to any organ 15 areuvyr Location of the 3.4 mrem /yr (5) meerest assumed garden from att pat %ays per site highest dose offsite ( W at 4.0 miles)
, , . x- ~ -
~ ~ ~ - y l .. .,3 .; ' % :' G
.- ~j" l r. ?
f~) V I <.;y% .
q) j%, - _
l l
Table 5.3-4 (continued) l f APPEWIX I COFORMANCE SUletARY TABLE -'i
, SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT (1) Design objectives as specified'in the conomission's Appendix I Conformance Option, 40 FR 40816, September 4,1975.
~
, *(2) EvaluatedatalocationthatisanticipatedtobeoccupiedduringplantLifetimeorevaluatedwithrespecttosuchhtential ,j land and water usage and food pathways as could actually exist during the term of plant operation. '
l
- (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. J ~
l ui U' (6) Dose to adult as whole body and teen's liver (Little Robbins Stough) from fish ingestion, shoreline exposure, swinsnirig and 9 y y
boating in the Colorado River. -
m lc w
(7) Fish were assumed to be exposed to average radionuclide concentrations in ths Little Robbins Slough.
(8) Points given correspond to points of dose evaluation under Appendix I heading. *
(9) Reference 5.3 3 provides the site specific information that was used in the analysis.
l l
h (D
s O.
4 0 to D
- Reproduced from Regulatory Guide 1.109.
y e
STP ER 5.4 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES Nonradioactive _ chemical wastes in.the plant effluent will result from the l makeup demineralization system, chemical cleaning 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 systen 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 st,ep in the regeneration schedule for one regeneration of
, La cation-anion mixed-bed train.
-An approximate waste water analysis resulting from cne day of maximum regener-4 ation of the domineralizer 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 i 3 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 wastes over and above ambient concentrations in the amounts listed in Table 5.4-1. Effects 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 I
will be subjected to chemical cleaning. The heated solution will be treated 8
!- for the removal of metal ions, neutraliz2d, and discharged to the reservoir or removed from the site by a licensed waste handler. The auxiliary boiler will 7 i also be subjected to alkaline cleaning. The waste waters associated with this cleaning will be handled as described in Section 5.4.1. 7 5.4.3 BIOCIDE SYSTEM The biocide system for controlling slime growth in condenser tubes and circu-l lating water lines is described in Section 3.6.2.
l 5.4-1 Amendment 8
STP ER 9 Q291.
3 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 residual. 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 discharge outfall into the cooling reservoir. Approximately 5,000 pcunds of 3 weight percent sodium chloride solution will be discharged to the 8 reservoir 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 Colorad 8 River. At these times, the Colorado River flowrate will be at least eight 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 Texas Water Quality Board (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 discharge and ambient conditions were based on data taken when concentrations of major chemical 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 characteristic of that area. Those that are not tolerant can be classified as temporary or occasional inhabitants and will not be found under all environmental conditions. Because most inhabitants of the Colorado River near the plant site are adapted to the natural stressful conditions present, the chemical 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.
O 5.4-2 Amendment 9
STP ER
<~s 5.6 EFFECTS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM The material presented in the " Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage". requires no updating except as discussed below.
5.6.1.1 Houston Lighting & Power Company Herbicides will be used only at the base of structures where brush and vines make inspection and maintenance a problem. When needed, Banuel pellets will be used. The area so treated will revert to grass or herbaceous dicot cover within three to six months after treatment.
5.6.1.2 Central Power and Light Company Maintenance of transmission facilities will be performed on a schedule program. Dow Chemical Company, Estron No. 2-4-505 mixed with diesel oil (3 gal of Estron per 100 gal of oil) will be used on a selective basis to control brush in the right-of-way. A herbicide application will be made 1 to 3 years after the initial clearing and then every 3 to 5 years as needed to control brush growth. One-half to one pint Estron 2-4-505 is applied per stem of brush. No toxic materials will be used that might endanger wildlife.
Mechanical control of brush will be used in areas where chemical treatment is not permitted.
5.6.1.3 City of Public Service Board of San Antonio 9 Q290.
Scheduled maintenance will be performed on a 3-year cycle under the 13
(~)s supervision of the CPS Maintenance Supervisor. Unscheduled patrols will be conducted as needed to determine any unsafe conditions such as inadequate clearance between trees and conductors. These patrols may be conducted in fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft, on foot, or in small trucks.
Maintenance of the transmission line should have little effect on the vegetation except for trees directly beneath the conductors A path for emergency vehicles will be maintained and carefully selected, environmentally acceptable herbicides will be used if necessary on a spot kill basis. The herbicide used by San Antonio is HYVAR XL or ROUNDUP. One gallon of HYVAR is combined with 50 gallons of diesel oil for application every 3-5 years. One pint of the mixture is applied per stem of brush which cannot be mowed.
0 5.6-1 Amendment 9
STP ER
-IN 5.7 OTHER EFFECTS V
The material presented in the " Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage" requires no updating except as discussed below.
! 5.7.1 Changes in Land Use.
All permanent plant roads will be paved or constructed of crushed limestone or 9 other suitable material. Unpaved road surfaces will be treated, as necessary, during plant operation to minimize fugitive dust emissions.
Construction roads that are not upgraded for use during operation will be removed. The road bed will be graded and seeded to conform to the natural surroundings.
f J
O f
5.7-1 Amendment 9
-. - _ - _- . . -- -. - .~ - , ..
1-STP ER shrimp, crabs and other macrozooplankters were similarly identified and enu-i p
. -V merated. All specimens were curated in 3 percent buffered formalin and deposited in a permanent voucher collection. Fish and associated macroin-l.
^
vertebrates were sampled at each station by seining and trawling. -A 20 ft (headrope length) otter trawl with upper bag mesh of 0.75 in, and cod end mesh i of 0.25 in, was towed on the bottom parallel to shore at mid-channel for 5 minutes. Larger fish and crabs were identified, weighed, measured in the field and returned to the water; smaller fish, shrimp, crabs and other organ-l isms were preserved in 10 percent formalin for laboratory analysis.
! Additional estimates of fish and invertebrate populations were obtained by use of a two-man bag seine (20 x 6 x 6 ft, 0.25 in mesh) in shallow shoreline areas in the vicinity of each station. Specimens taken by seining were 4
handled as described above for trawl samples.
Organisms collected by trawl or seine gear and returned to the laboratory were 4dentified. counted and. measured. Total weights were recorded by species.
All specimens were stored in voucher collections.
3 2. Phase Two. During the second phase, emphasis will be on documentation of actual entrainment under various flow salinity conditions. Therefore, sampling is limited to station 2 and the ailtation basin. Sampling is
! conducted at approximately two week intervals during periods of' pumping. 7 Additional samples are taken when salinities at station 2, at a depth of 8 to 10 ft, reach 3 parts per thousand. Salinity is checked daily by
. .onsite personnel to determine the need for intensive sampling. Two permanently (for O.e duration of the study) positioned continuously
^
recording salinon.eters are monitored. These recorders are positioned in
- the following locations:
- 1) at the top of the weir approximately 2 feet below the water surface,
, and
- 2) at a depth of 8 to 10 feet.
Intensive sampling does not exceed weekly intervals during March through
. May and August through December, and will not exceed biweekly intervals
.during January, February, June and July. Intensive sampling is conducted only for the duration of low flows (as indicated by salinities 23 ppt at a depth of 8 to 10 feet). Samples are collected over a 24-hour period at 6-hour intervals. Exact sampling procedures in the siltation basin will be adjusted as necessary to meet physical sampling restrictions.
6.1.1.3.3 Impingement Monitoring Program Impingement monitoring is performed 7 to determine species composition and to quantify the numbers of fishes and other organisms which become impinged on intake screens by diversion of water 1
from the Colorado River to the cooling reservoir. The impingement monitoring
, program is on going and will continue for one year or until adequate data have 7 been obtained to assess impingement.
- O i-
! 6.1-13 Amendment 7
STP ER Impinged organisms are sampled at the initiation of each pumping period and for one 24-hour period every s,ven days during extended periods of continuous .
pumping. Samples consist of 30-minute counts on each of two screens every eight hours during a 24-hour period. All fishes and other organisms are identified by species and the total weight of the 24-hour sample determined. 7 All fish of a given species are used to compute modal length, maximum length, and modal weight. Estimates of the total number of each species impinged 9 per 24-hour sampling period are computed. The salinity, makeup volume and freshwater flowrate during sampling are recorded.
6.1.2 GROUNDWATER In the site area, shallow and deep aquifer zones are separated by an impervi-ous confining zone of considerable thickness. The known major differences in the water quality data and the direction of groundwater flow confirm the substantial thickness of the impervious zone. The deep aquifer zone is recharged from infiltration of precipitation and stream percolation outside the site area. The shallow aquifer zone is also replenished from outside the site area (see Section 2.5.2).
6.1.2.1 Physical and Chemical Parameters 6.1.2.1.1 Physical Parameters. A weekly water level monitoring program was initiated for the STP in July 1973. Piezometers were installed at various depths in each aquifer zone. In addition to these onsite water level measure-ments, previous Texas Water Development Board measurements for wells in the offsite area have been utilized.
Piezometer locations are shown in Figure 6.1-3. Typical piezometer installa-tion details are shown in Figure 6.1-5. Locations and depths of piezometers are shown in Figures 6.1-4 and 6.1-J.
The onsite water level measurements were obtained using piezometers consisting of slotted plastic (PVC) screens 2 inches in diameter and 3 feet long with 0.010-inch slots connected to plastic (PVC) rise pipes. The pipes are either 0.075 or 2.0 inches in diameters. The top of the riser generally projects about 2.5 feet above ground surface and is protected with metal covers.
Installation of piezometers followed drilling, surging, and electric logging of the holes.
Clean uniform sand was placed in the borehole around the screen and riser to near the top of the particular sand unit in which the water level was to be monitored. Bentonite seals were placed in specified wells. The remainder of the hole was grouted with cement up to the ground surface, providing an effec-tive seal. Holes for the piezometers were drilled using the hydraulic rotary method using only the natural muds while drilling. Several days after the cement grout had set, each of the piezometers was checked to ensure that it was functioning properly. Each riser was filled to the top with fresh water, and the rate of fall was then observed. When the response was sluggish, the piezometer was flushed by pumping.
Measurements of water level were taken using an electric fluid conductivity probe. When the probe at the end of the cable on the instrument touched the O
6.1-14 Amendment 9
STP ER months. The highest number counted for a given species during each 5-day
(~~)/
(_, period is the number reported for that species for the month.
The waterfowl counts are conducted by slowly driving around the dike system of the reservoir (both external and internal). At short intervals, the vehicle 7 is stopped and all the birds visible from that location (and not previously counted) are identified and tabulated. Both binoculars and a 22x Bushnell spotting scope attached to a window mount are used to make species identifi-cations and counts.
6.1.5 RADIOIDGICAL SURVEYS United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) regulations require that nuclear power plants be designed, constructed, and operated to keep levels of radioactive material in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable (10CER50.34a). To assure that such releases are kept as low as practicable, each license authorizing reactor operation includes technical specifications (10CFR50.36a) governing the release of radioactive effluents.
In-plant monitoring is utilized to assure that these pre-determined release limits are not exceeded (see Section 6.2.1.1).
The regulations governing the quantities of radioactivity in reactor effluents allow nuclear power plants to contribute, at most, only a few percent increase above normal background radioactivity. Background levels at any one location are not constant but vary with time, as they are influenced by external events such as cosmic ray bombardment, weapons test fallout, and atmospheric varia-
'~
tions. These levels also can vary spatially within relatively short distances
/ reflecting variation in the geological composition. Because of these spatial
(_,]/ and temporal variations, the radiological surveys of the plant environs are divided into preoperational and operational phases. The preoperational phase of the program of sampling and measuring radioactivity in various media permits a general characterization of.the radiation levels and concentrations prevailing prior to plant operation along with an indication of the degree of natural variation to be expected. The operation phase of the program obtains data which, when considered along with the data obtained in the preoperational phase, assist in the evaluation of the radiological impact of plant operation.
Implementation of the preoperational monitoring program fulfills the following objectives:
- 1. personnel training;
- 2. evaluation of procedures, equipment and techniques;
- 3. identification of probable critical pathways to be monitored after the plant is in operation; and
- 4. measurement of background levels and their variations along anticipated critical pathways in the area surrounding the plant.
9 m
( )
6.1-45 Amendment 9
STP ER The criteria for selecting sample types are based on the sources of radioac-tivity expected to be released to the environment and the exposure pathways for these radionuclides to man and important biota. Sampling locations have b:en selected on the basis of local ecology, meteorology, physical character-10 tics of the terrain, and demographic and cultural features of the region.
The frequency of sampling and the duration of the sampling period are depen-d:nt on the radionuclide of interest and the biological behavior of the envi-ranmental media and radionuclide. Sufficient samples are included in the program to define the spatial and temporal variation in radioactivity levels where necessary.
The following paragraphs describe the general program tc le 'nstitutad including the expected types of samples, the collection frequency, and the cualysis to be accomplished on each sample type.
S;veral nationally organized radiological monitoring networks maintain sta-tions (n Texas. In addition, the Texas State Department of Health conducts cxtensive monitoring activities throughout the state. Data collected from these sources have been presented in Sect ion 2.8. The USNRC recommends mea-curements of background radiological characteristics of proposed nuclear cites, including natural background radiation levels occurring in soils and rocks. During August 20, 1973, an aerial gamma ray spectrometric survey of the STP site and surrounding area was conducted to obtain this information.
B: sed upon the collected data, 20 Thermo-luminescent Dosimeter (TLD) stations w;re selected. The first set of TLDs was placed in the site vicinity during October, 1973. These TLDs are collected and read quarterly. An environmental rcdiological survey including the sampling of biota, vegetation, soils and w:ter was also conducted on and around the STP site during the month of Novem-b:r, 1973. The analytical results of these surveys are presented in Section 2.8. These environmental surveys are not intended to be preoperational moni-toring programs. However, the survey data gathered were considered in deter-tining the sampling locations for the preoperational monitoring programs.
B: sed on the aerial gamma ray spectrometric survey there appear to be no obvi-ous anomalies in the site region. However, the whole region may be an anomaly with respect to the Stata of Texas.
6.1.5.1 Airborne Iodine and Particulates Airborne iodine and particulates will be sampled by continuous low volume air camplers (approximately 2.5 cfm) fitted with charcoal canisters. The air 7 cLmpling network will consist of 8 stations. One station will be located at c ch of three locations at the exclusion zone boundary (in the N, NNW and NW csctors). Since all releases will be at ground level or from roof vents, the highest calculated offsite ground level concentration of airborne releases occur at the site boundary regardless of direction. Air sampling systems will ba placed at or near the population centers of Bay City, Celanese Plant Mata- 7 gorda, and El Maton. A control station will be located at least 20 miles from the site in a minimal wind direction, W of the site. The filters will be 7 changed weekly and analyzed for gross beta activity. Quarterly composited filters will be subjected to gamma isotopic analyses. Charcoal canisters will b2 collected and analyzed weekly, starting six months prior to issuance of the Operating License.
O 6.1-46 Amendment 7
- STP ER 6.1.5.6 Fish
() 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 .
of the Colorado River fish may be eaten ~by man, this food chain will be moni-i 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 i types used for human co'nsumption and will include fishes with different 4 feeding habits. The flesh of the fish samples will be subjected to a gamma isotopic analysis. 7 3
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 O 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 affluent. These samples will be subjected to a i gamma isotopic analysis. Radioiodine will be analyzed in broad leaf vege-l 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 %/Q, if milk sampling is not performed, will be 7 i 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 O within 10 miles of the plant. The flesh will be subjected to gamma isotopic analysis.
7 6.1-49 Amendment 8 w y y - + , - - - - . - - ,-i.,-_-a w -. w ..,,,--m-, , , , , . .-%-.r-mm.* -w -rw w - ' - - '
o STP ER 6.1.5.9 Came Game will be obtained on site or within 10 miles of the site, when cvailable.
The edible tissue will be analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. 7 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.
Radiological environmental surveillance shall be performed in such a manner as to meet the intent of USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.15 " Quality Assurance for 7 Radiological Monitoring Programs" (Rev. 11, 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 accura'cy of analysis.
Detection capabilities for environmental sample analysis are provided in Table 6.1-17.
This preoperational environmental monitoring program began in July,1985, and will continue until issuance of the Operating License. 9 O
O 6.1-50 Amendment 9
h \
V U V) r Table 6.1-23(a)
ATE 3WE DE5W4fnCAL IEATTVE um.--JiGt IMIA PFFIGh 7/11/7310 W30/77 IEE IE DE E ESE SE SSE S 35W SW WRi V Wei Inf gual . R ummmirut IEE praener 4.lE-07 3.4E-e7 2.8E-07 2.7E-4F e.5E-te 4.0E-Go 7.2E-06 8.*E-07 1.2E-*7 2. 4E-*7 2.9E-07 6. 9E-47 6.6E-47 8.oE-M t . lf-46 8.eE-*6 3.M-e7 2.9E-07 8.9E-47 2.4Es07 7.eE-43 3.eE-te S.SE-ee 7.M-48 8.fsE-09 8.9E-47 2.X-07 5. 8 E-47 5.7E-e7 0. 7E-47 9.6E-47 S 8E-07 2.8E-49 1.X-09 6. 4E-10 7.9E-t e 2. 7E-t e 8. t E-8 0 3. 8 E-t e 4.eE-t e 3. 7E-8 0 7.6E-t e 0. 7E-t e 2.eE-99 2.sE-e9 6.X-09 e.4E-49 7. 7E-49
- 4. lE-e 7 3.X-47 2. tE-47 2.7E-07 e. 4E-te 3.9E.-ee 7. t E-te 9.9E-ee 8. lE-*7 2. 4E-47 2.8E-07 5.9E-87 6.6E-47 8.*E-46 8. lE-06 8.eE-06
- 4. t E -e7 3. X-07 2. E E-4 7 2.7E-0 7 8. 4E-08 4. eE**e 7. 2E-*8 8. 0E-e 7 8. 8E-97 2. 4E-07 2.8E-07 5.9E-47 6.eE-07 8.eE46 8.lf-66 8.*E-96 3.6E-*7 2.9E-07 8.8E-07 2.4E-47 6.9E-oS 2.9E-08 5.4E48 7.6E-08 8.6E-08 8.9E-47 2. 3E-07 5.eE-47 5.7E-07 e.6E-47 9.8E-07 0. 7E-97
- 3. M -e7 2.9E-07 8.9E-47 2.4E-47 7.eE-oe 3.oE-*e 5.SE-48 7. 7E4e e.7E-99 8. 9E-07 2.X47 S. lE-07 5.7E-47 e.7E-47 9.eE-07 e.8E-07 SSS. 1586. 860e. I567. 2978. 6889. 642s. 5936. 6s6e. 4426. 3489. 286e. t8e9 I792. I63 . IS2 .
LOW POPta_ATION 20W DieTANCE teese PETERSp
- e. 4E-ee 7.eE-oe 4.5E-ee 5.6E-ee 4.4E-ee 6.5E-ee 8. lE-e7 3.4E-47 8.sE-07 2. 2E-07 8.st-e7 2.st-e7 8.sE-*7 2.5E-*7 2.4E-e7 2.or-e7 6.6E-te 5.5E-ed 3.5E-te 4.4E-te 3.SE-40 5. 8 E-oe S.SE-te 8. lE-47 8.4E-47 8.7E-07 8.4E-47 8.6E-47 1.4E-47 2.0E-e7 8.9E-07 1.5E-e7 4.3E- te 2. 8 E-t e 3.0E-t e 1.2E-t e 8.2E-t e 2. t E-19 S. 8 E-t e 6.9E-t e 6. M-8 0 6.6E-t e 4.9E-5 0 5.2E-t e 5.sE-8 0 8.2E-09 8.4E-e9 8. lE-e9 e.2E-ee 6.9E-ee 4. X -06 5.4E-ee 4. X -oe 6.4E-ee 1.tE-07 8. X -07 8.7E-07 2.2E-e7 8.8E-e7 8.9E-e7 8.sE-07 2.4E-e7 2.4E-47 8.9E-87 e.3E-*8 7.*E-ee 4.4E-98 5.SE-06 4.4E-Se 6.5E-98 8.8E-*7 8. 4E-*7 8. 9E-97 2.2E-97 8.8E-* F 2. *E-07 8.9E-*7 2.5E-07 2. 4E-47 2. 0E-07 6.5E-e8 5. 4E-*8 3. 4E-08 4. X-Se 3. 4E-te 5.*E-98 8. 4E-98 S . I E-97 8. 4E-0 7 1. 7E-47 8. 4E-87 8.5E-87 8.4E-*7 8.9E-e7 1.9E-47 8.5E-07 6.M-98 5.5E-98 3.SE-08 4.4E-99 3.5E-*8 5. E E-08 8.4E-*6 1. lt-*7 8.4E-07 8.72-07 8.4E47 8.SE-07 1.4E-07 2.0E-97 1.9E-07 8.5E-07 49ee. 4804. 4804. 4000 4804. 4800 480s. 4800. 4000 4380 4880 4800 4800 40e#. 4000. 4e00 9
- e e.5 MILES 6 0e5 METERSS $
1-- 1. lE-M 9.0E-07 6.3E-47 7.7E-07 6. 8E-07 9.2E-07 8.5E-M 8.9E-M 2.4E-M 3. tE-46 2.5E-M 2.7E-M 2.4E-06 3.4E-94 3.2E-M 2.7E-46 -o
-a 1. t E-M 9. *E-67 5.PE-47 7. 8 E-47 5. 6E-07 8. 4E-97 8.4E-06 1.8E-*6 2. 2E-M 2. 8E-M 2.X-*6 2.5E-46 2.2E-06 3. t E-96 3.eE-46 2.4E-46 p, e.2E-99 4.*E-09 8.9E-09 2.3E-09 2.3E-49 4.*E-*9 9.7E-99 8. 3E-ee 8.2E-99 8.3E46 9.3E-09 9.9E-09 1.8E-98 2. X -Se 2.6E-90 2.2E-te :n
- 1. 8 E-M 9. 8E-07 6. 3E-0 7 7. 7E-47 6. t E-*F 9. 2E-6 7 8.5E-*6 8.9E-M 2. 4E-06 3. I E-86 2.SE-*6 2. 7E-M 2. 4E-06 3.X-#6 3. 2E-M 2. 7E46
- 8. 8 E-M 9.0E-97 6.X-47 7.7E-07 6. t E-97 9.2E-97 8.5E-06 3.9E-96 2. 4E-M 3. 8 E-M 2.5E-96 2. 7E-M 2.4E-M 3. 3E-66 3. 2E-M 2. 7E-46 8.*E -OS 8.9E-4 7 5. 7E-4 7 7.0E-07 5. 6E-0 7 8. 4E-e7 8. 4E-06 8. 7E-*6 2.2E-86 2. 8E-06 2. 3E-M 2.SE-M 2. 2E-M 3. t E-M 3.0E-M 2. 4E-06
- 8. lE-M 9.*E-*F 5. 9E-e7 7. lE-97 5.6E-97 8. 4E-97 8. 4E-06 1.9E-M 2. 2E-96 2. 8E-M 2. X-96 2.5E-M 2.2E-*6 3. t E-M 3.*E-M 2. 4E-06 805. SGS. 803. 805, 805. 845. 895. 805. 805. 845. 805. 805. 805. 005. 805. 005.
l.S MILES 4 2485 METERSt 2.2E-07 8.9E-07 8.2E-47 1.4E-47 3. lE-47 8.7E-97 2.eE-07 3.6E-97 4.6E-47 5.7E-07 4.7E-07 5. 8E-07 4.7E-*7 6.5E-47 6.4E-07 5. 8E-e7 8.8E-07 8.5E-47 9.eE-te 1.2E-07 9.7E-ee 1.4E-07 2. 4E-07 3.9E-07 3.9E-0F 4.8E-07 4.0E-47 4.3E-07 3.9E-47 5.5E-07 5.4E-07 4.4E-07 8.4E-99 6.M-t e 3.2E-t e 3.9E-t e 3.eE-10 6.6E-t e 1.6E-99 2.?E-99 2.*E-99 2. lE-99 8.6E-99 8.6E-99 8.9E-99 3.9E-49 4. 4E-49 3.M-*9 2.2E-07 8.0E-*7 8. lE-47 8.4E-47 8.1E-67 8.7E-07 2.8E-97 3.4 E-47 4.6E-07 5.6E-07 4. 7E-97 5.9E-07 4.M-07 6.5E-07 6.4E-07 5. t E-07 2.?E-*7 1.eE-07 8.2E-07 8. 4E-07 8.tE-07 8.7E-47 2.pE-07 3.6E-07 4.6E-97 S.7E-07 4.7E-47 S.8E-47 4.7E-07 6.SE-47 6.4E-o? 5.8E-07 8.8E-07 1.5E-07 9.6E-oe I .2E-07 9.6E-es 5.4E-87 2. 4E-47 3.9E-*7 3.eE-47 4.8E-e7 3.9E-*7 4.2E-0F 3.9E-47 S.5E-07 5.4E-07 4.X-07 8.9E-07 8.5E-07 9. 7E-98 1. 2E-* F 9. 7E-48 3. 4E-97 2. 4E -*7 3. PE-*7 J. 9C4 7 4. 0E -* 7 4.et-* 7 4. 3E-9 7 3. 9E-*7 5.?E-e 7 5. aE-97 4. X-*7 2485. 2485. 2485. 2485. 2485. 2485. 2415. 2415. 2485. 2485. 2415. 2485. 2485. 2485. 2485. 2485.
TOTAL 095 -3501% TOTAL INV 095 - 262 CALMS UPPER LE EL - 9.90 CALMS LOWER LFV -882.00 ItEY ENTRY I RELATIVE CONCENTRATION - N00 (S/M**3) ENTRY 2 DEPLETED RELATIVE CONCENTRATION (S/M**38 ENTRY 3 RELAftVE DEPOSITION RATE tt/M**29 ENTRY 4 DECAYED E00 IS/M**3) - HALF LIFE 2.26 DAYS ENTRY 5 DECAYED E00 IS/M**3) - HALF LIFE 8.ee DAYS ENTRY 6 MC+DPL IOQ (S/M**3) - HALF LIFE 2.26 DAYS ENTRY 7 DEE*DPL IOQ IS/M**37 - HALF LIFE 9.** DAYS ENTRY 8 - DISTANCE IM METERS e
D.
=
tw
%D I
STP ER
. N, e,
YYIYYYYi nWxxxWW3 YYIY YY Yi 3x $x 4x x3 YIYY TIIi EW xW Ex WR II
- iI nrIIId
, wW WA 44.:4444
.:.: 4.: .:4 .: .:4 d4.:44 44 4d gd d- ;j.j ,
__f_tttt:
tt _
ft_ I_t t t tX ??.???t* II .I ,I R 122 g 55555558
. _ . . . , 8.M_
- _ _ _ _ _ _ * *.* *8 __.____ ......8 E.dd.
iYiYYY'i ussexxx:
YY ?Y YY ' '
wenszw M Ws WWws:
iY?YYYYi I8'IIIId wr We rr an
!33 R 44.:4444 4J 44 4.: .: .:.: 4 4.:.: 4 4444444- i m(I 41 YYYYYYYi MWWMx WS YYYYYYYi x!*WWWEA II*YYIII WerWWarR IIIIIIId xWxW2x42 YkII 2"a"$
$ 44,:4 4.: .: .: .: J J .:.: 4 .:, 4.: .:,:,: dd.:d dd d- "[ g lita YY'YYYii xWWxxW**
YY2YiYYi 3xiWWxx2 YI?YYIIi EWmEENxR II?IIIId WTWWWrWA "W88 44.:4444 .:.: 4.: .:.: 4 .:4 4.: 24 d dJ.:d dd 4- fo=".g YYYYYYYi YY*YYYYi YIfYYIIi II?IIIId ~
c g ******** 85r**558 58**58*
...,____.R ******** lis!
( ,i
- I ,, , , ,
I9 y *f t. i. t. ;. *i t ~J ____
J , .. "? ? t . *. t .*!*S *J"t { i. t. "t { { .J { { i. t. t. { t. _d .....
%/ -
R E 8xrrWxx3 WWWetWW2 NxxxWWxR xxWWWWr2 ' p5 *r 5w i ;p 4444,;44 .: 4 4.: .:.:4 .:444444 4 4.:J 4 4 4-
$ 8 *T t. i. t. t. t. *t u t. 't!****
J
.itttJ *I2I2I2,4 t . II2I8. I14- l 7 E g xWrxxWW3 WWWWWE22 WWertWx: !* M r !* x ?.
x n ,:.: 4 4 4 J.: .:4 4 4.:.: J J :44.:4,: d d .:J d d d - "
? b
' t.
t i. s. t.t' 3. ~4 *t t. *. S. !*t . !. .J IIS.t.t,I2.4 I { *. t t. *t t. d
_ k !!
gg J *
- WWWerWW3 EWWWEM*A rWWxtWrR WrWrtWW2 f
. JJ;JJJJ 44d4444 4sd44dd 4444444- W3 tt
" k NE kk kIIk kk kk k -
ii**ti
_. _ . _ _ _....iiW3
- ik i_ 8... **i.kkkk*585: 55%**k hi:5 EEEE g*l g ... ... .~ ..~~
IIIIIIII xwruxxs II*IIIII xusexWra IIIIIII5 rutverse II?IIIId wwxurxx:
ag:h,l
.E E d4,14444 d4.:dd44 d4.:4d44 J.: J J .: 4.:- I;3."2 g. ,
II?IIIIi wxrnsWm:
II?I*IIi vernstra II?IIIIi rurxxur xv4xxxv: ,=-a If?IIiid !!!!i g jdJ.:dg44 d4gdd44 g.:444.: 44- -l*E2 I4.:d44.:4 II?IIIfi r II EE lII?IIIIs arsrWxs xxxWxWWa ,?III,Iix ,rxx =8I s Ex ssa ";geg sv?IIIId _
44444&d 4444444 $dAdddA4 CJJ4**JJ- .EI5*
_II;IIIIs II?IIIIi EII?:IIIe !It?IItte 155ss sxWu:Wx: surmurva s :x:: : xxxxxsrz '--*-
l d4.:dd44 d4,:4d44 44 d 44.: .: .:444444- [sjEs II?IIIIi II?IIIIi II?IIIIi II?II886 W 5555 E j:d.: A reves dd :,:
rW x:xWs Cd4.:dd44
=rrrrrre 34444444 mWx***W 0444444.:-
s:
IkIhkt!!i nexxurena I!hk!kki Ikh!!$!i !fI!!!N p g erx rWx:
.: 4 d .:.: 4 4 JddJJdd esserrxt: nWr xWser.
444444d ~ 4 4 4 4 4 J .:-
g 6.1-97a ^"*"d**"E 9
_. . _ ~ - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ __ _ _
J
. Table 6.1-23(a) (Continued) l
! AtmE MINEMGGAL MIgDE GNEIRREN t MIR FRED: 7/21/7310 tf3Gf77 M M M E M N M S W St Imf W tent ni m 3 I BS.o MILES 624846 MTEneI
! 9.et-99 e.SE-e9 S.4E-e9 6.M-99 5.2E-89 7.7E-** 8.X-e8 t.SE-ee 2.lE-ee 2.M-ee 2.2E-ee 2.4E-ee 2.st-ce 2.st-ce 2.M-ee 2.2E-ee 6.eE-e9 s.3E-09 3.3E-99 4.tE-*9 3.2E-99 4.7E-99 7.6E-99 9.4E-99 3.X-ee 3.M-me s.4E-ee t.Sg-ee 8.3g-te 8.yE-ee 8.7g-ee 3.4g-ee 2.M-S t 3.2E-t i S.eE-8 2 7.eE-8 2 6.9E-8 2 B.2E-s t 2.9E-Il 4.eE-II 3.M-s t 3.SE-l a 2.eE-9 3 3.8E-S S 3.4E-8 8 7.eE-f l 7.9E-Il 6.SE-ll 9.or-e9 7.7E-99 4.M-e9 S.9E-e9 4. 7E-** 7.oE-99 8. IE-te 1.4E-ee B.9E-ee 2.SE-te 2. tE-te 2.N-ee 3.9E-ee 2.6E-ee 2.SE-ee 2. IE-te 9.M-99 e.3E-99 S.2E-09 6.M-99 5. lE-99 7."lE-99 8.2E-ee t.SE-te 2.eE-ee 2.6E-ee 2.2E-te 2.3E-ee 2. tE-ee 2.M-ee 2.6E-ee 2.2E-te v S.M-99 4.M-09 2.9E-99 3.M-09 2.1E-e9 4.M-49 7.eE-*9 S.7E-99 1.2E-ee t.SE-Os 3.3E-ee I. E-88 1.2E-98 8.6E-te 1.6E-98 8.3E-ee S.9E-99 S. t E-09 3.2E-09 3.9E-99 3. lE-** 4.M-89 7.4E-89 9.X-89 1.2E-08 1.M-ee 8.M-ee I.M-ee 8.3E-Go 8.M-ee I.M-ee 8.3E-ee 24846. 24846. 24446. 248 % . 24146. 24846. 24846. 24846. 24846. 24346. 24846. 24146. 24846. 24846. 24844. 24446.
25.0 MILES 64e244 MTERSD .
S. lE-99 4.SE-49 2.9E-99 3.SE-09 2.K-99 4. tE-e9 6.4E-99 7.9E-99 8.tE-ee 3.4E4 8.2E-08 8.X-ee 8.3E-ee S.M-te 3.4E-ee 1.2E-te
- 2. 9E-99 2.SE-99 8.M-@9 8.9E-09 8.SE-99 2.2E-99 3.SE-99 4.4E-99 6.0E-@9 7.7E-09 6.SE-99 6.9E-09 6. lt-e9 e.et-e9 7.M-e9 6.4E-99 l 1.M-8 2 4.7E-8 2 2.3E-82 2.7E-82 2.M-8 2 4.7E-82 8. IE-I t 4.6E-81 1.4E-st 3.SE-il 1.tE-88 3.2E-Il 8.3E-Il 2. M -ll 3.tE-Il 2.SE-Il 4.SE-99 3.eE-99 2.X-09 2.9E-99 2.X-#9 3.SE-09 S.7E-99 7.eE-09 9.6E-09 8.3E-ee i.eE-ee 8. IE-ee 9.M-99 8.X-ee 1.3E-es f.eE-98 j 4.9E-99 4.X-09 2.7E-09 3.M-*9 2.6E-99 3.9E-09 6.2E-99 7.M-*9 8.9E-ee 3.4E-4e 8. tE-ee 8.2E-ee 8. tE-ee 1.4E-ee 3.4E-te 9. lE-ee 1 2. M -*9 2.8E-09 8. M -*9 8. M -09 8. X-99 8.9E-99 3. tE-09 3.sE-99 5.M-*9 7.eE-99 5.7E-99 6.eE-09 5.3E-99 7. 8E-09 7.eE-99 5.7E-09 2.7E-99 2.4E-99 8.M-99 8.eE-99 8.4E-99 2. tE-09 3. 4E-99 4.2E-@9 S.7E-09 7.M-99 6.2E-09 6.6E-e9 5.SE-09 7.7E-99 7.SE-09 6.2E-99 40244 44244. 40244 40244 4e244. 40244 40244. 40244 4e244 4e244 4e244 4e244. 40244. 40244, 40244 4e244 f 35.e MILES 456348 MTERS) 1 3.4E-09 3.eE-09 3.9E-49 2.3E-09 8.EE-89 2. M-09 4.2E-09 5.2E-*9 7.2E-99 9.4E-99 7.9E-99 e. M-09 7.3E-99 9. M-99 9.2E-e9 7.eE-09 9 I l.7E-99 8.SE-49 9.M-te 1.2E-99 9.2E-te 3. 4E-99 2. 8E-09 2.6E-99 3.M-99 4. 7E-99 3.9E-99 4.2E-@9 3.M-e9 4.EE-09 4.M-09 3.9E-99 i S.2E-12 2.SE-8 2 1.2E-8 2 8.SE-8 2 1.4E-8 2 2.SE-8 2 6. IE-12 9.4E-3 2 7.M-12 8.9E-8 2 S.9E-12 6.2E-52 7.eE-12 8.SE-Il 3.7E-t l S.M-s l m
. 2.9E-49 2.M-99 8.4E-@9 8.SE-@9 8.SE-09 2.2E-09 3.6E-99 4.4E-99 6. lE-99 8. tE-99 6.7E-09 7.eE-09 6. IE-09 e.2E=e9 S. lE-09 6.6E-99
. 3. 2E-*9 2.sE-89 3.7E-09 2.lE-99 8.7E-99 2.SE-99 4.SE-99 5.eE-99 4.eE-99 9.eE-99 7.SE-99 7.9E-99 6.9E-99 9.lE-99 S.K -@9 7.4E-09 N as 2.4E-49 8.2E-49 7.2E-10 9.IE-te 7.3E-19 8.IE-09 8. eE-99 2.2E-99 3. lE-09 4. 3 E-99 3.3E-99 3.*M-09 3. lE-@9 4. lE-99 4. tE-09 3.X-99
- . 8.6E-*9 8. M-e9 e.7E-lo 8. tE-*9 S.SE-te 1 3E-e9 2.M-99 2.M-e9 3.4E-99 4.M-99 3.M-e9 4.eE-e9 3.SE-e9 4.6E-e9 4.M-e9 3.M-e9 9 s 56348. S6343. S6348. 56348. S6348. 56341. 56348. 56348. 56348. S6345. 56348. 56348. S6348. S6348. S6348. 56343.
4 U
cr 45.e MILES 472439 M TERS8 2.5E-99 2.2E-99 3.4E-99 8.7E-99 8.4E-09 2.eE-99 3.lE-99 3.9E-99 S.3E-49 7.eE-99 5.SE-09 6.2E-09 S.M-99 7.lE-e9 6.K-99 3.M-09 8.2E-99 8.eE-99 6.6E-te e.lE-te 6.3E-te 9.3E-te S.SE-99 1.eE-99 2.SE-99 3.2E-99 2. M -99 2.9E-99 2.SE-99 3. X -99 3.2E-99 2.7E-99 i 3.2E-12 8.M-8 2 7.6E-8 3 9. tE-8 3 9.eE-83 8.6E-82 3.sE-12 5.2E-52 4.SE-12 S.8E-12 3.M-12 3.9E-82 4.M-12 9. tE-8 2 8.eE-s t S.SE-32 t
2.tE-@9 8.7E-99 9.9E-le 1.3E-99 8.eE-99 8.6E-99 2.6E-09 3. tE-99 4.4E-09 5.SE-99 4.sE-99 4.9E-99 4.X-09 S.SE-99 5.SE-99 4.M-99 2.4E-$9 2.eE-99 3.3E-99 8.6E-09 8.2E-99 8.SE-99 2.9E-99 3.6E-99 S.9E-99 6.6E-99 5.SE-99 S.eE-09 S.8E-99 6.6E-e9 6.SE-99 S.4E-99
- 9. M -te 7.9E-te 4. M -lo S.9E-te 4.eE-te 7.3E-te 8.2E-@9 8.SE-99 2.GE-99 2.7E-99 2.2E-99 2.3E-99 2.GE-99 2.M-99 2.7E-99 2.2E-99
- 3. tE-*9 9.SE-t* S.eE-t e 7.2E- te S.sE-Io S.6E- te 1.4E-99 8.7E-99 2.3E-99 3. tE-99 2.SE-99 2.M-99 2.3E-99 3. lf-99 3.eE-99 2.SE-99 72439. 72439. 72439 72439 72439 72439. 72439 72439. 72439. 72439. 72439. 72439. 72439. 72439 72439 72439 i
i TOTAL Des -35084 TOTAL INW 00S - 262 CAL 7ts UPPER LEVEL - e.00 CALMS Letet LEV -852.00 i KEY ENTRY 8 RELATIWE CONCENTRAfl0N = 200 IS/nu39 ENTRY 2 DEPLETED IELAf tVE CtNECENTRATICBf IS/MH39 j ENTRY 3 RELAftWE DEPOSITION RATE El/M**23 ENTRY 4 DECAYED ROD IS/M**3D - MALW LIFE 2.26 DAYS ENTRY 5 DECAVEe 300 IS/M H 3D - HALF LIFE S.e4 DAYS ENTRY 6 DEC+DPL E00 (S/MH 39 - HALF LIFE 2.26 DAYS ENTRY 7 f(C+0PL E00 (S/M**3) - HALF LIFE o.** DAYS ENTRY e - DISTANCE IN M TERS I
?.
4
%O
.. .. -. -~ ~ . . - . . _ - - - _ . - . - - --
STP ER i
s
- 1. There are no commercial dairies within ten (10) miles of the plant nor
-(~ any individual cows or goats within five (5) miles whose milk is consumed by humans; however, there are six ranches with about 3600 head of beef cattle within 10-mile radius.
- 2. There are extensive commercial crops grown, mainly rice, soybeans, grain sorghum, and cotton in the region immediately surrounding the plant. The
. major portion of irrigation in this region is from the canal and levee systems with water controlled by the LCRA in Bay City. Alternate irri- 7 gation comes from deep water wells 30 ft or greater.
- 3. Logal town derive their drinking water from groundwater wells; there is no population consumption of water from the Colorado River below the plant, though some of its water is permitted for irrigation, although not currently used.
- 4. There is substantial commercial harvesting of shellfish in Matagorda Bay,
, with the potential of harvesting fin fish as well depending on State 7 controls. The Colorado estuary is limited to sports fishing, as a rule.
- 5. Mean background radiation levels due to terrestrial radiation sources are of the order of 8.5 microrem per hour with another 4 microres/ hour due to cosmic rays and fallout, i
- 6. Prevailing winds are South to East Southeast. 7 6.2.1.2.1 The Operation Radiological Monitoring Program. The sampling media, collection location, and type of analysis are essentially the same in both pre-operational and operational radiological monitoring programs, as generally described in Section 6.1.5.
The operational prs ram will be a slightly modified extension of the pre-oper- l7 ational program whi<.) will be continued for the first 36 months of commercial operation (or other period corresponding to a maximum burnup in the initial core cycle), after which time the program will be reviewed and modified, as i a required by data collected to date.
, Table 6.2-1 summarizes the proposed radiological environmental program for the Operational Phase. This program was developed per guidance of USNRC November 7
1979 Branch Technical Position.
Requirements for the operational program include the following:
- 1. The design and implementation of the Radiological Environmental Moni- ,
toring Program, related surveillance activities, sample analysis and required reports shall be performed by the Applicant.
- 2. The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program shall be designed and implemented per guidance of the NRC Branch Technical Position, November 7 1979.
- 3. The proposed minimum Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program shall O be conducted as specified in Table 6.2-1.
6.2-5 Amendment 7
STP ER
- 4. If the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program is not conducted as specified in Table 6.2-1, a statement will be prepared and submitted to the NRC in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. The NRC Branch Technical Position, November 1979, Sections A and B will be used for guidance.
- 5. Determination of a " Reportable Value" for a non-routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Operating Report shall be in accordance with NRC Branch Technical Position, November 1979, Section B.
- 6. The Applicant will perform land use census (s) per guidance of the NRC Branch Technical Position, November 1979. In the event that no reliable milk sample is available for coilection and analysis, broad leaf samples will be collected and analyzed in accordance with Table 6.2-1. 7
- 7. The Applicant shall submit an Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report according to guidance provided by the NRC Branch Technical Pa i-tion, November 1979, Section A.
- 8. Analysis shall be performed as part of an NRC approved Interlaboratory Comparison Program. A summary of the results data shall be included in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reporte
- 9. The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program anc* surveillance activities shall be performed in such a manner to meet the intent of USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.15 " Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitor-ing Programs" where applicable.
6.2.1.2.2 Basis for the Choice of Sampling Frequency. The sampling frequen-cies given in Table 6.2-1 were selected so that the results of the radiologi-cal environmental monitoring supplement the results of the radiological effluent monitoring by verifying that the measurable concentrations of radio-active materials and levels of radiation are no higher than expected on the basis of the effluent measurements and modeling of the environmental exposure pathways. In some cases the sampling frequency is determined by inherent characteristics of the medium, e.g., air filters can be run only for a week before excessive pressure-drop arises; agricultural crops are best sampled at the time of harvest.
An annual census for milk animals will be conducted during plant operatlon. l9 If it is determined that human consumption of local milk is occurring, one milk sample will be taken in each of as many as 3 areas where doses are calculated to be greater than 1 mrem per year. Sampling frequency will be semi-monthly when animals are on pasture and monthly at other times. Analysis will be gamma isotopic and iodine-131.
6.2.1.2.3 Station Locations. Unless otherwise indicated, station locations will be the same as shown in Table 6.2-2. l9 6.2.1.2.4 Quality Control. Control checks and tests will be applied to the analytical operations by means of blind duplicate analyses of selected sam-ples, and by the introduction of calibrated environmental samples, such as 7 provided through the USEPA Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercom-parison Studies Program. Analytical procedures will be similar to those reported in HASL-300 or equivalent commercial practice.
6.2-6 Amendment 9
STP ER
(,,) 6.2.1.2.5 Analytical Sensitivity. The detection sensitivities of the various N- 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 monitoring sample analyses will be submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Technical Specifications. These reports will be summaries of the results of the environmental activities and assessments of the observed impacts of the plant operation on the environment.
6.2.2 CHEMICAL EFFLUENT MONITORING 6.2.2.1 Cooling Reservoir Blowdown l9 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 circulating water to control microbiological growths are also discussed in 8 p-s, Section 5.4
> )
\- / The blowdown operation will be monitored so as to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory standards and to assist in determining reasonable operating procedures and to prevent potential deleterious effects arising from the following:
- 1. Deviation of the pH beyond the allowable range.
- 2. High concentrations of free residual chlorine.
To prevent the above situation from arising, the following monitoring operations 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 levels will be checked to keep the residual within the discharge criteria.
6.2.2.2 Other Waste Streams All the effluent streams entering the cooling reservoir will be operated and controlled in such a manner as to minimize the effects on the Cooling Reservoir blowdown water quality. Some of the significant sources of these streams are:
s 1. Low volume waste water from demineralizer neutralization tanks.
< 'x.J 6.2-7 Amendment 9
STP ER
- 2. Low volume waste water from floor and yard drains.
- 3. Treated sanitary 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 applicant is currently evaluating the need to conduct operational thermal effluent monitoring. If such monitoring is deemed necessary, a monitoring 9 program will be developed and incorporated into the ER-OL by amendment.
6.2.4 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING 6.2.4.1 The Onsite Meteorological Program During operation of the STP, the onsite meteorological program will be conducted to provide the following:
- 1. Real-time meteorological information in the plant control room to be used for decisions concerning routine plant operations.
- 2. Real-time meteorological information in the control room from which initial estimates of the radiological consequences of an accidental release of radioactive gases into the atmosphere can be made.
- 3. Meteorological summaries from which the concentration of radio-nuclides due to atmosphere releases during normal plant operations can be estimated.
To accomplish these goals, the pre-operational meteorological program has been modified as described in Section 6.1.3.1.2. Microprocessor output is provided for future links with the Units 1 and 2 dose assessment system computers in order to provide near-realtime meteorological data for use in at:nospheric dispersion modeling. Fifteen and 60-minute averages of all parameters will be provided to the dose assessment system computers. Output will be displayed on printers located in the meteorological shelters until the dose assessment computers are operational. The dose assessment computer will then provide appropriate displays of meteorological data in the control room, technical support center, and emergency operations facility. Both control rooms will also display instantaneous 10-meter wind speed and direction via analog meters. Additional microprocessor output is provided to an auto-answer telephone dial-up port for offsite access of current and past data. The past 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of 15-minute averaged data can be accessed. One , 15 , and 60-minute average data are also recorded on magnetic tape for system monitoring, data verification, and future processing (e.g., use in semi-annual operating reports).
O 6.2-8 Amendment 9
STP ER i A computerized accounting system will be established to maintain and update
(/
As- hourly averages of diffusion meteorology, measured effluent release rates, and inventory of fission products released. The system will include the required software to permit plant operators to make short-period dose calculations on demand. For long-period dose calculations, a permanent file of onsite meteorological data will be maintained. 7 6.2.4.2 Fog Monitoring Program o
The impact of operating the Cooling Reservoir on local meteorology will be assessed by implementing a fog monitoring program. The program will consist of monitoring during two phases. The first phase will begin 1 year prior to operation of Unit 1 and end at start-up of Unit 1. The second phase will 9 begin following start-up of Unit 2 and continue for 1 year. The monitoring program will consist of visual measurements of fogging on FM 521 northwest of the Cooling Reservoir. The predicted frequency of reservoir induced fogging is discussed in the STP FSAR, Section 2.3.2.2.1 6.2.5 NONRADIOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL MONITORING The applicant is currently evaluating the need to conduct operational non-radiological ecological monitoring. If such monitoring is deemed necessary, a monitoring program will be developed and incorporated into the 9 ER-OL by amendment.
f3 t )
\~ /
[d s
6.2-9 Amendment 9
STP ER i
Pages 5.2-10, 6.2-11 6.212 have been deleted
)
l i
i Amendment 9
4 STP ER n.
Table 6.2-2 i Sample Station Locations Media Station location Location Description DR,AI,AP,VB,SO 001 1 mile N Exclusion Zone at FN#521 DR 002 1 mile NNE Exclusion Zone at FM#521 DR 003 1 mile NE Exclusion Zone at FN#521 DR 004- 1 mile ENE Exclusion Zone at FN#521
, DR 005 1 mile E STPEGS Visitor Center l DR 006 1 mile ESE Site at Pumping Station DR 007 1 mile SE Site on dike DR 008 1 mile SEE Site on dike DR 009 1 mile S Site on dike DR 010 2 miles SSW Site on dike DR 011 1 mile SW Site on dike J
DR 012 1 mile WSW Site on dike DR 013 1 mile W Exclusion Zone at FN#521 DR 014 1 mile WNW dxclusion Zone at FN#521 DR,AI AP.VB,SO,VP 015 1 mile NW Exclusion Zone at FN#521 DR,AI AP,VB,SO 016 1 mile NNW Exclusion Zone at FN#521 DR 017 6 miles N Buckeye on FN#1468 Celsnesse Plant on FM3057 DR 018 5.5 miles NNE DR 019 5 miles NE FN#2668 DR 020 5 miles ENE FN#2668
, DR 021 5 miles E FN#521 l- -
DR 022 7 miles ESE DuPont Plant on FN#60 DR 023* 16 miles ENE FM#521 DR 024 4 miles SSE Site on dike i
DR 025 4 miles S Site on dike DR 026 4 miles SSW Site on dike DR 027 4 miles SW Site on dike DR 028 5 miles WSW FN#1095 DR 029 4.5 miles'W FN#1095 DR 030 6 miles WNW Tres Palacios Oaks DR 031 5.6 miles NW Wilton Creek Rd DR 032 3.5 miles NNV FM#1468 DR,AI,AP S0 033 14 miles NNE Bay City DR 034 8 miles ENE Wadsworth DR 035 8.5 miles SSE - Matagorda DR 036 10 miles WSW Collage Port DR,AI.AP,VB,VP,S0 037* 11 miles USW Palacios substation DR 038 11 miles NW Blessing DR 039 9 miles NW El Maton DR 040 4.5 miles SE Citrus Grove l WG 205 4 miles SE Site WG 206 4 miles SE Site WG 207* 1.5 miles W Site WG 208* 1.5 miles W Site WW 210 < 0.5 miles E Administration Bid.
- Control Stations 4
6.2 19 Amendment 9 i
' r v - - - ' - -~-- '-w-> --r-r-v-,v-w--wr - et w - - v- r w - w we-+e+-+---+--rr-= --e---=~we w w- r-e-e e----m--mr ww-=- - - - * -v-*~rew-+---*-----
STP ER l l
Table 5.2-2 (Continued)
Sample Station Locations Media Station Location Location Description US,SS 211 3.5 miles S Site, E. Little Robbins WS.SS 212 3.5 miles S site, Little Robbins WS.SS 213 3 miles SE Site, W. Branch Colorado SS 215 1 mile SW Site reservoir WS,SS,F 216 3 miles SSE Site reservoir WS,SS,F 218 < 10 miles Colorado River WS 220* upstream Colorado River SS,F 221* > 10 miles Upstream Colorado River F 222 > 10 miles West Matagorda Bay WD 228* 14 miles NNE Bay City SS 230 3.5 miles ESE Intake structure channel SS 233 4.3 miles SE Blowdown channel discharge CODES: AI - Air (iodine) sampling station AP - Air (particulate) sampling station DR - TLD direct radiation station F - Fish sampling station SO - Soil sampling station A SS - Sediment sampling station VB - Vegetation (broad leaf) sampling station VP - Vegetation (pasture grass) sampling station
, WD - Water (drinking) sampling station WG - Water (ground) sampling station WS - Water (surface) sampling station
- Control Stations
- O 6.2-20 Amendment 9 L ._ _ _ _ _ _ - - . - - _ _ . - -- - - - . . _ - - _ . - - - - - - - - - ---.---. --- - - - - - - - - - -
ST1' ER CHAPTER 7-ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS CONTENTS l
' ~
Section g 7.1 Plant Accidents Involving Radioactivity 7.1-1 7.1.1 Introduction 7.1-1 7.1.2 Meteorology 7.1-1 7.1.3 Dose Calculation Methodology 7.1-2 7.1.4 Accident Discussion 7.1-3 7.1.5 Summary of Environmental Consequences 7.1-17 7.2 Other Accidents 7.2-1 7.2.1 Chemical Accidents 7.2-1
- 7.2.2 Failure of Cooling Reservoir Embankment 7.2-1 i
, O 4
4 I
i O
7-1
STP ER TABLES Number Title Page 7.1-1 Accidents Analyzed in the Environmental Report 7.1-20 7.1-2 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Individual Dose Calculations 7.1-22 7.1-3 Deleted 7.1-23 9 7.1-4 Primary and Secondary Equilibrium Activities 7.1-24 7.1-5 Activity Release to the Environment for Class 3.0 Accidents 7.1-25 7.1-6 Activity Release to the Environment for Class 5.0 Accidents 7.1-26 7.1-7 Activity Release to the Environment for Class 6.0 Accidents 7.1-27 7.1-8 Activity Release to the Environment for Class 7.0 Accidents 7.1-28 7.1-9 Activity Release to the Environment for Small Primary System Pipe Break, Class 8.1 7.1-29 lh 7.1-10 Activity Release to the Environment for Large Primary System Pipe Break, Class 8.2 7.1-30 7.1-11 Activity Release to the Environment for Large Steamline Break, Class 8.5 7.1-31 7.1-12 Summary of Doses Resulting from Accidents 7.1-32 7.1-13 Activity Release to the Environment for 7.1-33 Small Steamline Break 7.1-14 Summary of Doses Resulting from 7.1-34 9 Accidents 7.2-1 Chemicals Stored Onsite 7.2-6 0
7-11 Amendment 9
STP ER o
( ) CHAPTER 7
\.y ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 7.1 PIANT ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADI0 ACTIVITY 7.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The accidents which are of environmental concern are those which might result in an uncontrolled release of radioactive materials from the plant. Design features which act to contain radioactivity within the plant are:
- 1. the uranium oxide fuel pellets,
- 2. the sealed metal tubes which contain the pellets,
- 3. the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB), and
- 4. the containment Other systems, such as the liquid and gaseous waste processing systems (LWPS and GWPS, respectively) and the various ventilation filters thtcughout the plant, serve to reduce releases due to system leakage and accidents.
The environment is further protected by the various engineered safety features (ESF) which act to control and limit the consequences of accidents, should they occur.
The evaluation of the environmental impact of effluents from a nuclear power fw plant includes considerations of both those that are released as a consequence
('-) of normal operations and those that might be released as a result of abnormal or accidental events that might reasonably be expected to occur. An evalua-tion of the potential impact of routine releases is presented in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. This section presents an assessment of the potential impact of a series of accidental events varying in probability from "likely to occur at some time during the life of the plant" to " highly improbable."
The postulated accidents and occurrences are divided into the eight accident classes identified in the proposed Annex to Appendix D of 10CFR50, as shown in Table 7.1-1. t 7.1.2 METEOROLOGY In order to determine the individual doses resulting from various occurrences l9 and accidents at the STP, a fiftieth percentile criterion is used to determine realistic atmospheric dilution conditions. That is, the actual conditions may be more severe 50 percent of the time and less severe the remaining 50 per-cent.
Meteorological data taken at the STP site during the period July 1973 through September 1977 are used in the evaluation of doses. Sources of data and -
methods of measurement are described in Sections 2.6 and 6.1.3, respectively.
n 1
7.1-1 Amendment 9
STP ER The meteorological dispersion factors used for evaluating the site boundary individual doses have been calculated for accident conditions based upon the methodology presented in Section 6.1.3. These dispersion factors are pre-sented in Table 7.1-2.
The meteorological dispersion factors used for evaluating the 50-mile Popu-lation doses are the atin:sl average dispersion factors presented in Section 2.6. The dispersion factars are presented by distance increments for each of the 16 compass points. uecay and depletion enroute have been neglected for these dose calculations.
The population distribution used for the 50-mile population doses is the 50-mile population projected for the year 2030, as presented in Section 2.2.
l9 7.1.3 DOSE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY The radiological impacts of the postulated events are evaluated in terms of doses to individuals and doses to the population as a whole. The individual doses are calculated for an individual postulated at the exclusion zone boundary; both whole body and thyroid inhalation doses are calculated. The popu'.ation doses are calculated for the estimated population of the year 2030 l9 within a 50-mile radius of the plant. Only the whole body dose is presented for the population dose.
Doses are calculated using the following equations for individual exposure:
O Dg3 = ((Q t i it (MS)EZB,t i D
g7
=
bQ ti h CX/S)EZB,t t i where:
D WB = total whole body gamma dose, in rems 9 D - total thyroid dose, in rems THY Q it - release of isotope, i, during time period, t, in curies (X/Q)EZB,t -dispersionfactorapplicablefortgeexclusionzoneboundary during time period, t, in sec/ms 9
DFBg - gamma whole body dose conversion factor for isotope, i, in [*1 c 9
7.1-2 Amendment 9
\
STP ER B
g = breathing rate applicable for time period, t, in m /sec DCF g - thyroid inhalation dose conversion factor for isotope, i, in rems per curie inhaled _
These equations are consistent with those given in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109.
The breathing rates used in the calculation of doses are those in NRC Regula- l9 tory Guide 1.4. The isotopic data used are presented in Regulatory Guide
, 1.109. 9
'The population doses are calculated using the following equation:
D POP
~
j (X/9)j j t1 N it DFB g 9
where:
D POP = wh le body population dose, in man-Rems '
(x/Q))-dispersion j,'in sec/m
{actorapplicableformidpointofposition, P) - estimated population in position, j, in persons The positions, j, referred to are the,160 arcas generated by dividing the t
' 50-mile radius area into 10 annuli and 16 direction sectors. This equation is consistent with the models in Regulatory Guide;11109, 9
~
i 7.li4 ACCIDENT DISCUSSION '
.The'fo11owing section briefly describes each accident including the basfc .
assumptions used in the analysis, a discussion of the remoteness of occurrence of:the accident and the radiological doses result:ing from the accident.
Primary and secondary coolant activities, which serve as; initial conditions for all accident analyses, are given in Table 7.1-4., only the iodine and , .
noble gas' concentrations appear in the table since only gaseous releases associated with the accidents are considered in this section. These concen-trations are based on continuous steady-state operation with the f'ollowing conditions:
4,100 Mwt power level
- 0.5 percent failed fuel (unless noted to the contrary) 9 20 gpd steam generator leak 10 gpm per generator blowdown These parameters are not those used in Appendix B and result in more conserv-ative (i.e., higher) coolant concentrations. They are n' sed in this sectien, i however, for conformance with Appendix I to Regulatory Guide 4.2.
9 s
/3 '
(_-)
h 7.1-3 Amendment 9 4
4 5
- - - - - , , , - - - - - - .. ,,-c , , - - - - - - , , - - , , . - - - - - - - - - - - -
STP ER 7.1.4.1 Class 1.0: Trivial Incidents.
Class 1 incidents are not considered because of their trivial consequences.
7.1.4.2 Class 2.0: Small Releases Outside Containment.
Pipes, valves, and flanges of systems containing fluids or gases with poten-tially significant radioactive concentrations are designed, fabricated, and erected to minimize leaks that may occur during normal Plant operations.
Although constructed with the intention of having zero leakage, wear and use cause small leakage source terms. These low level releases are evaluated as routine releases and are included in plant release source terms in Appendix B.
The environmental consequences of these low level releases are given in Section 5.3.
7.1.4.3 Class 3.0: Radwaste System Failure.
Class 3 accidents are identified as postulated accidents initiated by equip-ment failure of operator error that result in the release of radioactive contaminants to the mechanical-electrical auxiliaries building (MEAB) atmos-phere. Accidents that are considered in this category are: (1) equipment leaks or malfunction of the guard bed tank or a liquid waste holdup tank and (2) rupture of the guard bed tank or a liquid waste holdup tank.
7.1.4.3.1 Equipment Leakage or Malfunction (Guard Bed): This postulated accident is defined as an unspecified leak or malfunction that results in the instantaneous release of 25 percent of the average inventory of the tank containing the largest quantity of significant isotopes in the GWPS. This tank is identified as the guard bed upstream of the two charcoal delay tanks.
The average inventory in the guard bed is based on operation with 0.12 percent failed fuel. Although appreciable time is required for the activity to be 9 released from the MEAB, it is assumed that the airborne radioactivity released from this tank during the accident is vented immediately to the environment.
The activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is given in Table 7.1-5.
The possibility of a failure of a guard bed tank which could result in the release of radioactive fission products is considered remote; the guard bed is designed and fabricated for pressures and temperatures substantially gr. eater than the normal operating conditions.
From the above discussion, the following doses have been calculated:
Whole Body Thyroid Exclusion zone boundary (rems) 3.12 x 10 -3 3.27 x 10 -2 9
Population dose (man-rems) 6.42 x 10 -1 i
7.1.4.3.2 Equipment Leakage or Malfunction (Liquid Waste Tank): This postul-ated accident is defined as an unspecified leak or malfunction that results in the spillage of 25 percent of the average tank inventory containing the largest quantities of significant isotopes in the LWPS. This tank is ident-ified as the floor drain tank (FDT) located in the MEAB. The FDT activity 7.1-4 Amendment 9 s
4 0 i STP ER which becomes airborne during the accident is assumed to be vented directly to
' x_ .
the environment. ,,' Assumptions and parameters used in the analysis are as follows: N
- 1. 25 percent of the average inventory in the FDT is assumed to be spilled onto the floor of the MEAB.
- 2. The average inventory in the FDT is based on operation with 0.12 percent 1
failed fuel. 9
- 3. An air-to-water partition factor of 0.1 is assumed for iodines.
l9
- 4. Airkorne radioactivity released into the MEAB is assumed to be released
.immediately to the environment. >
l9 s -
Activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is given in
. Table 7.1-5.
y , *
( ? 7cetulated events that could result in the spill of quantities as large as 25 I ,( i
. percent of the radioactive inventory of the FDT are cracks in the steel t
B vessels and operator error.
The design pressure of the FDT is atmospheric; the design temperature is s 200*F. In addition, the tank is fabricated of materials meeting the require-ments of Section II of the ASME B&PV Code, 1974. Considering these factors, the possibility of a failure of the FDT is considered small.
1
[N A liquid radwaste spill initiated by an operator error is also considered a s remote possibility. Operating technique:z and administrative procedures 1
emphasize detailed system and equipment operating instruction. In the unlike-
- p ly event that a spill of liquid radioactiva' wastes does occur, floor drain sump pumpsilocated in the floor of the NEABiautomatically activate on receipt
,of a high2 water-level alarm from the sump pump floor drains and remove the spilled liquid.
s ,
- - From the above discussion, the following doses have been calculated
- Whole Body Thyroid 9
! E clusion zone boundary (rems) 1.20 x 10-5 6.68 x 10 -3 Population dose (man-rems) -3 2.54 x 10 ,
7.1.4.3.3 Ruoture of the Guard Bed: This postulated accident is defined as an unspecified event that initiates the complete release of the average radioactive inventory of the guard bed upstream of the delay tanks. The airborne radioactivity released from this tank during the accident is then assumed to be vented directly to the environment. Activity released to the
. environment as a result of this accident is g%7en'in Table 7.1-5.
P 7.1-5 Amendment 9 t
=
,~
-. e. e ---e -,= e--~ i-,.r.- ,.,,r.-,--- , _ , t- c. . , ,-- - ....--i.---.-.--.-.+-,-.-----... , - - * - . - . - - - . - - - - - - - - - . - - - . - - - - - - , . - - ~ . , . . . - - - -
l STP ER The possibility of a failure of the guard bed tank which could result in the release of radioactive fission products is considered remote; the guard bed ,
tank is designed and fabricated for pressures and temperatures substantially l greater than the normal operating conditions.
On the basis of the assumptions stated, the following offsite doses have been calculated:
Whole Body Thyroid Exclusion zone boundary (rems) 1.25 x 10 -2 1.31 x 10 -1 9
Population dose (man-rems) 2.57 -
7.1.4.3.4 Rupture of the Floor Drain Tank: This postulated accident is defined as an unspecified event that initiates the complete spill of the average radioactive inventory in the tank containing the largest quantities of significant isotopes in the LWPS. This tank is identified as the FDT, located in the basement of the MEAB. The radioactivity becoming airborne during the accident is vented directly to the environment. Assumptions and parameters used in this analysis are as follows:
- 1. 100 percent of the average inventory of the FDT is assumed to be spilled onto the floor of the MEAB.
- 2. An air-to-water iodine partition factor of 0.1 is used.
l9 Activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is given in Table 7.1-5.
The discussion concerning the remoteness of an equipment leakage or malfunc-tion accident of the FDT is equally applicable to a complete spill accident.
The probability of a complete rupture or complete malfunction accident is considered even less than that of a partial spill accident.
On the basis of the assumptions staced, the following offsite doses have been calculated:
Whole Body Thyroid ,
Exclusion zone boundary (rems) 4.80 x 10~ 2.67 x 10
-2 9 Population dose (man-rems) 1.02 x 10 -2 ,
7.1.4.4 Class 4.0: Fission Products to Primary System.
This accident is not applicable to pressurized water reactors (PWRs).
O 7.1-6 Amendment 9
STP ER 7.1.4.5 Class 5.0: Fission Products to Primary and Secondary Systems.
7.1.4.5.1 Fuel Cladding Defects and Steam Generator Leak: Releases from these events are included and evaluated along with routine releases in Sections 3.5 and 5.3.
7.1.4.5.2 Off-Design Transients That Induce Fuel Failure Above Those Expected and Steam Generator Leak: A transient is postulated that results in the instantaneous release of 0.02 percent of the core inventory of noble gases and halogens to the reactor coolant.
Due to steam generator leaks, activity propagates throughout the secondary plant. Assumptions and parameters used in the analysis are as follows: l9
- 1. 0.02' percent of the core inventory of noble gas and halogens is added to the activity initially present in the reactor coolant. The combined reactor coolant system (RCS) concentration is assumed constant for the duration of the transient.
- 2. Steam generator leakage of 20 gpd continues throughout the transient.
- 3. Iodine partition factor in the steam generator is 0.1. l9
- 4. All noble gases and 0.1 percent of the halogens in the steam reach the l9 condenser instantaneously and are released via condenser vacuum pumps.
5.
O 6.
The entire transient is assumed to take place over an 8-hour period.
Puff release y/Q is used for offsite dose analysis.
l9 l9 Activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is given in Table 7.1-6.
Mechanisms that can initiate fuel cladding damage during reactor transients are:
- 1. Severe overheating of the fuel rod cladding caused by inadequate cooling
- 2. Rupture of the fuel rod cladding due to strain caused by relative expan-sion of the UO2 Pellet Avoidance of fuel cladding damage from abnormal operational transients can be i
verified by demonstrating that the Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio (DNBR) remains greater than 1.30. Maintaining DNBR greater than 1.3 is l9 considered a sufficient, but.not necessary, condition to assure that no fuel damage occurs.
i- Detailed analyses of all anticipated abnormal transients using very conserva-tive assumptions have shown that a DNBR greater than 1.30 is maintained. The l9 l probability of fission product releases above those small quantities released
- on a continuous basis during normal operations is therefore considered small.
i 7.1-7 Amendment 9 4
STP ER On the basis of the assumptions stated, the following offsite doses have been calculated:
Whole Body Thyroid Exclusion zone boundary (rems) 3.90 x 10 -5 2.40 x 10~
8.00 x 10 -3 Population dose (man-rems) 9 7.1.4.5.3 Steam Generator Tube Rupture: The complete rupture of a single steam generator tube is postulated in this accident. Since the reactor coolant pressure is greater than the secondary side pressure in the steam generator, radioactive reactor coolant is transferred into the secondary system. A portion of this radioactivity is vented to the atmosphere by action of the condenser vacuum pumps. Low pressure in the primary system causes an automatic reactor trip and actuation of the safety injection system (SIS).
Final isolation of the affected steam generator by the operator is assumed to be accomplished within 30 minutes. Assumptions and parameters used in this analysis are as follows: s
- 1. 15 percent of the average inventory of noble gases and halogens in the primary coolant system reaches the defective steam generator instantan- l9 eously upon initiation of the transient.
- 2. All noble gases and 0.1 percent of the halogens in the steam reach the condenser instantaneously and are released via the condenser vacuum 9 pumps.
Activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is given in Table 7.1-6 The probability for catastrophic failure of a steam generator tube is consid-ered minimal. The pressures calculated to cause a rupture are far in excess of normal operating conditions. Furthermore, it is expected that any failure would be preceded by cracking caused by corrosion, erosion, or fatigue. A failure of this nature would produce primary-to-secondary leakage which would be detected by radioactivity monitoring before tube strength is lost and a rupture develops.
On the basis of the assumptions stated, the following offsite doses have been calculated:
Whole Body Thyroid Exclusion zone boundary (rem) -3 1.70 x 10 6.30 x 10-Population dose (man-rems) 3.50 x 10-1 -
O 7.1-8 Amendment 9
1-STP ER 7.1.4.6 Class 6.0: Refueling Accidents.
Class 6 accidents are postulated to include refueling accidents inside the reactor containment building (RCB). To demonstrate the potential consequences
.of this type of accident, two refueling accidents are postulated and evaluat-ed: a fuel bundle drop and a heavy object drop onto fuel in core.
7.1.4.6.1 Fuel Bundle Drop: In this accident, it is postulated that a fuel bundle drop occurs inside the RCB as a result of the mishandling of a spent fuel assembly. The accident is assumed to result in damage to one row of fuel rods in the. assembly. The radioac':ivity released from the damaged fuel rods bubbles through the water covering the assembly and most of the radioactive iodine is entrained in the water. The remainder of the radioactivity is a
released to the RCB atmospnere where it is exhausted through the RCB purge line to the plant main exhaust duct.
Assumptions and parameters used in this analysis are as follows:
- 1. Decay time of 42 hours4.861111e-4 days <br />0.0117 hours <br />6.944444e-5 weeks <br />1.5981e-5 months <br /> is assumed prior to initiation of the accident. l9 This time is used because rapid refueling allows much earlier fuel l handling.
{ 2. Iodine decontamination factor in the. refueling cavity water is 500.
- 3. Source activity is the gap activity in one row of fuel rods at the time of the accident.
9 Activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is given in Table 7.1-7.
i The possibility of mishandling or dropping a fuel assembly and subsequent damage to the fuel rods is minimized by equipment design and detailed operat-ing procedures. The fuel-handling manipulators and hoists are designed so that the fuel assembly cannot be raised above a position that provides adequ-ate water depth for safe shielding of operating personnel. Thus, fuel handl- l9 ing-is underwater, both within the containment and in'the spent fuel pool r area. -Adequate cooling of fuel during underwater handling is provided by i convective heat transfer to the surrounding water. Other special precautions
- include conservative design for fail-safe operation of all handling tools and l- associated devices used in fuel-handling operations as well as limitation of j the motion of cranes used to move fuel assemblies to a low maximum speed. In i
' addition, the design of the fuel assembly would be expected to preclude extensive damage to the fuel rods. Thus, damage to a fuel assembly during handling is unlikely and assuming failure of an entire row of rods is a
- - conservative upper limit. Considering the precautions that are taken in the design and the well-defined operating procedures that are required, the pro-i bability of refueling accident occurring during the lifetime of the plant is considered small.
1 i
- O 7.1 9 Amendment 9
STP ER On the basis of the assumptions stated, the following offsite doses have been calculated:
Whole Body Thyroid
-5 Exclusion zone boundary (rems) 3.29 x 10 1.19 x 10 -3 Population dose (man-rems) 6.77 x 10 -3 -
7.1.4.6.2 Heavy Obiect Drop Onto Fuel in Core: This accident is defined as the dropping of a heavy object onto the fuel in the core during refueling. It is assumed that the accident results in damaging the equivalent of all the rods in an average fuel assembly. Any radioactivity released from the damaged fuel assembly bubbles through the water covering the reactor cavity where most of the radioactive halogens are retained. The remaining radioactivity is released to the containment atmosphere where it is exhausted through the containment purge line to the plant main exhaust duct.
Assumptions and parameters used in this analysis are as follows:
- 1. Decay time of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> is assumed prior to initiation of the accident.
This time is used because rapid refueling allows much earlier fuel l handling.
- 2. Iodine decontamination factor in the refueling cavity water is 500.
- 3. The source activity is the gap activity in one fuel assembly at the time of the accident.
Activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is given in Table 7.1-7.
The same design and operating considerations discussed in Section 7.1.4.6.1 would mitigate the possibility of undesirable consequences of this accident.
Special lifting fixtures are provided to safely handle heavy objects, such as the vessel head and internals, over the core. Cranes and rigging are adequate-ly sized for the expected loads. Therefore, the probability of this accident is considered remote.
Using the assumptions stated, the following offsite doses have been calcu-lated:
Whole Body Thyroid Exclusion zone boundary (rems) 9.68 x 10-4 -2 2.39 x 10 Population dose (man-rems) 1.99 x 10 ~1 -
7.1.4.7 Class 7.0: Spent Fuel Handling Accident.
Class 7 accidents are postulated to include spent fuel handling accidents outside of the containment. This class of accident can occur inside the fuel l handling building (FHB) or on the plant grounds. In the case of the latter, '
l l
7.1-10 Amendment 9
STP ER O this would result in the relear,e of radioactive material direct y to the b environment.
In order to demonstrate the potential environmental consequences of this type of accident, two spent fue* handling accidents are postulated and evaluated:
l9
- 1. Fuel assembly drop in fuel storage pool
- 2. Heavy object drop onto fuel rack 7.1.4.7.1 Fuel Assembly Drop in Fuel Storage Pool: l9 In this accident it is postulated that a fuel assembly drop occurs as a result of the mishandling of a spent fuel assembly. The accident is assumed to result in damage to one row of fuel rods in the assembly. The activity released from the damaged fuel rods bubbles through the spent fuel pool water covering the assembly and most of the radioactive iodine is entrained. The remaining radioactivity is released to the FHB atmosphere above the pool where it is exhausted through charcoal filters to the vent via the FHB ventilation system. Assumptions and parameters used in this analysis are as follows:
- 1. Decay time of 42 hours4.861111e-4 days <br />0.0117 hours <br />6.944444e-5 weeks <br />1.5981e-5 months <br /> is assumed prior to initiation of the accident.
This time is used because rapid refueling allows much earlier fuel 9 handling.
1
- 2. Iodine decontamination factor in the fuel storage pool water is 500.
- 3. Charcoal filter iodine decontamination factor is 100.
b 4. The source activity is the gap activity in one row of fuel rods at the time of the accident.
Activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is given in Table 7.1-8.
The possibility of a fuel-handling incident in the FHB is as remote as that within the RGB as discussed in Section 7.1.4.6. Design considerations and administrative controls are essentially the same as those discussed earlier.
Only one assembly can be handled at a time and the design is such that the assembly is continuously immersed.
Spent fuel at rest in the storage racks is positioned by positive restraints in an always-suberitical array (no credit taken for boric acid in the water) and it is impossible to insert a spent fuel assembly in other than prescribed locations.
On the basis of the assumptions stated, the following offsite doses have been calculated.
7.1-11 Amendment 9
STP ER Whole Body Thyroid Exclusion zone boundary (rems) 2.81 x 10
~
1.03 x 10' 9 Population dose (man-rems) ~1 5.78 x 10 -
7.1.4.7.2 Heavy Object Drop Onto Fuel Rack: This accident is defined as the dropping of a heavy object onto the spent fuel storage racks in such a way that all of the fuel rods in an average assembly are damaged. The activity released from the damaged fuel rods bubbles through the spent fuel pool water covering the assembly where most of the iodine is entrained. The remaining radioactivity is released to the FHB atmosphere above the pool where it is exhausted through charcoal filters to the environment via the FHB ventilation system. Assumptions and parameters used in this analysis are as follows:
- 1. Decay time of 30 days is assumed prior to initiation of the accident.
- 2. Iodine decontamination factor in the fuel storage pool water is 500.
- 3. Charcoal filter iodine decontamination factor is 100.
- 4. The source activity is the gap activity in one fuel assembly at the time of the accident.
Activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is given in Table 7.1-8.
The design of the spent fuel handling area and fuel handling equipment is such that no identifiable heavy objects are lifted or carried over the spent fuel storage racks during any refueling operations. However, to provide an upper-limit estimate of the maximum hypothetical release for an accident of this type, it is postulated that an unspecified heavy object is dropped onto the spent fuel racks resulting in the release of the gap activity (noble gases and halogens) in one average fuel assembly into the spent fuel pool.
Because there are no identifiable heavy objects that could result in an accident of this nature and because of the hypothetical nature of the acciident analyzed, the probability of occurrence of this accident is considered small.
On the basis of the assumptions stated, the following offsite doses have been calculated:
Whole Body Thyroid Exclusion zone boundary (rems) 8.36 x 10 -4 1.33 x 10 -3 Population dose (man-rems) 1,72 x 10~ -
O 7.1 12 Amendment 9
- - _ . ~ -. _ _ - . -. _.- . . . -- . . . .. . - . . - . - - . - . - - - ~ _ .
4
!- l STP ER
]
7.1'.4.7.3 Fuel Cask Drop: A fuel cask drop accident would not be, expected to occur because of design constraints and administrative controls. In accord-
- ance with regulations of the NRC and the Department of Transportation, the
- casks are designed to withstand a 30-foot drop onto an unyielding surface 1
without rupture. The design of the spent fuel cask handling equipment limits 9 the maximum lifting height of a cask to less than 30 feet above an unyielding
' Therefore, a radioactive release is not considered to be a credible surface.
event, and this accident is not analyzed.
i' 7.1.4.8 Class 8.0: Accident Initiation Events Considered in Design Basis Evaluation in the Final Safety Analysis Report. Class 8 accidents are postu-lated to include various events resulting in a partial degradation of the primary and secondary coolant system pressure boundaries. These accidents are 3 evaluated in Chapter 15 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) using j highly conservative assumptions and are used as design basis events to estab-l lish performance requirements for the ESF systems. The highly conservative 1
assumptions used in the FSAR and NRC Safety Evaluations are not suitable for i evaluating the environmental risks of Class 8 events because'their use would result in an unrealistic overestimate of the risks. For this reason, events i- in Class 8 are evaluated in this subsection using realistic assumptions. Te demonstrate the potential environmental consequences of Class 8 events, the following accidents are Postulated and evaluated:
k 1. Small primary system pipe break (6 in. or less)
! 2. Large primary system pipe break u
j 3. Break in instrument line from the primary system that penetrates the
- containment
- 4. Rod ejection accident i
- 5. Large steamline break
- 6. Small steamline break i .
j' 7.1.4.8.1 Small Primary System Pipe Break (6 in. or less): In this accident the rupture of a small pipe in the primary system is assumed, causing a loss i of reactor coolant. An automatic reactor trip and initiation of the p1~ ant's -
emergency core cooling system occur as the primary system pressure decreases, j The system has been designed so that no additional fuel failure occurs, and
- only a certain amount of radioactive reactor coolant is released to the RCB.
} Radioactivity is partially removed from the containment atmosphere by the containment spray system and by plateout on the containment structures. Some 4 of the remaining radioactivity in the containment atmosphere may be slowly l9
) released to the environment through minute leaks. Assumptions and parameters used in this analysis are as follows:
J i 1. The average reactor coolant inventories of halogens and noble gases are j released to the containment at initiation of the accident.
1 l
4 7.1-13 Amendment 9 4
t - _ . _ . _ . _ . _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ , . _ _ . , _ -
_- s
STP ER
- 2. For the effects on iodine of plateout, chemical additive sprays, and gas / liquid partitioning, a maximum reduction factor of 0.05 is assumed to be achieved for the reactor coolant release. This is assumed to be 9 reached at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the accident.
- 3. Containment leak rate is assumed to be:
0.225 percent volume / day for 0 to 24 hrs l9 0.113 percent volume / day for 1 to 30 days l9 The initial containment airborne activity and time-dependent releases of halogens and noble gases for this accident appear in Table 7.1-9.
The plant has been designed, fabricated, and constructed under a comprehensive quality assurance program to assure compliance with all applicable specifica-tions and codes. All RCS components are designed and fabricated in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code,Section III. The RCS and the containment are design-ed to withstand the loads imposed by the design basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and the design basis earthquake without loss of function required for emergency reactor shutdown and emergency core cooling.
The major RCS components are designed for a 40-year operating lifetime.
Components are of materials that are compatible with coolant chemistry.
Fatigue analyses based on conservative design cyclic transients and primary stress combinations have been performed in accordance with the applicable codes. Overpressure protection is assured by ASME B&PV Code Safety valves.
Engineered safety features act to control and mitigate the consequences of a LOCA for the entire spectrum of break sizes.
After installation, the RCS is hydrostatically tested and leak tested. A series of tests is conducted prior to reactor fueling, during fueling, and following initial criticality.
Technical specifications, operating procedures, and other administrative controls assure that plant operating conditions remain within limits previous-ly determined to be acceptable. An extensive in-service inspection (ISI) program requires periodic surveillance and inspection of safety-related equipment and components during plant operation.
From the above discussion, the probability of this accident occurring is considered small.
On the basis of the assumptions stated, the following offsite exposures have been calculated:
Whole Body Thyroid Exclusion zone boundary (rems) 3.28 x 10 -6 9.6 x 10
-5 Population dose (man-rems) 1.15 x 10-2 ,
O 7.1 14 Amendment 9
i STP ER i
I
'(~'s 7.1.'4.8.2 Larne Primary System Pipe Break: The sequence of events for the
\ large primary system pipe break is essentially the same as that for the small
] break. However, because of the more rapid loss of reactor coolant, additional fuel-failures resulting from clad overheating may occur. For this reason a source term equal to the average radioactivity inventory in the reactor coolant plus 2 percent of the core inventory of halogens and noble gases is assumed. All other assumptions are identical to those for the small pipe i break.
The initial containment airborne activity and time-dependent releases of halogens and noble gases for this accident appear in Table 7.1-10.
The probability of a large pipe break is much less than that of a small break.
The critical crack length (the length of crack that will propagate to rupture) increases as the pipe diameter and wall thickness increase. A larger crack
. will also produce a greater amount of leakage before rupture. This greater leakage makes detection easier and allows more time for corrective action.
On the basis of the assumptions stated, the following offsite doses have been calculated:
Whole Body Thyroid Exclusion zone boundary (rems) 3.69 x 10~ -1 7.2 x 10 9
Population dose (man-rems) 6.83 x 10 0 -
i
- 7.1.4.8.3 Break in Instrument Line from Primary System That Penetrates the
, \ Containment: With the exception of containment pressure sensing lines, instrument lines are provided with isolation capability inside the contain-ment. The pressure sensing lines for the containment are provided with a diaphragm between the fluid inside the containment and the fluid outside the I
containment. A break in the portion of the line outside the containment does not result in the release of fluid from inside the containment. This accident has no environmental consequences.
j 7.1.4.8.4 Rod Ejection Accident. A highly unlikely rupture of the housing for
. the control rod mechanism must be postulated for this accident to occur. As a i result, minor fuel failures might occur and reactor coolant would be re. leased l9 to the containment. Sprays and plateout partially reduce the airborne fission product concentration. Nevertheless, some of the remaining radioactivity is slowly released to the atmosphere through minute leaks in the containment.
1-The sequence of events for the rod ejection accident is essentially the same j as for the small break. However, in addition to the average primary coolant radioactivity inventory, 0.2 percent of the core inventory of noble gases and halogens is released into the' primary coolant. 9 i
The initial containment airborne activity and time-dependent releases of the t
halogens and noble gases for this accident appear in Table 7.1-11.
)
- O 7.1-15 Amendment 9 i
,- - ,--e------- --.e,r-e-wn-n-,--, -r-,,w -.--n.,-, ,,--~.-.,-,-c~. ~.,, n, ----r--- - - - - . - , . - , - . . - - ,- - - - - - -
s STP ER The probability of failure of a control rod mechanism housing is considered to be very small. A combination of conservative design, preoperational testing, quality control, and periodic inspection gives this assurance.
On the basis of the assumptions stated, the following offsite doses have been calculated:
Whole Body Thyroid Exclusion zone boundary (rems) -4 3.75 x 10 7.24 x 10' Population dose (man-rems) 7.0 x 10 -
7.1.4.8.5 Large Steamline Break: This accident is postulated as the complete rupture of a main steamline resulting in the release of secondary system steam to the atmosphere. As a consequence of this release, closure of the main steam isolation valve occurs and reactor scram is initiated automatically.
Radioactivity available for release with the steam consists of that initially present in the affected steam generator plus that which leaks from the primary to the secondary system during the course of the accident. Parameters and assumptions used in this analysis are as follows:
- 1. A steam generator leak of 20 gallons per day continues throughout the assumed 8-hour duration of the transient.
- 2. A halogen reduction factor of 0.5 is applied to the primary coolant source during the course of the accident.
- 3. The volume of one steam generator is released to the s.emosphere with an iodine partition factor of 10.
Activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is given in Table 7.1-12.
l9 A steamline break is considered highly unlikely. The steam system valves, fittings, and piping are conservatively designed, and the piping is a ductile material completely inspected prior to installation. After installation'the entire system undergoes hot functional testing prior to fuel loading. During operation, chemical treatment is used to control deposits and corrosion in the steam generators and stem lines, which reduces the possibility of stresscorro-sion cracking and corrosion fatigue.
On the basis of the assumptions stated, the following offsite doses have been calculated:
Whole Body Thyroid Exclusion zone boundary (rems) 1.01 x 10 ~0 1.47 x 10
2,09 x 10 -4 9
Population dose (man-rems) ,
O 7.1-16 Amendment 9
, STP ER
[A i ' ;~ ( ) ~ 7.1.4.8.6 Small Steamline Break: This accident has not been analyzed separ-ately. The only assumption for this accident that is different from those for i
the large steamline break is that a halogen reduction factor of 0.1 instead of 0.5 is applied to the primary coolant source during the course of the acci-
, dent.
Activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is given in Table 7.1-13. On the basis of the assumptions stated, the following offsite 4 doses have been calculated:
i 9 Whole Body Thyroid Exclusion zone boundary (rems) 8.12 x 10- -5 3.20 x 10 Population dose (man-rems) 1.67 x 10' -
4 7.1.5
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES j Section 7.1.4 of this report presents an evaluation of the various classes of accidents using the assumptions set forth in Appendix I to Regulatory Guide l 4.2. Table 7.1-14 summarises for the various accidents the whole-body popula- 9 tion dose within 50 miles of the plant and the individual whole-body and l thyroid doses at the exclusion zone boundary.
The calculated whole-body exposures for each of the accidents are within the '
?
limits of 10CFR20 for exposure of individuals in unrestricted areas. Also, in O each case, the maximum calculated individual whole-body exposure is smaller than that which is received from natural background radiation by residents of the area.
i i
The integrated population exposure from any of the accidents is also a smaller fraction of the exposure from natural background radiation and is 9 i within the expected variations of natural background.
In light of the low probcbility of the more serious accidents and the low ,
j level doses which are calculated should they occur, it is concluded that.the
! potential environmental impact of accidental releases of radioactivity is i exceedingly small.
E l
1 1
k l
iO 7.1-17 Amendment 9 I
i STP ER
\
l l
i 1
Page 7.1-18 intentionally left '
blank.
1 O
l l
i Amendment 9 l
STP ER REFERENCES
- Section 7.1:
7.1-1 U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare,
" Radiological Health Handbook", (1970). 9 7.1-2 DiNunno, J.J., et al., " Calculation of Distance lactors for Power and Test Reactor Site," TID-14844 (1962).
I J
4 O
'I i
- O 7.1-19 Amendment 9 ;
~
,-,-.._..___...,.,,,,__.,--___.m....-,..,.,e#-_. -
. . , ,__,_mw-.-, . . , ,_-c._-.~--,
STP ER
-A
(_,) TABLE 7.1-1 ACCIDENTS ANALYZED IN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT NRC Accident Class Specific Events Considered 1.0 Trival incidents Evaluated as containment purge releases in Sections 3.5 and 5.3 2.0 Small releases outside Evaluated as miscellaneous containment systems releases in Sections 3.5 and 5.3 3.0 Radwaste system 1. Equipment leakage or malfunction
- 2. Release of gaseous waste tank contents
- 3. Release of liquid waste storage tank contents 4.0 Fission products to primary Not applicable system (BWR)
P 5.0 Fission products to primary 1. Fuel cladding defects and and secondary systers (PWR) steam ganerator leaks evaluated in Sections 3.5 snd 5.3
- 2. Off-design transients that induce fuel fail tre above those expected, and steam generator leaks
- 3. Steam generator tube rupture 6.0 Refueling accidents 1. Fuel bundle drop
- 2. Heavy object drop onto fuel in core 7.0 Spent fuel-handling 1. Fuel assembly drop in fuel accidents storage pool
- 2. Heavy object drop onto fuel rack 9
O 7.1-20 Amendment 9
i STP ER TABLE 7.1-2 O3 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS FOR INDIVIDUAL DOSE CALCULATIONS y/Q , sec/m .
Puff Release 1.7 x 10-5 Continuous Release 0-2 hrs 3.1 x 10'0 2-8 hrs 2.0 x 10-6 8-16 hrs 1.6 x 10-6 16-72 hrs 1.1 x 10-6 72 hrs 5.5 x 10" O
b t
I
- These dispersion factors are calculated at the 50 percentile level for the exclusion sono boundary, at 1,430 meters.
7.1-22 Amendment 9 i
-,.--~n.,,.,----..e-,,_y,,m-- ,,_,,,,,._,,,.,n_ ,,,,,,,,n._,,_,,,..n,.n. .., ., ,, , _ _ ,_ __ , , , _ _ _ _ . , , __ , ,
STP ER 1
1 i
i f
f Table 7.1-3 has been deleted.
i 1
1 i
f I
i f
1 1
4 t
Jr 4
1 1
i 7.1-23 Amendment 9 3
j i
STP ER
< .c O j TABLE 7.1-4 PRTMARY AND SECONDARY EQUILIBRIUM COOIANT ACTIVITIES
- Isotope Primary Side.U Ci/cc Secondary Side.PCi/g
~1 Kr-83m 1.6 x 10 nil Kr-85 2.6 nil Kr-85m 7.0 x 10~1 nil
-l Kr-87 4.2 x 10 nil Kr-88 1.3 nil Kr-89 3.9 x 10-2 317 Xe-131m 7.0 x 10~1 nil 1
Xe-133 8.8 x 10 nil Xe-133m 5.6 nil Xe-135 2.4 nil 9 Xe-135m 1.6 x 10'1 nil Xe-138 2.2 x 10-1 nil
-5 I-131 8.4 x 10~1 4.1 x 10 I-132 9.8 x 10~1 1.1 x 30 5 i I-133 1.3 6.1 x 10 -5
~
I-134 2.0 x 10-1 2.0 x 10 '
I-135 7.4 x 10-1 2.5 x 10-5
- Based on: 4100 Mwt power level e' D failed fuel i r Jown 10 gym per steam generator t.1 mary-togsecondary leak 20 gpd 2.613 x 10 g RCS mass O 440,000 lb steam generator mass (total) 7.1-24 Amendment 9
STP ER TABLE 7.1-5
\
ACTIVITY RELEASE TO THE ENVIRONMENT FOR CLASS 3.0 ACCIDENTS 25% Release- 25% Spill- 100% Release- 100% Spill-Guard Bad Floor Drain Guard Bed Floor Drain Isotope Tank (Ci) Tank (Ci) Tank (C1) Tank (Ci) 0 I-131 3.57 x 10 4.95 x 10-1 1.43 x 10 1 1.98 x 10 0 I-132 4.89 x 10 -2 5.75 x 10~1 1.96 x 10~1 2.30 x 10 0 I-133 5.95 x 10-1 7.83 x 10~1 2.38 x 10 0 3.13 x 10 0 I-134 4.01 x 10 -3 1.18 x 10-1 1.60 x 10 -2 4.70 x 10-1 I-135 1.10 x 10 -1 4.33 x 10 ~1 4.41 x 10~1 1,73 x 10 0 Kr-83m 2.87 x 10~1 0 1.15 x 10 ,
Kr-85 8.87 x 10 1 -
3.55 x 10 2 ,
Kr-85m 3.99 x 10 0 -
1.59 x 10 1 -
9 Kr-87 3.26 x 10~1 0 1.303 x 10 ,
Kr-88 3.83 x 10 0 -
1.53 x 10 1 -
Kr-89 6.00 x 10~' -
2.40 x 10~4 -
Xe-131m 2.05 x 10 2 -
8.20 x 10 2 ,
Xe-133 1.86 x 10 4 -
7 A2 x 10 4 -
Xe-133m 6.22 x 10 2 -
2.49 x 10 3 -
Xe-135 4.07 x 10 1 -
1.63 x 10 2 ,
Xe-135m 1.30 x 10-1 -
5.18 x 10~1
- Xe-137 1.44 x 10-4 -
5.75 x 10-4 -
Xe-138 8.41 x 10-3 -
3.36 x 10-2 ,
O 7.1-25 Amendment 9
STP ER TABLE 7.1-6 ACTIVITY RELEASE TO THE ENVIRONMENT FOR CIASS 5.0 ACCIDENTS Abnormally High Fuel Failure Steam Generator and Steam Generator Leak Tube Rupture Isotope (Class 5.2) (Ci) (Class 5.3) (Ci)
-2 I-131 1.50 x 10-3 4.70 x 10
-3 I-132 2.20 x 10 5.50 x 10-2 I-133 3.3 x 10-3 7.20 x 10 -2 I-134 3.5 x 10~3 1.10 x 10 -2
-2 I-135 3.00 x 10-3 4.10 x 10 0
Kr-83m 1.90 x 10~1 8.90 x 10
~ 3 Kr-85 7.6 x 10 1.40 x 10 Kr-85m 4.5 x 10~1 3.90 x 10 1
~1 Kr-87 7.9 x 10 2.30 x 10 1 9
< Kr-88 1.10 x 10 0 7.20 x 10 1
Kr-89 1.40 x 10 0 2.20 x 10 0 i Xe-131m 2.80 x 10-2 3.90 x 10 1 0
Xe-133 5.2 x 10 4.90 x 10 3 Xe-133m 5.90 x 10~1 3.10 x 10 2 Xe-135 7.20 x 10~1 1.30 x 10 2 0
Xe-135m 6.30 x 10~1 8.9 x 1.0 0 1 Xe-138 2.50 x 10 1.20 x 10
'I l
7.1-26 Amendment 9
- - . - ...,-..- -- -,-,,-,.,,-,,.--.y.-..m---, - - - . - - --- - -----. -- -..-.-_-- m-
..~---m-- m.-,-m ,- , . . .,w--w,~
STP ER TABLE 7.1-7 ACTIVITY RtimE TO THE MfVIRONMENT FOR Cf Ans 6.0 ACCIDENTS Fuel Bundle Heavy Object Drop Drop Onto Fuel In Core Isotope (Class 6.1) (Ci) (Class 6.2) (Ci)
I-131 1.18 x 10~1 2.14 x 10 0 I-132 -
2.28 x 10-3 I-133 6.81 x 10-2 2.10 x 10 0 I-135 3.07 x 10'3 3.44 x 10'1 Kr-85 1.83 x 10 0 3.11 x 10+1 Ko-131m 4.55 x 10~1 7.56 x 10 0 9 Xe-133 1.26 x 10+2 2.27 x 10 3 Xe-133m 1.20 x 10 1 2.53 x 10 2 Xe-135 1.07 x 10 1 5.28 x 10 2 Xe-135m 2.48 x 10~1 2.78 x 10 1 O
7.1-27 Amendment 9
.- - . _- .- . . . ~ . - . ._. . _ . - - . . . - - . - - . - . - . _ . _ - . . . . -.- -.-.
1 i STP ER t
O TABLE 7.1-8 ACTIVITY mafWARE TO THE ENVIROMMRWT FOR CfAes 7.0 ACCIDENTS Fuel Assembly Heavy Object Drop Drop in Storage Fool Onto Fuel In Core Isotope (Class 7.1) (Ci) (Class 7.2) (Ci)
I-131 1.02 x 10~1 1.52 x 10~1 j I-133 5.91 x 10-2 ,
I I-135 2.67 x 10~3 -
Kr-85 1.58 x 10 2 2.68 x 10 3 Xe-131m 3.94 x 10 1 3.37 x 10 2 9 Xe-133 1.09 x 10' 5.02 x 10 3 Xe-133m 1.04 x 10 3 2.45 x 10 0 Xe-135 9.23 x 10 2 ,
Xe-135m 2.15 x 10 1 - *
- O e
t t
I i i
I ll 7.1-28 Amendment 9 j
STF ER TABLE 7.1-9 U ACTIVITY mRTWARE TO THE ENVinowwrNT FOR EMATT-PRIMARY SYSTEM FIPE BREAK Initial Containment Airborne Activity 0-8 hr 8-24 hr 1-4 days 4-30 day Isotope (Ci) (Ci) (Ci) (Ci) (Ci) 2 I-131 3.1 x 10 2.66 x 10-2 2.09 x 10-2 4.03 x 10-2 1.22 x 10~1 2
I-132 3.6 x 10 2.06 x 10-2 4.64 x 10'4 1.83 x 10 0.0 I-133 4.9 x 10 2 3.97 x 10-2 2.08 x 10-2 1.35 x 10-2 1.37 x 10~1 I-134 7.4 x 10 1 3.08 x 10'3 7.38 x 10'I 0.0 0.0 I-135 2.7 x 10 2 1.95 x 10-2 4.04 x 10~3 4.65 x 10 2.45 x 10' Kr-83m 5.9 x 10 1 1.39'x 10-2 7.03 x 10~4 8.23 x 10' O.0 9 2 0 0 1 Kr-85 9.5 x 10 7.12 x 10'1 1.42 x 10 3.20 x 10 2.72 x 10 Kr-85m 2.6 x 10 2 1.12 x 10~1 4.18 x 10-2 1.92 x 10-3 0.0
_) Kr-87 1.6 x 10 2 2.72 x 10-2 3.51 x 10'4 2.86 x 10'8 0.0 Kr-88 4.7 x 10 2 1.56 x 10~1 2.56 x 10-2 2.71 x 10~4 0.0 Xe-131m 2.6 x 10 2 1.93 x 10'1 3.74 x 10~1 7.58 x 10~1 3.06 x 10 1 Xe-133 3.3 x 10 4 2.42 x 10 1 4.55 x 10 1 8.18 x 10 1 1.65 x 10 2 Xe-133m 2.1 x 10 3 1.49 x 10 0 2.55 x 10 0 3.34 x 10 0 2.10 x.10 0 Xe-135 8.8 x 10 2 5.33 x 10'1 5.28 x 10'1 1.32 x 10~1 6.44 x 10~1 Xe-135m 6.0 x 10 1 2.27 x 10-2 1.37 x 10-2 1.58 x 10~3 8.34 x 10*7 Xe-138 8.3 x 10 1 2.65 x 10~3 0.0 0.0 0.0
~.
O 7.1-29 Amendment 9
t STP ER O TABLE 7.1-10 C ACTIVITY RELEASE TO THE ENVIRONMENT FOR IARGE PRIMARY SYSTEM PIPE BREAK Initial Containment Airborne Activity 0-8 hr 8-24 hr 1-4 days 4-30 day Isotopa (Ci) (Ci) (Ci) (C1) (Ci) 0 I-131 2.20 x 10 1.88 x 10 2 1.48 x 10 2 2.86 x 10 2 8.66 x 10 2
4.25 x 10 0 0
I-132 3.30 x 10 1.89 x 10 2 1.68 x 10-2 0.0 I-133 4.80 x 10 0 3.89 x 10 2 2.04 x 10 2 1.33 x 10 2 1.34 x 10 1 0
I-134 5.2 x 10 1.97 x 10 2 4.72 x 10-2 0.0 0.0 I-135 4.40 x 10 6 3.18 x 10 2 6.58 x 10 1 7.57 x 10 0 3.99 x 10-3 Kr-83m 2.80 x 10 5 6.59 x 10 1 3.34 x 10 0 3.91 x 10-3 0.0 Kr-85 1.60 x 10 4 1.20 x 10 1 2.40 x 10 1 5.38 x 10 1 4.58 x 10 2 9 Kr-85m 6.20 x 10 5 2.67 x 10 2 9.96 x 10 1 4.58 x 10 0 0.0 Kr-87 1.10 x 10 0 1.87 x 10 2 2.41 x 10 0 1.97 x 10 O.0 Kr-88 1.60 x 10 0 5.29 x 10 2 8.71 x 10 1 9.21 x 10'I 0.0 Xe-131m 1.60 x 10 4 1.21 x 10 1 2.44 x 10 1 5.64 x 10 1 3.71 x 10 2 Xe-133 4.4 x 10 0 3.31 x 10 3 8.56 x 10 3 1.29 x 10 4 2.76 x 10 4 Xe-133m 6.8 x 10 5 4.88 x 10 2 8.55 x 10 2 1.17 x 10 3 7.62 x.10 2 Xe 135 9.6 x 10 5
1.18 x 10 3 2.30 x 10 3 8.30 x 10 2 5.02 x 10 0 Xe-135m 9.2 x 10 3
3.68 x 10 2 2.23 x 10 2 2.57 x 10 1 1.36 x 10-2 Xe-138 3.8 x 10 1.21 x 10 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
7.1-30 Amendment 9
STP ER j TABLE 7.1-11 ACTIVITY RELEASE TO THE ENVIRONMENT FOR CONTROL ROD EJECTION ACCIDENT Initial 4 Containment Airborne Activity 0-8 hr 8-24 hr 1-4 days 4-30 days Isotopa (Ci) (Ci) (Ci) (Ci) (Ci)
I-131 2.2 x 10 5 1.88 x 10 1 1.48 x 10 1 2.86 x 10 1 8.66 x 10 1 I-132 3.3 x 10 5 1.90 x 10 1 4.26 x 10 1 1.67 x 10-3 0.0 I-133 4.8 x 10 5 3.89 x 10 1 2.04 x 10 1 1.33 x 10 1 1.34 x 10 0 I-134 5.2 x 10 5 2.16 x 10 1 5.18 x 10'3 8.15 x 10 O.0 I I-135 4.4 x 10 5 3.18 x 10 1 6.58 x 10 0 7.57 x 10~1 3.99 x 10~4 Kr-83m 2.8 x 10 0 6.59 x 10 0 3.34 x 10~1 3.91 x 10~0 0.0 9 I Kr-85 3 0 0 0 1 2.5 x 10 1.87 x 10 3.74 x 10 8.41 x 10 7.15 x 10 Kr-85m 6.2 x 10 4 2.67 x 10 1 9.96 x 10 1 4.58 x 10~1 0.0 Kr-87 1.1 x 10 5 1.87 x 10 1 2.41 x 10~1 1.97 x 10-5 0.0 Kr-84 1.6 x 10 5.29 x 10 1 8.71 x 10 0 9.21 x 10-2 0.0 Xe-131m 1.9 x 10 3 1.43 x 10 0 2.87 x 10 0 6.51 x 10 0 4.06 x 10 1 Xe-133 4.7 x 10 5 3.53 x 10 2 6.97 x 10 2 1.36 x 10 3 2.91 x 10 3 Xe-133m 7.0 x 10' 5.03 x 10 1 8.8 x 10 1 1.20 x 10 2 7.82 x 10 1 0
Xe-135 9.7 x 10 1.18 x 10 2 2.30 x 10 2 8.31 x 10 1 5.02 x 10~1 Xe-135m 9.2 x 10 0 3.68 x 10 1 2.23 x 10 1 2.57 x 10 0 1.36 x 10~3 ,
5 Xe 138 3.8 x 10 1.21 x 10 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 l
l O
7.1-31 Amendment 9
,l A STP ER
.s n_ TABLE 7.1-12 ACiivlTY RETWASE TO THE ENVIRONMENT FOR IARGE STEAMLINE BREldt
}
Isotope Release (Cil
- I-131 1.10 x 10-2 I-132 1.20 x 10-2 I-133 1.70 x 10-2
~
I-134' 2.50 x 10~3 I-135 9.30 x 10'3 Kr-83m 3!90 x 10-3 Kr-85 6.40's 10-2 Kr-85m e 1.70 x 10-2 Kr-87 1.00 x 10-2 j Kr-88 3.10 x 10-2 Xe-131m 1.70 x 10-2 Xe-133 2.20 x 10 0 2
Xe-133m 1.40 x 10'1
- Xe-135 3.90 x 10-2 ,
~
Xe-135m 4.00 x 10-3 Xe-138 5.60 x 10-3 ' '
i 4
- /
t t
7.1-32 Amemh.ent 9 4
ee i - ~ , - - - - - - < , . ----m--- - - - , - -
,,---er we ,-eee----g- - .,-- - ye. - - e,--- y.m-t- -we +n-
STP ER
,g-TABLE 7.1-13 f ]; .
ACTIVITY RELEASE TO THE ENVIRONMENT FOR )
SMALL STEAMLINE BREAK i
Isotope Release (C1)
I-131 2.40 x 10
-3 I-132 -3 2.50 x 10 I-133 3.70 x 10 -3 I-134 5.10 x 10 ~4 i I-135 2.00 x 10-3 Kr-83m 3.90 x 10'3 Kr-85 6.40 x 10-2 9 Kr-85m 1.70 x 10-2 Kr-87 1.00 x 10-2 Kr-88 3.10 x 10-2 Xe-131m 1.70 x 10-2 0
Xe-133 2.20 x 10 Xe-133m 1.40 x 10 -1 Xe-135 5.90 x 10-2 Q Xe-135m 4.00 x 10-3 Xe-138 -3
- 5.60 x 10 I
i O
l 7.1-33 Amendment 9
4 -
N n, '
l .
TABLE 7.1-14 SLM4ARY OF DOSES REStl. TING FROM ACCIDENTS i
l Whole-Body Dose- Thyroid Inhalation i ., , At Exclusion Onse at Exclusion Whole Body Population Zone Boundary Zone Boundary Dose to 50 Miles Accident Class Description (Rems) (Rems). (man-Rems) _
1.0* Trival Incidents -- - -
l 2.0* Small Release Outside Containment '
3.0 Radwaste System Failure 3.1 Equipment Leak or Malfunction 1 '
Gases 3.1 x 10-3 3.27 x 10-2 6.42 i ? Liquid:: 1.2 x 10-5 6.68 x 10-3 2.54 xx 10 10-3
- m 0
b 3.2 Release of Gaseous Waste Tank Contents 1.25 x 10-2 1.31 x 10-1 2.57 x 10 Contents N 3.3 Release of Liquid Waste Storage Tank 4.80 x;10-5 .2.67 x 10-2 1.02'x 10-2 4.0 Fission Products to Primary System (BWR) Not Applicable 5.0 Fission Products to Primary and Secondary Systems (PWR) 5.l* Fuel Cladding Defects and Steam Generator -- - --
g k 5.2 Off-design Transients that Induce Fuel 3.90 x 10-5 2.40 x 10-1 8.00 x 10-3 g Failure Above Those Expected and Steam E Generator Leak 5.3 Steam Generator Tube Rupture 1.70 x 10-3 6.30 x 10-4 3.50 x 10-1 6.0 Refueling Accidents 6.1 Fuel Bundle Drop 3.29 x 10-5 1.19 x 10-3 6.77 x 10-3
(~~) O v v V TABLE 7.1-14 (Continued)
SLMMRY OF DOSES RESULTING FROM ACCIDENTS Whole-Body Dose Thyroid Inhalation At Exclusion Dose at Exclusion Whole Body Population Zone Boundary Zone Boundary Dose to 50 Miles Accident Class Description (Rems) (Rems) (man-Rems) 6.2 Heavy Object Drop Onto Fuel in Core 9.68 x 10-4 2.39 x 10-2 1.99 x 10-1 7.0 Spent Fuel H'ndling Accident 7.1 Fuel Assetty Drop in Fuel Storage 2.81 x 10-3 1.03 x 10-3 5.78 x 10-1 7.2 Heavy Object Drop Onto Fuel Rack 8.36 x 10-4 1.33 x 10-3 1.72 x 10-1 9
/.3 Fuel Cask Drop Not Applicable T 8.0 Accident Initiation Events Considered in -- m O Design Basis Evaluation in the Safety Analysis Report 8.1 Loss-of-Coolant Accidents --
Small Pipe Break 3.28 x 10- 9.6 x 10- 1.15 x 10-2 Large Pipe Break 3.69 x 10- 7.2x10f 6.83 Break in Instrumentation Line from Primary System that Penetrates Containment Not Applicable g 8.2 Control Rod Accidents E Rod Ejection Accident (PWR) 3.75 x 10-4 7.24 x 10-2 7.0 x 10-1 l
rt Rod Drop Accident (BWR)
Not Applicable
O O O TABLE 7.1-14 (Continued)
SLMSRY OF DOSES RESILTING FROM ACCIDENTS .
Whole-Body Dose' Thyroid' Inhalation-
., At Exclusion Dose at Exclusion Whole Body Population
! Zone Boundary Zone Bomdary - Dose to 50 Miles i Accident Class Description (Rems). (Rems) (man-Rems) 8.3 Steam Line Break Accidents i PWR 1
. Small Break 8.12 x 10-7 3.20 x 10-5 1.67 x 10-4
- Large Break 1.01 x 10-6 1.47 x 10-4 2.09 x 10-4 9 i
BWR Not Applicable m l 4 -
l ? E i ';" .
l * !
1 k
i E. !
R -
, R
.
- Incidents included and evaluated under routine releases contained'in Section 5.
i
jx '
U U :Cs TABLE 11.1-1 COST DESCRIPTION FACILITY APD TRANSMISSION HOOKUP Generating Cost Present Worth $5,175,772,250 3 (Including Transmission Annualized $ 543,309,610 4 4
and Hookup Cost 4
Environmental Costs Units Mamitude Section i
1.5 Radionuclides discharged to water body 1.5.1 Aquatic organisms i Fish in the reservoir mrads/ year 57.2 5.2 Aquatic plants in the reservoir mrads/ year 16.8 5.2 Fish in the Colorado River mrads/ year 1.84 5.2 Aquatic plants in the Colorado River mrads/ year 5.5 x 10~3 5.2 5.o k" E w 1.5.2 People, external Swining Individual, mrem / year, whole body 9.1 x 10-5 5.3 Shoreline activity along the Individual, mrem / year, whole body 2.1 x 10~ 5.3 Colorado River Boating along the Colorado River Individual, mrem / year, whole bod / 4.5 x 10-5 5.3 1.5.3 People, ingestion Fish ingestion, Little Robbins Slough Individual, mrem / year, whole body 5.9x10-f 5.3 g Shellfish ingestion, Colorado River Individual, mrem / year, whole body 1.0 x 10~g 5.3
, Meat ingestion, Little Robbins Slough Individual, mrem / year, whole body 1.7 x 10~ 5.3 a Fish ingestion Population, man-rem / year, whole body 6.0 x 10'2 5.3 3.96 x 10~g l
r, Shellfish ingestion Population, man-rem / year, whole body 5.3 -
rs I -('v')
(~/r ).
TABLE 11.1-1 (Continued)
COST DESCRIPTION FACILITY ADO TRANSMISSION HOOKlP Environmental Costs thits Macy11tude Section 1.5.4 Wildlife Waterfowl mrad / year 142 5.2 3.3 Radionuclides discharged to ambient air and direct radiation from radioactive materials 3.3.1 People, external Cloud submersion Individual, mrem / year, whole body 3.06 x 1 72 5.3 Direct from facility Individual, mrem / year, whole body less than 5.3 O Cloud submersion Population (year 2030), man-rem / year 1.88x10~}.0 5.3 :3
- whole body g d, Direct from facility Population (year 2030), man-rem / year negligible 5.3 whole body 9
3.3.2 People, ingestion Inhalation Individual, mrem / year, whole body 1.39 x 10~ 5.3 Vegetable ingestion, nearest residence Individual, mrem / year, whole, body 2.93 x 10~2 5.3 Milk ingestion, nearest assumed goat Individual, mrem / year, whole body 4.49 5.3 Meat ingestion Individual, mrem / year, whole body 5.47 xx 10~2 10~ 5.3 3.3.3 Terrestrial animals Similar to dose man. See Section 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 k 4.5 Transmission route selection o.
o 4.5.1 Land, amount Miles 304.3 4.2
% s i 1-Y 1
5 4
j TABLE 11.1-1 (Continued)
COST DESCRIPTION FACILITY APO TRANSNISSION K)OKLP i
Environmental Costs Units w itude Section 4.5.2 Land use and land value Acres cropland affected 5 4.2 Acres open field traversed 2,1% 4.2 Acres woodland affected 830 4.2 Acres marshland traversed 118 4.2 4.5.3 People (aesthetics)
, Interstate Hi@way Crossings Nurber 3 3.9 3.9 U.S. Hicpway Crossings MJuber 8 State Hi@way Crossings MJaber 10 3.9 Ntaber Farm Road Crossings 12 3.9 Railroad Crossings Number 14 3.9 ca 7 4 l I E 5
R E
i 1
, . -r- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
STP ER "w Table 12.1-1 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT LICENSES / PERMITS AND STATUS Agency Permit or Approval Status Nuclear Regulatory Construction Permit Issued December 22, 1975 Commission Operating License Pending Environmental Permit for construction Issued April 13, 1976 7 Protection Agency waste discharges Expired April 6, 1981 Operational discharge Issued June 12, 1977 permit Renewed November 19, 1985 7 l9 Approval for construction Issued January 16, 1980 j3 of auxiliary boiler U.S. Army Corps Permit for construction Issued July 30, 1975 of Engineers of the intake and dis-charge structures on the Colorado River fg Amendment of permit Issued August 12, 1976
( ,/ issued July 39, 1975, to enlarge barge slip area Permit for installation Issued April 12, 1976 of temporary cofferdam in 7 navigable waters (Colorado River)
Permit for maintenance Issued March 17, 1981 dredging in river make- .
up pumping facility . ,
Permit for small boat Issued November 17, 1981 ramp within the equip-ment barge slip Amendment of permit to Issued May 24, 1984 perform maintenance '
dredging of the barge ,
slips l
l i
12.1-2 Amendment 9 i
l
STP ER Table 12.1-1 (Continued)
[
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT LICENSES / PERMITS AND STATUS Agency Permit or Approval Status Texas Water Rights Permit for appropria- Issued February 24, 1976 Commission (now the tion and diversion of Texas Water Commis- water from the Colorado sion) River Permit for construction Issued February 24, 1976 of the reservoir and in-take and discharge 7 structures on the Colorado River Contractual Permit Issued August 5, 1977 4
recognizing water supply contract between LCRA and HL&P dated January 1, 1976 Texas Water Quality Permits for construction Issued April 22, 1975 Board (now the Texas and operational discharges Renewed August 20, 1985 3 l9 Water Commission) of wastes (i.e., sanitary l7 O' waste, metal cleaning waste, blowdown) 1 Approval for solid Approved July 1, 1976 l7 waste disposal area Section 401 FWPCA Certi- Granted August 16, 1976 l7 fication Registration as gener- Registered August 16, 1976 tor of industrial solid Revised June 28, 1984 waste Texas Highway Approval necessary for Granted June 20, l'975 Department rerouting of FM 521 Texas Air Control Construction permit.for Issued January 2, 1976
, Board solid waste incinerator (C-3924)
Operating Permit for Issued May 4, 1976 solid waste incinerator (R-3924) ,
1 4
- 12.1-3 Amendment 9 ,
1 1
STP ER 12.2 AGENCY APPROVALS C 12.2.1 FEDERAL AGENCY APPROVALS (s)T Permits or approvals from the following federal authorities must be obtained before authorization is given for construction. These agencies were notified of the STP before all permits had been applied for.
12.2'.1.1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), formerly the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), is responsible for regulation of design as well as for the construction and operation of any nuclear power facility to be installed within the bounda-ries of the United States or possessions of the United States.
The procedure for environmental study is set forth in 10CFR51. Each applicant filing for an initial
- construction permit must submit its own Environmental Report (construction permit stage) to the Commission. This report presents the applicant's assessment of the environmental impact of the planned facility 4 and possible alternatives which would alter the impact. The Commission
- receives the applicant's assessment and issues its own preliminary invironmen-l tal impact statement. This statement is then circulated to other responsible agencies and made availabic to the general public. After comments are received from ,these sources, the Commission prepares a final environmental impact statement and makes a final recommendation on the utility's application for a construction permit.. ,
When application is made for an operating license, the applicant updates the Environmental Report (ER) (contruction permit stage), noting any changes which have occurred since the original report. The utility then resubmits the updated construction permit ER to the Commission. Then, a new detailed state-ment is prepared by the Commission, and a final recommendation on the appli- ,
- cant's operating license is prepared. When all environmental and safety ques-tions have been satisfactorily answered, the applicant is granted an operating license.
12.2.1.2 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers The Corps of Engineers is responsible for issuance of the permits for con-
' struction of the intake and discharge structures on the Colorado River. The i Corps of Engineers reviews construction permits in connection with installa-I tion of water intake and discharge structures (Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404, and River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10, 33 USC 403) and coordinates its review with state agencies, the Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA), and the Department of Interior, which advises the Corps on fish and wildlife questions pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordinating Act.
12.2.1.3 Environmental Protection Agency j
In October, 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act l
Amendments of 1972 (FWPCAA). The FWPCAA have consolidated the bulk of federal -
authority in the EPA. FWPCAA effectively requires that the EPA, through its
[
administrator, be charged with enforcement of the Act, and set up national l
water quality and effluent standards. The FWPCAA also provides, under Title l
l 12.2-1 Amendment 7 i
a
, ven-e, - ,------n- - - - - - .~ ,,n,,.-,---.---n - ,,, ~ - - - , - . , .n. --,----,-,,---------,--,,g--w e -e,, - , - - - , - . - , - - ,-
STP ER VI, Permits and Licenses, that a system of permits for waste discharges will be administered by those states that have received EPA approval of their permit programs. At present, Texas maintains its own permitting authority through Section 26.001 et seq., of the Texas Water Code. Pending any agree-ments with Texas to act in EPA's behalf, present and subsequent federal water standards as set forth under EPA authority will be complied with, in addition to state requirements.
12.2.1.4 Federal Aviation Administration:
Notification to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on construction of the STP containment building is required under the conditions stipulated in article 77.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. This notification was made by submission of FAA Form 7460-1, " Notice of Proposed Construction or Altera=
tion".
12.2.2.1 Texas Water Commission:
9 On September 1, 1977, jurisdiction previously held by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), the Texas Water Rights Commission (TWRC), and the Texas Water Quality Board (TWQB) was vested in the Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR) and its judicial branch, the Texas Vater Commission (TWC). l9 The TWDB served as the administrativa arm of the Texas Department of Water Resources, and the TWQB was abeliehed. On September 1, 1985, the TDVR was abolished and its duties and personnel were incorporated under the TWC.
9 Section 11.121. (former Section 5.121) of the Texas Water Code requires the issuance of a permit for the appropriation and diversion of waters from rivers or streams in Texas. A permit from the TWRC (now administered by TWC) for l9 appropriation and diversion of a maximum 102,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Colorado River for cooling lake makeup was issued on February 24, 1976.
The TWRC also gave its approval before construction began on the intake and discharge structures and on the reservoir. The application approved on February 24, 1976, gives authorization for the location of these facilities.
The Texas Water Code, Section 26.001 et seq., is the major legislation relating to water quality in the streams, rivers, lakes, underground water, estuaries, etc., within the territorial limits of Texas. The TWC is charged l9 l with enforcement of the code and is the principal authority in the state on i matters relating to water quality. The original permits (construction phase-l #01918, operating phase - #01908) for the discharge of sanitary, chemical, and l9 cooling lake effluent were approved on April 22, 1975, by the TWQB. These five year permits were renewed by the TDWR on September 2, 1980. Effective August 20, 1985, the current wastewater discharge permit was issued and Permit 9
- 01918 was dropped with conditions in it transferred to Permit #01908. The TWC is also the principal authority in the state on matters pertaining to industrial solid waste. The facility is currently registered with the TWC as 7 l
a generator of industrial solid waste. As a generator only, no permit is 9 required.
1 12.2-2 Amendment 9 i
i J
STP ER 12.2.2.2 Lower Colorado River Authority:
The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), which holds rights in stored waters of the Colorado River above STP, has contracted to provide stored waters when "necessary for the normal operation of (STP)," thus providing insurance against having to shut down SIP due to extended low flow conditions in the f
O 1
O 12.2-2a Amendment 9 i
STP ER Appendix A has been deleted in its entirety.
Amendment 9 m-*--.,--e - , , , - - - - . ---,,e o v._w-,- - ,n-a-,., -
--m. --,wwe---er,w- , - - --w- ,---w,--ww m-m gm s- ------n~wr -www---v -----~wv -
- - ' ~ ~ w - - - *-*
'STP ER f' g APPENDIX B
\.,) l BASIC DATA FOR SOURCE TERM CALCULATIONS ;
B.1 General l
- 1. The maximum core thermal power evaluated for safety cense,trations in the FSAR:
3,800 Mwt
- 2. Core properties:
- a. The total mass of uranium in an equilibrium core:
Uranium Dioxide 259,860 lb.
- b. The percent enrichment of uranium in reload fuel: 9 Region 1 1.50 Region 2 2.20 Region 3 2.90
- c. The percent of fissile plutonium in reload fuel:
0.0 percent
( 3. Regulatory Gu'.de (RG) 1.112 (NUREG-0017) was used in estimating source terms in the primary and secondary systems. 9
- 4. The quantity of tritium released in liquid and gaseous effluents:
Liquid: 903 Ci/yr per reactor Gaseous: 903 Ci/yr per reactor
- 5. The expected percentage of leaking fuel is 0.12 percent.
6
- 6. The containment net free volume is 3.58 x 10 cubic feet.
- 7. The plant capacity factor is 0.8. .
B.2 Primary System
- 1. The total mass of coolant in the primary system, excluding the <
pressurizer and primary coolant purification system at full power:
5.73 x 10 lbs lg
- 2. The average primary system letdown rate to the primary coolant purification system:
100 gpm l9 O
B-1 Amendment 9 r,,- , , ,- - . . - - ._ , . . . . - . . - , . - - - - .--,,.,3 , - - - . . , ,,.,,-r- 1 -r-- - - - - - - ~ , _ - , - - - . - , , - - . , - - -
STP ER
- 3. The average flowrate through the primary coolant purification system cation demineralizers. The fraction of time the cation demineralizers are in service is included in the flowrate:
20 gpm
- 4. The average shim bleed flow:
0 gpm (except for tritium releases) 9
- 5. Primary system flowrate is:
8 1.396 x 10 lb/hr.
- 6. Letdown is treated by cation and mixed bed demineralizers. Li and Cs are controlled by the cation demineralizer. Letdown is either returned directly to the primary system or diverted to the Recycle Holdup Tanks.
- 7. The plant is designed for base load operation.
B.3 Secondary Systeta
- 1. The number and type of steam generato_s and the carryover factor used in the applicant's evaluation for iodine and nonvolatiles:
Four recirculating, U-tube steam generators per unit Partition Factor for iodines: 0.01 Partition Factor for nonvolatiles: 0.001
- 2. The total steam flow in the secondary system:
7 1.69 x 10 lbs/hr per steam generator at 100 percent power.
Steam conditions are 1.100 psia, 556'F. 9
- 3. The mass of steam in each steam generator at full power:
13,000 lbs 9
- 4. The mass of liquid in each steam generator at full power:
123,000 lbs i9
- 5. The total mass of coolant in the secondary system at full power:
6 3.77 x 10 lbs 9
- 6. The primary-to-secondary system leakage rate used in the evaluation:
100 lb/ day 9
- 7. Steam Generator Blowdown and Blowdown Purification Systems:
- a. The total average steam generator blowdown flowrate used in the 5
evaluation is 1.68 x 10 lb/hr. 9 O
l B-2 Amendment 9 L
STP ER t'~ b. The blowdown flash tank vents to the number 13 feedwater heater.
\ There are no charcoal adsorbers on the flash tank vent.
c '. The blowdown liquid is treated by domineralizers and returned to the condensate system.
- 8. The fraction of the steam generator feedwater processed through the condensate demineralizers and the decontamination factors used in the evaluation of the condensate polishing domineralizer sytem (CPDS):
54.2 percent !9 Class 2 and 6 elements - Decontamination factor of 10.
Class 3 elements - Decontamination factor of 2.
- 9. Condensate demineralizers:
- a. Average flowrate:
6 9.2 x 10 lb/hr
- b. Demineralizer type:
Deep bed
- c. Number and size of domineralizers:
3 7 mixed beds; 7 cation beds - 210 ft each l9 D
s/s d. Regeneration frequency:
9 Demineralizer every 21 days B.4 Liquid Waste Processing Systems
- 1. Liquid waste system inputs and treatment parameters values are shown in Table B-5.
"PCA" is primary coolant activity. " Blowdown" refers to steam generator blowdown.
l Turbine building drains are normally discharged without treatment.
j 2. Main steam is the normal supply for turbine gland seal steam. Condensed gland sesi steam is returned to the main condensers. 9
- 3. Liquid effluent dilution flow rate is 907,000 gal / min with four circulating water pumps running. See Appendix 5.3.A for discussion on radionuclide concentrations in the cooling reservoir.
- 4. See the liquid waste system P&ID in Figures 11.2-1 through 11.2-11 for further information.
O B-3 Amendment 9
STP ER B.5 Gaseous Waste Processing System
- 1. There is a continuous low volume purge of the volume control tank. Flow rate through the gas stripper is 29.8 gal / min per GALE code calculations for volume control tank purge case.
- 2. Caseous wastes are treated by a charcoal delay system. Holdup time for xenon is 67.5 days; holdup time for Xyrpton is 3.65 days. See the GWPS P&ID in FSAR Section 11.3.
- 3. The reactor coolant system is shutdown and degassed twice per year.
Degassing is by volume control tank purge until draindown of the reactor 9 vessel. The reactor coolant system vacuum degassing system evacuates the gas space in the reactor coolant system (after draindown) through a connection in the pressurizer safety and relief valve discharge line.
- 4. Main condenser offgas is released to the atmosphere without treatment.
- 5. See FSAR Section 9.4.3 for a description of the mechanical auxiliary building ventilation system.
B.6 Ventilation and Exhaust Systems
- 1. Daily leakage rate of 1 percent of the noble gas inventory and 0.001 percent of the iodine inventory in the primary coolant is assumed to be released to the containment atmosphere.
- 2. The containment internal cleanup system is assumed operated 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> before each of four high volume purges / year.
- a. Flow rate is 20,000 cfm.
- 3. Two containment purge systems are provided.
- a. A h'igh volume purge at 40,000 cfm is assumed to occur four times per 9 year.
- b. A continuous low volume purge at 5,000 cfm is assumed.
- c. Neither purge flow is filtered.
- 4. The turbine building ventilation system is described in FSAR Section 9.4.4.
- a. The expected leakage rate of steam to the turbine generator bui?. ding is 1700 lb/ hour.
- 5. Primary coolant leakage to the mechanical auxiliary building is 160 lb/ day.
O, B-4 Amendment 9
STP ER B.7 Solid Waste Processing System
- 1. Vaste concentrates are solidified in one solid waste processing system or by a vendor of such services. See the system description on FSAR Section 11.4
- 2. Solid waste system inputs and outputs, including volume and radioactivity 9 content, are addressed in Section 11.4 of the FSAR including Tables 11.4-4, 11.4-6, and 11.4-8.
- 3. Based on industry experience the expected curie content of each drum of dry, compacted waste is 0.04 ci.
O O
B-5 Amendment 9
STP ER i i 1
Pages B-6 through B-9 have been deleted.
9 4
4
(
I 4
I I
t f
I
+
l l
1, Amendment 9 1
STP ER ;
l l
l I
I i
a f
Tables B-1 through B-4 :
have been deleted.
1
.1 J
?
1 i
i i
4 B B-13 Amendment 9
STP ER t
f f
i Figure B-1 has been deleted.
i i
4 i
4 i
l I
Amendment 9
\
STP ER Question 372.09 Section 6.2.4.2 states that "the environmental impact of the Cooling Reservoir will be verified by observing wind, temperature and relative humidity together with observations of fogging and icing at points around the reservoir."
Identify the " points around the reservoir" where these measurements and observations will be made, the heights above ground for measurements and observations, and the instrumentation and data reduction procedures to be used.
Response
Section 6.2.4.2 has been amended to describe the fog monitoring program to implemented at the STP. 9 O
i O
c-81 Amendment 9
.___,_..._._ _ _ _ .__. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ~,_
. . . .. .- .. . - - - - - - . .. .. -. . . - - . . . . - -= -.--.. . - - - -- - ..
STP ER RESPONSES TO NRC I APRIL 28, 1982 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORNATION 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS t
ARC Question Number Amendment Q&R Page Number i
311.1 5 E-1
! 311.2 9 E-2 l9 311.3 5 E-3 J
!I 1
l 4 '
i i
i
- - 1 i i i
-i i
4 l
E-il Amendment 9 i -
f f
i
. . . , _ . , . - , , ,.. . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . - . . . . , _ _ . , . . . . _ _ . _ _ , _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ -_
STP ER Question 311.02 O The current population documentation is outdated, and in some instances inconsistent. Please provide an updated Section 2.1.3 which incorporates the 1980 census population data including population projections to the year 2030.
Please revise the figures and tables so that they are consistent with the text.
Response
The section referenced in the request is located in the FSAR. Requested 9 information is provided in revised Sectica 2.1.3 of the FSAR.
O I
i O
i E-2 Amendment 9
i i
i i
e i
i j APPENDIX G SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 and 2 i
RESPONSES TO NRC ST-AE-HL-90610, DATED MAY 16, 1985 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION O ,
I i
O Amendment 9
. ~ . . . - . . - - - - ._-.._ .-- . . - - - - - - _ . _ . . - _ - . - - . _ . _
STP ER f~ RESPONSES TO NRC
! MAY 16, 1985 i REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION r TABLE OF CONTENTS 4
NRC Question Number Amendment Q&R Page Number 240.01 9 G-1
! 240.02 9 G-3
^
l 240.03 9 G-4 240.04 9 G-5 240.05 9 G-6 290.05 9 G-7 290.06 9 G-8 290.07 9 G-9 290.08 9 G-10 i 290.09 9 G-16 290.10 9 G-17 290.11 9 G-18 290.12 9 G-21 290.13 9 G-22 290.14 9 G-23 290.15 9 G-24 291.10 G-25 O 291.11 291.12 9
9 9
G-26 G-27 291.13 9 G-28 291.14 9 G-29 291.15 9 G-30 291.16 9 G-31 291.17 9 G-32
, 291.18 9 G-33 l 291.19 9 G-34
- 291.20 9 G-35 291.21 9 G-36 291.22 9 G-37 '
291.23 9 G-38
, 291.24 9 G-39 291.25 9 G-40 4
1 O
G-li Amendment 9
.-. --_ . .. - . . _ , - - . . , - - . , _ , _ _ _ . . . _ _ , . . , , - - - , .,,,,-._,,-_n--- , , . , , . . - , _ , , , , , . - - , _ . . _ , , - . , -
a, STP ER Question 240.01 Description of floodplains, as required by Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management, have not been provided. The definition used in the Executive i Order is:
" Floodplain: The lov land and relatively flat areas adjoining inland ano coastal waters including at a minimum that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year." With this definition in mind, please provide the following:
- 1) Descriptions of the floodplain of Little Robbins Slough for both pre-project and post-project conditions. On a suitable map, provide ;
i delineations of those areas adjacent to the plant, that will be inundated during the one percent (100 year) chance flood.
- 2) For Little Robbins Slough, the Colorado River and West Branch
, Colorado River, describe how construction in the floodplain has
, affected the 100-year flood levels upstream of the site, s
- 3) Identify, locate on a map and describe all structures and topographic alterations in the floodplains.
i
[
, Response:
l' 1) Prior to the construction of the STP Main Cooling Reservoir (NCR), the drainage area of Little Robbins Slough (LRS) at its intersection with the irrigation ditch near the southern boundary of STP was about 9.33 square miles. The East Fork of LRS drained an additional 4.43 square miles (see i ER-CP Figure 2.5-2a). After construction of the MCR, a significant portion of the drainage area of LRS and almost all of the drainage area j of East Fork LRS upstream of the irrigation ditch was eliminated by the 4
MCR. LRS was relocated to flow alongside the western embankment of the MCR. The drainage area of the relocated LRS at its intersection with the irrigation ditch is about 4.5 square miles. The channel of the relocated
, LRS is designed to pass flows associated with a 50-year flood throughout its length. The channel is 40 ft wide with 3 to 1 side slopes. For the
- estimated 50-year flood, a freeboard of about 3 ft is left in the lower reaches of the channel.
4 Water surface profiles for LRS resulting from a 100-year flood were computed for both pre-project and post-project conditions. The resulting water level near the plant site was found to be approximately 1 foot lower for post-project conditions. The freeboard above the 50 year flood level provides enough additional conveyance for the estimated 100-year flood to remain within the main channel for the most part. Approximately inundation limits near the plant site corresponding to a 100-year flood
- are shown on Figure 240.01-1 for pre-project and post-project conditions.
- Due to substantial reductions in the drainage area of LRS and the
- channelisation of LRS within the site boundary, the applicant expects that flooding impacts associated with LRS near the plant site will be O less adverse than for the pre-project conditions.
4 G-1 Amendment 9
T-y 1 STP ER s s ,
- 2) Adescriptionoffloodingimpactsresultingfromconstruktion,intheLRS -
[,,/
\~-
i floodplain is presented in Part 1 of this reponse. The west bran ~h the Colorado River is in the floodplain of the Colorado River. During c of a'-
100-year flood, the Colorado River (west branch) and Colorado River' form c._c single basin. For a 100-year flood in the Colorado River, the water' surface elevation would vary from about 16 ft. MSL at the south embankment of the MCR to about 26 ft. MSL near the power block (see _FSAR Figure 2.4.3-29). As shown on Figure 240.01-2, at these water levels, STP construction in the floodplain of the Colcrado River constitutes an insignificant encroachment. No significant effect on the 100-year flood levels upstream of the site is anticipated. i
- 3) The major change to the topography in the area is4the construction"of the Main Cooling Reservoir (see Figure 240.01-3). A description of the MCR is included in Section 3.4.1 of the ER-CP.
4 4
\
A r
6
(
O i G-2 Amendment 9
s: y e,;
STP ER
_g..
. Question 240.02
' f)
The average flow in the Colorado River at Bay City based on the period 1948 to 1970 was 2353 cfs. Please revise this value to include the period 1970 to present.
Response
.The average flow in the Colorado Rf.ver at Bay City is 2344 cfs. This is based on the period 1949 to 1984 (water years).
.O I
s.
I
'O G-3 Amendment 9 i-
.r.
STP ER OJ Question 240.03 What is the status of the reservoir that has been proposed for construction near Columbus, Texas. Was the effect of the reservoir considered when you estimated the average flow in the Colorado River?
Response
s A final location for the proposed reservoir near Columbus, Texas has not been selected. According to the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), there are no firm plans for consrcuction of the reservoir in the near future.
Regardless of its status, the proposed reservoir will have no impact on the operation of the STPEGS. Under its contract with the project, the LCRA is to make water available for pumping by the STPEGS. While the LCRA is not prevented from constructing one or more reservoirs on the Colorado River or its tributaries downstream of Lake Travis, LCRA will provide releases from such reservoirs so as not to diminish the amount of water available to the project.
The effect of the proposed dam has not been considered in estimating Colorado River flows.
(s-G-4 Amendment 9 l
l
STP ER Question 240.04 What is the average amount of water that will be withdrawn from the Colorado River during normal operation? Of this amount, what percentage will be consumptively used?
Response
The average amount of water that will be withdrawn from the Colorado River during normal operation is 83,900 ac-ft/ year. Of this amount about 32 percent would be forced evaporation and about 41 percent would te natural evaporation.
4 4
a O
G-5 Amendment 9
STP ER Question 240.05 ;
At the CP stage, the 7 day-10 year low flow was 1.0 cfs. Is this still a valid number?
Response
The 7 day-10 year low flow in the Colorado River at Bay City was recomputed based on the historical period 1949-85 (year ending in March). It was found to be 1.1 cfs. This is about the same number as that given at CP stage.
O G-6 Amendment 9
STP ER Question 290.05 What is the source of Figure 2.7-7 and what is the acreage of undeveloped i prime farmland 7 l i
1
Response
Figure 2.7-7 was deleted from the ER-OL in Amendment 7. Information concerning acreage of prime farmland on the site is present in Appendix D of the ER-OL, Page D-6.
i O
O C-7 Amendment 9
STP ER Question 290.06 What agriculture or other management, if any, will be undertaken for prime farmland during operation?
Response
2 Currently, no plans exist for agriculture or other management of prime farmlands during operation.
1 i
i O
i i
i O
G-8 Amendment 9
_ _ _ - ~ _ _ _ - - , , _ _ - _ _ . _ . ~ - . _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _
STP ER J
Question 290.07 What hunting, fishing, or other recreational use, if any, will be permitted on the site during operation?
Response
Currently, no plans exist to permit hunting, fishing, or other recreational ,
uses on site during operation.
O l
l O
, G-9 Amendment 9
_.-_ . . , ~ _ . . - . _ _ , _ . _ . , _ _ _ _ _ , . _ - , , . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
STP ER
_ () Question 290.08
[ How long will the special monitoring of alligators, eagles, deer, and waterfowl be continued? What changes, if any, in numbers or habits of these species have been noted, and to what extent are any changes attributable to the presence of.the project? What additional changes are anticipated when the plant becomes operational and the cooling reservoir undergoes design temperature regimes?
T
Response
The applicant plans to conduct these special ecological monitoring programs through 1986. Additional monitoring following plant start-up in 1987 is not anticipated. A summary of the results to date of these monitoring programs is presented below.
Waterfowl The species diversity and overall population levels of ducks and geese on the
, STP site have increased dramatically from 1978 through 1984. In 1978, an
- average of 20 mottled ducks (the only species seen consistently) was seen on the site. Only six duck species and two goose species were recorded during the first year of the survey. In subsequent years, both number of species and total number of waterfowl have risen so that, in the fall of 1984, there were
(}
(,,e three goose species and at least 21 duck species with a minimum population of 28,000. Most of the changes noted in the waterfowl population on the STP site q can be attributed to the decrease in construction activity around the majority of the cooling reservoir and, perhaps more importantly, to the creation of large areas of ideal waterfowl habitat by the initial filling of the reservoir, t
Completion of filling will result in the elimination of shallow water and dry land (i.e., islands). habitat. When the reservoir becomes exclusively deep open-water habitat, dabbling ducks (mottled ducks, mallards, pintails, ,
shovelers, etc.) and geese, will utilize the reservoir only as a short-term resting area because of the lack of suitable food. However, the number of diving ducks (canvasbacks, scaups, ruddy ducks, mergansers, etc.) will increase because of the creation of additional open-water habitat. There should be negligible changes in waterfowl diversity and total numbers after the start of plant operations compared to the pre-operati mal, full-reservoir condition.
i j
v 4
G-10 Amendment 9
~ _ . _ -
STP ER
, Alligators j
The American alligator has been studied on the STP site since 1978, and the
. results of the annual surveys are shown below:
NUMBER OF ALLIGATORS OBSERVED PER KM OF TRAMSECT ON THE STP SITE. 1978 - 1985 TRANSECT 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Kelly Lake 0.86 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.76 0.86 2.10 1.62 South Drainage 1.96 1.47 3.14 0.52 1.37 0.59 0.59 0.72 Canal Blowdown Canal .0.94 0.63 -- 0.42 0.63 0.00 0.21 --
Relocated Little Robbins Slough 0.22 0.15 0.00 0.29 0.05 0.10 0.39 0.15 d
East Dike, Cooling Reservoir. 0.67 1.00 2.44 1.67 0.78 0.33 d c South Dike, Cooling Reservoir 0.80 0.43 0.99 0.18 --
i- North "Y" Dike, Cooling Reservoir 1.40
- Not sampled due to lack of water Transect dropped from survey due to consistent dry condition I
" Transact dropped from survey due to poor habitat conditions resulting from
-reservoir filling d
- New transact added due to creation of alligator habitat as a result of reservoir filling Because of habitat changes which have occurred since the study began, ,
- especially inside the cooling reservoir as a result of filling operations, new
, transects have been added to the survey from time to time to monitor the
- alligator population in these new areas of suitable habitat. Conversely, when areas of formerly good _ alligator habitat have been eliminated, these transects have been dropped from the survey. The transect along the relocated Little
- Robbins Slough has been maintained as part of the study, although relatively few alligators have been counted there to date.
i There should be a noticeable increase in population density in suitable habitat outside the reservoir as it approaches operational depth. 'As the 4 reservoir water level increases and eventually covers the last exposed land i areas on the bottom of the reservoir, most (if not all) of the sexually mature alligators inside the reservoir are expected to leave in search of danning and nesting habitat. It is anticipated that sexually immature alligators will continue to reside in the reservoir to take advantage of the available food i sources.
G-11 Amendment 9 l
f
'__.._ _ - . - , . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . . ~ , . . _ - . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . - . . , . . . . .
l STP ER 1
No additional impacts on the alligator population are expected after plant operations begin.
}
~ Bald eagle i
The upper and middle Texas coastal counties as well as several counties just inland from the coast, designated Area C by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TFWD), comprise a major breeding area for the southern race of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus) and a major wintering ground for the northern race (H. l. alascanus). An annual serial survey of known eagle nests is conducted by TFWD each December or January to identify the' number of active nests (adults and/or eggs and young) and to locate new nest sites. A follow-up survey is conducted in March or April to determine the number of eaglets fledged from each nest.
Data received from TFWD for 1978-1984 indicate a steady increase in both the number of active nests and the breeding success of the bald eagle since 1978.
In area C as a whole, the number of active nests has increased from 9 to 17 and the number of young fledged has risen from 9 to 18. Matagorda and three contiguous counties (Fort Bend, Brazoria and Jackson) accounted for 8 of the 17 active nests in the latest survey.
Although no systematic monitoring program for bald eagles has been established for the STP site, a concentrated effort is made to identify any large raptor i
seen flying over the site. This is especially true during the October, November and December waterfowl surveys when a spotting scope is used for long-distance identifications. In addition, local landowners, the state trapper and the Site Environmental Coordinator have been asked to record 4 -[\ sightings of bald eagles near STP. Periodically, these people are contacted and any sightings data are transcribed.
Since 1978, only two confirmed sightings of bald eagles have been reported over or near STP. On 10 December 1980, an adult bald eagle was seen circling over the northwest corner of the cooling reservoir by a landowner and an assistant project manager. On 8 November 1983, during a scheduled waterfowl s*trvey of the cooling reservoir, an immature bald eagle was spotted near the Reservoir Makeup Pumping Facility discharge into the reservoir.
With the recent increase in breeding success of the southern bald eagle near STP and the presence of over-wintering northern bald eagles in the area, frequency of bald eagle sightings on the STP site should increase in the 2
futute. Another factor favoring an increase in the number of bald eagle
. sightings is the continued filling of the cooling reservoir, creating large expanses of open water with large numbers of fish and waterfowl, both of which are favored food items for the bald eagle.
- No additional changes are e.pected to occur when the plant begins commercial operation.
White-tailed deer j From 1982, when the current methodology for surveying the deer population on the site was adopted, through the last survey conducted in 1984, the size of the deer population between the east side of the cooling reservoir and the O
I G-12 Amendment 9 J
,,.--.1 -.-.,----,r_,w_,r.---.__~ ,,- ,.,_. .,,,,,..,,,,_ .,_-._,- y ,,._ww..,--%-_.,4_-y- _ _ . _ .-._,e,_, _ . , - . . , , - . - - - . . - . - - - -
-- - _ . _ . . . - .. -- . . - . - . . - . - . . . - - - - - _ - - ~ -
STP ER1 Colorado. River appears to be increasing in size. The results of the 5-day
, surveys conducted in October, November and December each year are shown below:
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WHITE-TAILED DEER OBSERVED IN DAILY COUNTS AT THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT SURVEY AREA 1982 1983 1984 MAKEUP RIGHT-OF-WAY i
October 4 2 7 November 4 4 12 December 0 0 7 BLOVDOWN CANAL October 15 3 7 November 5 15 38 December 8 21 28 WOODIANDS, EAST OF RESERVOIR October 13 5 10 2
November 6 9 23-
! December 0 12 26 SOUTH DIKE, COOLING RESERVOIR b
V October 13 --d ,,d November 10 -- --
December 7 -- --
d Not surveyed, area under water.
! The south dike observation point, although productive in 1982, was discontinued after that year because all the land area around that location
, was inundated in the sunumer of 1983.
( The deer population on the STP site between the reservoir and the Color, ado River increased markedly in 1984 over either of the previous two years. Much of this increase can probably be attributed to deer leaving the interior of
- the cooling reservoir as the water level increased. In 1983 and 1984, during the waterfowl surveys of the reservoir, coincidental sightings of deer were recorded. These data reflect a decrease in reservoir deer population size, from a maximum of 22 in November 1983 to a maximum of 14 in October 1984.
Since deer will have to leave the reservoir as the land areas are covered by filling operation, the wooded area east of the reservoir can be expected to show increasing numbers of deer the reservoir bottom has become completely l flooded and all deer have been forced out.
No additional impacts on the white-tailed deer population are expected when the plant begins operation.
- O 1
G-13 Amendment 9 2
(
STP ER Summary of Special Ecological Studies, 1978 - 1984 O In the years since 1978, the STP site has become a virtual wildlife sanctuary with its large coolin8 reservoir containing habitat ranging from dry land with
, grass, shrubs and trees to shallow marsh and even deep, open water. Other areas on and around the site which offer a diversity of habitat types are Kelly Lake, various drainage ditches and irrigation canals, the Little Robbins Slough and associated. wetlands, the wooded area between the reservoir and the Colorado River and numerous grassland areas, including the outer slope of the reservoir dike. The site is home for many species of reptiles, birds and mammals and stable or increasing populations of species of "special interest" are found there. These "special interest" species include the American alligator, the white-tailed deer and various species of ducks and geese. The bald eagle, although not yet common on the site, should become a frequent 4
winter visitor once the reservoir approaches operational water levels.
Data and conclusions reached in this response are based on the follow!.ng reports: Springer 1980:, Leavens et al. 1981, Davis 1982, Davis and Wilkinson 1984, and Greene et al. 1985. Some data included have not been presented in report form but are available.
i O
i i
i 4
. O
! C-14 Amendment 9
l STP ER i
1 REFERENCES Davis, C. E. 1982. Special ecological studies for the South Texas Project: !
Matagorda County, Texas. Report submitted to Houston Lighting & Power Co. by LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc., Bryan, TX 22 pp.
Davis, C. E. 1983. Special ecological studies for the South Texas Project:
Matagorda County, Texas 1981-1982. Report submitted to Houston Lighting
& Power Co. by LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc., Bryan, TX 28 PP-Davis, C. E and D. L. Wilkinson. 1984. Special ecological studies for the South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas (1982-1983). Report submitted to Houston Lighting & Power Co. by LGL Ecological Research Associated, Inc., Bryan, TX 29 pp.
Greene, G. N., D. C. McAden and W. B. Baker, Jr. 1985. Special ecological studies for South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas 1983-1984.
Houston Lighting & Power Company, Environmental Protection Department, Ecology Division, Houston, TX 33 pp.
Leavens, W. R., C. E. Davis and M. D. Springer, 1981. Special ecolcgical studies for the South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas. Report submitted to Houston Lighting & Power Co. by LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc., Bryan, TX 26 pp.
. Springer, M. D. 1980. Special ecological studies for the South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas. Report submitted to Houston Lighting &
O, Power Co. by LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc., Bryan, TX 23 pp.
O G-15 Amendment 9
STP ER Question 290.09 What management, if any, will be undertaken for the Natural lowland Habitat on the east side of the site? Will cattle grazing or herbicide use be permitted in this ares?
Response
Currently,'no management plans exist for the Natural Lowland Habitat. The use of herbicides is not anticipated. Also, no changes in existing cattle grazing leases after operation are anticipated at this time. Additional information is presented in ER-OL Appendix D (Page D-5).
O O
G-16 Amendment 9
STr ER
" Question 290.10 What other onsite wildlife management or mitigation activities, if any, will-be practiced during operation?
4 Response .
Currently, there are no plans for the conduct of other onsite wildlife
' management or mitigation activities during operation.
t i
i l
i 1
4 4
4 i
i G-17 Amendment 9
_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ __ ~ _ _ . _ __-_____ _. _._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __
l STP ER l
- . . Question 290.11
- What changes, if any, have been noted in LRS water level, overall vegetation, indicator species, and salinities since 1978, and to what extent can any ;
changes be attributed to the presence of the project?
- _ Response I
The Little Robbins Slough wetlands has been photographed annually since 1978.
Procedures established by Reed et al (1976) during the baseline study have been followed as closely as possible to allow valid year-to-year comparisons in areal extent of vegetation and open water.
Between the baseline survey in 1975 and the first year of renewed monitoring in 1978, distribution of wetlands species did not change significantly except in the-upper marsh east of Robbins Lake. In that part of the marsh, there was an increase in both the distribution and density of cattails and marsh millet, which was attributed to reduced water level and increased sediment loading in the East and West branches of the Little Robbins Slough (Wilkinson 1979).
Other changes noted were an increase in floating plants in Runne11's Lake.and an overall decrease in areal coverage of submergent vegetation. Limited data i
available at the time made it difficult to determine if the observed
! vegetation changes, minor though they were, were a direct result of construction activities on the STP site or were just part of a long-term successional process.
In 1979 and 1980, it became clear that a trend in reduction of open water area j
was becoming. established in the upper marsh and that the decrease in open water was the result of a rapid invasion of the shorelines by tall emergents such as cattails and marsh millet. Vilkinson (1982) attributed the rapid expansion rate of tall emergent vegetation to the reduction in flow down the Little Robbins Slough during reservoir construction on the site, but iradicted -
that flow would return to near pre-construction rates when the reservoir relief well flow is discharged into Little~ Robbins Slough. No changes due to
- salinity increases in the marsh were evident through 1980, with the vegetation in the middle brackish marsh and lower saline marsh remaining basically the same as during the 1975 baseline study.
The'same trends (i.e., decreasing open water coverage and concomitant t
increasing tall emergent coverage) continued through 1983, although the rate ,
of change was greatly reduced in 1983 over previous years because of high '
water levels in the marsh. This was a result of above average local rainfall i in the months preceding the 1983 serial photography (Wilkinson 1983, 1984, ,
1985 a). The 1983 survey also revealed a decrease in areal coverage of '
, floating vegetation and short emergents which had become established in previous years as's result of shallow water conditions. No major changes in i
i distribution of salt-sensitive species of plants were noted from 1981-1983, indicating that salt water intrusion into the fresh water marsh was not significant during that time.
i C-18 Amendment 9 ,
, - . - - . - - - - - - - - - - , . - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - , - - , - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - ' - ~ ~ ' " '
STP ER h
. In 1984, a year with normal amounts of rainfall, the trends established from
' 1978 through 1982 were reestablished, although the rate of decrease in open
, water area was not as high as in the earlier years. Some areas of the marsh, such as Robbins Lake and Kubecka Marsh, actually had increases in percent of open water area between 1983 and 1984. Wilkinson (1985b) attributed this increase to the eradication of tall emergents by the high water levels which occurred in 1983. Coverage of floaters and short emergents, which had declined in 1983, increased to pre-1983 levels in 1964 as a direct result of the overall lower water levels in the marsh. No evidence of saltwater intrusion into the freshwater portion of the marsh was found in 1984.
In summary, data collected on the distribution and abundance of vetlands vegetation in the Little Robbins Slough marsh to the south of the STP site from 1978 through 1984 indicate that the species involved respond rapidly to changes in water flow entering the marsh. The amount of local rainfall has had the greatest effect on the changes observed in the marsh through 1984.
Since the amount of water entering the marsh via the East and West branches of the Little Robbins Slough is expected to approach pre-construction levels once the main cooling reservoir is filled, the species composition and abundance of marsh vegetation are predicted to not be drastically different than they were during the 1975 baseline survey. Certainly, no major changes in the historic salinity regimes in the Little Robbins Slough marsh are to be expected based a
on the data collected thus far.
O i
i i
i i
i J
l
- O G-19 Amendment 9 I '
f
,n,-
--_,,,-,,___,__,.n . _ , , , _ , __ ,._--_,,_ _ , ,.,_,_,-._ _ _
__.,-,----_-,,.n__---,__,,
STP ER REFERENCES O Reed, L. W., T. L. Sharik, K. D. Hough, R. J. Eastmond, F. W. Waller and R. D. Groover, 1976. Vegetation of the Little Robbins Slough Wetlands, Matagorda County, Texas. Terrestrial Ecosystems Department, Ecological Sciences Division. NUS. 81 pp. + 1 plate.
Wilkinson, D. L. 1979. Little Robbins Slough survey Special Ecological Studies - 1978. LGL Icological Research Associates, Inc., Bryan, TX 57 pp. + 1 plate.
Wilkinson, D. L. 1982. Remote Sensing Survey of the Vegetation of Little Robbins Slough Wetlands, Matagorda County, Texas 1979 and 1980. LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc., Bryan, TX 61 pp. + 2 plates.
Wilkinson, D. L. 1983. Remote Sensing Survey of the Vegetation of Little Robbins Slough Wetlands, Matagorda County, Texas, 1981. LCL Ecological Research Associates, Inc., Bryan, TX 61 pp. + 1 plate.
Wilkinson, D. L. 1984. Remote Sensing Survey of the Vegetation of Little Robbins Slough Wetlands, Matagorda County, Texas 1982. LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc., Bryan. TX 63 pp. + 1 plate.
Wilkinson, D. L. 1985. Remote Sensing Survey of the Vegetation of Little Robbins Slough Wetlands, Matagorda County, Texas 1983. LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc., Bryan, TX 18 pp. + 1 plate.
Wilkinson, D. L. 1985b. Remote Sensing Survey of the Vegetation of Little O. Robbins Slough Wetlands, Matagorda County, Texas 1984. Biologl cal Consulting Servicces, College Station, TX 23 pp. + 1 plate.
I 1
l l
l O G-20 Amendment 9
k t
. STP ER l
Question 290.12 How long will monitoring of the LRS be continued?
i f Response 4
A termination date for this monitoring program has not been established, i
! Monitoring is scheduled to continue until data sufficient to satisfy the scope and intent of the commitment has been collected.
3 t
i l
i i
j
] -
i I
i 1
1 l
l t
6 i
1
! G-21 Amendment 9
- l i
e i
4
.. .-~ .._. .. .- - - - - - - .--._._ .--._ .. -. ..-. --
1 4
STP ER Question 290.13 Please verify that transmission line maintenance procedures, particularly with regard to herbicide use, remain as described in the ER-OLS, Amendment 2, Section 5.6.1.
- Response i
i HL&P transmission line maintenance procedures remain as described in ER-OL Section 5.6.1. When Banuel pellets are not available, industry accepted substitutes will be used.
- City Public Service of San Antonio (CPS) has changed right-of-way maintenance i procedures. CPS will now perform STP right-of-way maintenance on a scheduled basis with a planned three year cycle. In addition, CPS now uses HYVAR XL and j ROUNDUP herbicides for brush control. Section 5.6.1.3 has been revised.
r
! Central Power & Light (CPL) transmission line maintenance procedures remain as described in the ER-OL, Amendment 2, Section 5.6.1 except that maintenance crews no longer use "used transformer oil." This has been clarified in the ER-OL.
1 City of Austin (COA) transmission line maintenance procedures, remain as presently described in the ER-OL, Amendment 2, Section 5.6.1.
- O e
i i +
4 i
f, C-22 Amendment 9 4
1
_ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ , . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ .
STP ER Question 290.14 n/
Please verify that the routes are as described in Section 3.9 of the ER-OLS.
How near complation is the system?
Response
l The HL&P circutt to Velasco is as described in ER-OL Section 3.9. The circuit was energized in May, 1981.
The transmistton line route map for STP-1 (CPS Drawing #7326) was transmitted to the NRC in ST-HL-AE-1417 dated October 21, 1985. The three (3) sheets which comprise drawing #7326 reflect the line route as constructed and are identical to the original route with the following exceptions:
A). TWR. #26 to TWR. #39 B). TWR. #81A to TWR. #89A The transmission lines that link San Antonio with the South Texas Project are complete and have an inservice date of April 30, 1981 and March 9, 1982.
4 Routing for the STP-Blessing 345 kV Line is basically the same as that presented in Section 3.9 of the ER-0IS. A small deviation in the route near l
the Blessing Substation will be required to avoid a trailer park. The deviation maf increase the line length by up to 0.1 miles. The change in route is too small to show up on Figure 3.9-1. The line is currently in the design phase and is scheduled to be placed in service by the end of 1986.
The COA line from STP to Holman remains as described in ER-OL Section 3.9.
The circuit was energized December, 1981.
i l
O G-23 Amendment 9 l
STP ER Question 290.15 O Please document the national industry standards to which towers and other equipment are designed with reference where applicable to corona, leakage, interference, raptor protection, and other potential impacts. What grounding precautions have been or will be implemented for fences etc., under or near the lines.
Response
As stated in ER-OL Section 3.9.1 (Amendment 8) all transmission lines have been or will be built in accordance with the National Electric Sataty Code.
Fences running parallel and within 350 feet of the STP-Blessing transmission line center-line will be grounded. Steel studded "T" posts will be placed in the fence and attached to the existing fence wire at a maximum interval of 1,000 feet.
Fence grounds have been applied on all fences crossing the 345kV right-of-way between STP and San Antonio and all fences which parallel the right-of-way up to 150 feet from centerline are also grounded.
All fences crossing under or near the line between Austin and STP have been grounded to 5/8" x 8' driven ground rods and #6 bare copper wire.
O O
0-24 Amendment 9
STP ER Question 291.10 Provida estimates of the annual volume of sediments dredged from the intake
)' settling basins and specify how the dredged material will be stabilized in the vicinity of the reservoir makeup.
4 i
l Response A sediment monitoring program has been implemented to determine the extent of sedimentation within the Reservoir Makeup Pumping Facility (RMPF). Based upon d
the results of the monitoring program to date, the project does not intend to periodically dredge the RMPF intake settling basins. Extreme flood conditions i which deposit large amounts of sediments in a short period of time may dictate a need to dredge the intake settling basins at some future time. If dredging is required, the material will be sluiced to a bermed spoil area. No stabilization other than natural vegetation growth is planned.
1 i
i J
4 io i
Amendment 9 l
G-25 I
i
-%w%,. -we+%_. .- ,c-- - - _ _ - -- --w.,- , _ , w,y ,,,,_,,,,_,ym--,...-~ ,._,,----,--.,.-,,,e,..4-..,.-e-ye---,.-.m.--
STP ER Question 291.11 s Provide information on kind and quality of chemicals added to adjust vastes in the makeup domineralizer neutralization pit from a pH of 10.0 to 11.0 to pH 6-8.
Response
The plant neutralization basin is used to adjust the pH of plaat waste streams. Regeneration waste from the Makeup Domineralized Water System is first collected in the makeup domineralizer equalization pit but is not treated until it enters the plant neutralization basin. Rayon grade sodium hydroxide and electrolytic grade sulfuric acid are used in the plant neutralization basin for pH adjustment.
O O
G-26 Amendment 9
STP ER Question 291.12 Identify the water quality standards that apply to discharge of the flushing water to the reservoir.
Response
There are no water quality standards that apply to discharge of flushing water to the reservoir other than the NPDES permit limits. Flushing water will be treated and sampled to ensure compliance with permit limitations.
O I.
V i
- G-27 Amendment 9 l
b
STP ER I]A Question 291.13 Provide information on concentration of constituents in the blowdown discharged from the cooling reservoir to the Colorado River.
Response
The expected average concentrations of the MCR is provided below. The average concentration of the blowdown are not available but would be close to the average MCR values given.
Estimated Constituent Average Concentration Calcium as CACO 3 mg/l 205 Magnesium as CACO 3 mg/l 195 Sodium as CACO 3 mg/l 633 Cations as CACO 3 mg/l 1033 Alkalinity as CACO3mg/l 150 Chloride as CACO 3 mg/l 782 Sulfate as CACO 3 "8/1 99 Phosphate as PO 4 mg/l 2.5 Anions as CACO 3 mg/l 1033 Silica as SiO mg/l 19 2
Iron as Fe ag/l 5.5 Dissolved Solids mg/l 1220 0
C-28 Amendment 9
STP ER-Question 291.14 4
f '
Please provide the following references:
i
. a. Sharik, T. L., P. V.. Morgan, and R. D. Groover 1974. An Ecological Study T
of the Lower Colorado River Matagorda Bay Area of Texas, Cyrus Wm. Rice
. Division. NUS Corp. .(Pittsburg, PA, 1974), (Ref. 2.7-1).
l~ 'b. Groover, R. D.,'T. L. Sharik, and P. V. Morgan 1974. A report on the ecology of the Lower Colorado River Natagorda Bay are of Texas, June 1973 through July 1974, R-24-05-09-1756, NUS Corp. (Rockville, MD, October 1974). (Ref. 2.7-2).
} c. Groover,'R D., and P. V. Norgan 1976. Final Report-Little Robbins Slough Aquatic Ecological Studies, April 1975 - March 1976, i R-32-00-12/76-656, Ecological Sciences Div., NUS Corp. (Houston, TX, j December 1976). (Ref. 2.7-3).
I
~
- d. Groover, R. D., and P. V. Morgan 1976. Final Report Colorado River Entrainment Monitoring Program, Phase One Studies - April 1975 . March 1976, R-32-0012/76-676, Ecological Scioness Div., NUS Corp. (Houston, TX, December 1976). (Ref. 2.7-4).
- e. Sharik, T. V., P. V. Morgan, and R. D. Groover 1974. A Report on the Ecology of the Lower Colorado River Matagorda Bay Area of Texas, June
-1973 through July 1974. Cyrus Um. Rice Div., NUS Corp. (Pittsburg, PA
, 1974), (Ref. 2.5-2).
l i
i
- Response t
a .' This reference consists of a portion of the initial results of the l'
ecological study performed on the Colorado River. This information is i included in the complete study, cited as ER-OL Reference 2.7-2 (see. item j b below). This reference no longer exists as a separate document.
- b. A copy of this reference (ER-OL Reference 2.7-2) was provided to the NRC t
in 1978 (ST-HL-AE-274) in response to Question 340.13 (ER-OL p. C-22).
I c. A copy of these references was provided to the NRC in 1978
- d. (ST-HL-AE-274) in response to Question 340.13 (ER-OL'p. C-22).
- e. Reference 2.5-2 is identical to Reference 2.7-2 (see item b above).
I k
.i i
O G-29 Amendment 9 I-
W STP ER Question 291.15 ,
\- / What is the disposal method for trash removed from the trash rack by the trash rake? Is it discharged to the sluiceway? What if the intake velocity across the trash rack? How is the trash rack structure designed to minimize impingement of fish?
r
Response
The trash removed from the trash rack vill be disposed of in an approved landfill. Debris removed from the trash rack will not be discharged to the i sluiceway. The intake velocity across the trash rack should be no greater than the approach velocity to the traveling water screens, which is 0.55 feet per second. The bar spacing for the trash rack is on 3 3/8" centers which precludes the impingement of all but the largest fish. Any fish large enough to be impinged on the trash rack would be fully capable of avoiding the intake structure by swimming against the approach velocity cited above.
G-30 Amendment 9
- - - - -. _ . _ . .- .--. . . - . . .-- --_. . ..- z__--.---. - - . .
.s
- e STP ER Question 291.16 N.J Page 3.4-2 define " excessive amounts of debris" and " excessive number of fish," i.e., what is the criteria for determining the discharge / disposal mode for trash and fish?
Response
" Excessive amount of debris" would be any amount that has high potential for obstructing the fish return pipeline. The only time that fish and debris would be diverted to the trash basket would be when this condition exists.
p f
i
.l 4 s r i
4 1
1 r
'S
\
G-31 Amendment 9 I
+
_ . _ , . . . , _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ ~ . _ , . _ _ - _ - , _ _ . - - . - - _,.- - - - - -
i 4
STP ER g- s Question 291.17 The ER-OL p. 3.4-2 states that the intake structure complies with criteria of the EPA. Specify and cite the EPA " criteria" for the intake structure.
> Response The Environmental Protection Agency criteria for the intake structure are found in " Development Document for Best Technology Available for the Location, Design, Construction and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impacts" U.S. EPA, 1976. The recommended criteria are: the traveling water screens be flush with the shoreline; the traveling water screen approach velocity not exceed 0.5 ft per second; and that fish and other organisms moving along the shoreline have free and unrestricted movement across the face of the traveling water screens.
s i
O t
- r. ;
O G-32 Amendment 9
STP ER i
Question 291.18 Is there a permit for discharge of trash / fish to the river? Will there be any attempt through visual inspection of the traveling screens and screen rotation to minimize mortality of impinged organisms, e.g., fish?
Response
There are no discharge permits for the return of trash / fish to the river.
There will be no attempt through visual inspection of the traveling screens and screen rotation to minimize mortality of impinged organisms.
O O
G-33 Amendment 9
STP ER
,- Question 291.19
. % Section 3.6.1 states that the makeup demineralizer water system (MDWS) is supplied by well water and will need no pretreatment. Section 3.3 states that the well water is treated with sulfuric acid prior to demineralization.
Please resolve these differences.
Response
Capability is provided to add small quantities of dilute sulfuric acid for minor pH adjustment of the Reverse Osmosis influent only to optimize .
efficiency of tha cembranes. t Refer to revised Sections 3.3 and 3.6.1 for resolution of the differences noted.
O 1
e i
1 r
O G-34 Amendment 9 v -.- , , - - . _ _ _ _ r _-, ,, - , -~ ,_ , . - --
. . - . - . . -..- - - _ - .._ ~. .. . .- .. _ . - . . - . . . _ - - - - _
i STP ER i
Question 291.20 i ' ' Is the 49,500 gal of waste water produced when each train is regenerated an
, aggregate of the cation exchange unit, anion exchange unit, and the mixed-bed unit, or is this the volume of waste produced per unit? If an aggregate, specify the constituent streams.and the frequency of occurrence, i
Response
i 1
The constituent waste streams and the frequency of occurrence will be provided i by January, 1986.
r a
i 1
P l
4 1
1' l
a
+
1, 1
[~s c.35 Amendment 9
+
i t
- , - - - . - ,,-----7 - - - , , - . - - - *
STP ER
s Question 291.21 What is the composition, the amount, and the concentration of the chemicals in the alkaline cleaning solution, including chelant, inhibitor, and surfactant?
What is the composition and quantity of passivating solution in the chemical cleaning wastes (p. 3.6-3)7
Response
Section 3.6.1.2 (Amendment 7) describes the composition, and the concentration of the chemicals in the cleaning solution. The passivating solution will consist of ammonia to raise pH to 10.0 - 10.5 and hydrazine to control oxygen (250 ppm). Estimated volume for each solution is less than one million gallons.
f O
G-36 Amendment 9
STP ER 4
i Question 291.22 What are the Texas Dept. of Water Resources standards for the Lower Colorado River?
Response
The applicable Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR) standards were transmitted for information in ST-HL-AE-1321 dated August 29, 1985.
i
.i N
4 10 f
O G-37 Amendment 9 i
- - - - . ,. ..-e-. , - , --.,--m.-, - . - - -e- .. -~-, - , r - - . .- -
STP ER Question 291.23 Sects. 3.6.2 and 5.4.3. Is the chlorine residual remaining in the condenser effluent being discharged to the cooling reservoir total residual chlorine or free residual chlorine? What is the combined concentration of the chlorine residual discharged to the cooling reservoir from the condenser effluent and from the 20-minute, periodic chlorination of the circulating water intake structure and essential cooling water system _ intake structure?
Response
The chlorine residual meas". red la the condenser effluent is free residual.
chlorine as stated in Section 3.6.2. The condenser effluent free residual chlorine is a result of the 20-minute periodic chlorination of the circulating water intake structure. The chlorination of essential cooling water system intake structure is not associated with the main cooling reservoir.
O G-38 Amendment 9
STP ER M stion 291.24 What are the present projected concentrations of constituents in the blowdown discharged to the cooling reservoir?
.t
Response
The projected average concentrations of constituents in blowdown fron ECP to the MCR are shown below. The inputs to the MCR from ECP blowdown and other wastes represents only 1.2% of the makeup and will have a negligible effect on the overall MCR water quality.
Estimated Constituent Average Concentration Calcium as CACO 3 mg/l 410 Magnesium as CACO 3 mg/ 390 Sodium as CACO 3 mg/l 1266 Cations as CACO 3 mg/l 2066 Alkalinity as CACO mg/l 300 3
Chloride as Ca00 mg/l 1564 3
Sulfate as CACO 3 mg/l 198 Phosphate as CACO3 "8/1 4-Anions as CACO 3 mg/l 2066 Silica as SiO mg/l 38 2
Iron as Fe ag/l 11 Dissolved Solids mg/l 2510 O
C-39 Amendment 9
STP ER
' [~'h Question 291.25
. y What will be the area of the mixing zone with respect to the cross-sectional area of the river?
Response
. Texas Water Quality Standards limit the mixing zone area to no more than 25 percent of the cross-sectional area of the river. For the purposes of deter-mining the effects of blowdown on the Colorado River, the river cross-section-al area at the discharge ports was assuted to be 1860 ft2 Therefore, the design of the blowdown system ensures that the area of the mixing zone will not exceed 465 ft2 Mixing zone area is discussed in detail in ER-CP Section 5.1.2.2.1.
O A
4 T
i G-40 Amendment 9
M e- m f
h!$W Of; $3 ,- ,
h,-[J,Q,,!fi(N ( P ,;i, DO/-
m'-l a'
3 s 'r; s
d CL ) 'k ;( AU~' Txs %QF@ -
e > ;~; Ty n rfa qm g 1
8'i - lyV hh g ;f 4'q 1 %
u ky q .-s w
~ y,;W-fC@ j g (3 \ L y
y :n +%-; a ,
my f 7 7<- , ~i g.
f.m 4
~
- , _hI--
I{ 4 7 N=::=n 1 A === 1 l
% g
, k u
- am=ewhrm./
._, . _v-hh m 4\[J
. . a,4 ( ,
~r Lu ln/y,}
v s#
T} 'L tf'hL 4 Adk, - -flL)- >
yG R ,
llt ,
, s .
bm~,N
,; c 3
A / /V
' >,j
/
c ,
L pm =/Ngg v j n
[$\s, (M op & _
,~
or
=
B i>
hQ' ,' b s $y$ ')
r '
]
D T1 APERTURE l
! M ~e-l Also Available On IE ,
Goemr 1
\ Apetare Card
@_. ._ ], ) - 1 L-(~
E b x- Qt u) a[sL--~ Sa'
~
< ,1 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT
$d UNITS 1 & 2 waa i
i 100 YEAR INUNDATION LIMITS l FOR LITTLE ROBBINS SLOUGH,.
PRE AND POST-PROJECT CONDITIONS Figure Q240.01-1 Amendment 9
~.
I 1,
I
.\
N 3 i
\ 'e A 4
y ( - \ f i w -
?) H,
, aq*4
~ 3 m ~F?} %" , ^
%~ 4, , , , .
9 D iky.
- k. v wm
- 2. m& fQ 9. .,
N;7L, k' /I! t s
g-t~
- p
'f he c3>jfu, .
h ilkg yM R '[W
_..y n ddhMk'324hM y w ; ; :,
- y -
,c
., s') w i ;y . c ,N'
. 7
!i ' s/
~'
r ys
(
,. f ,
I INUNDATION LIMIT .-
g\ ; i .
l' >
c I cL
(" Am j lO =z y w: ,,pt}
r
'Q" f'
~
/W (9s f4 / ;\ft~ f l
Yi ,
);
~
?
f ,( hf-
- d. 'v' 9, re o?
l i
il i t
/
..h a
}
I 1,, ll}lh
!$ l' kj $ "O w,Eh
-4 l
,m
%e il ltv.i .-
u"Ty
~
y; -.
%y =!\a')qy ,f+M1g}gF., C \(
ykf, g ,
x ,] mL .
sikg
- % {
___I 'N@d bk 4
\4 .
} :
% cQJ v %q A i M Q- 9R ~5 .3j $gg s L
< . ~
~
\
i
.~n n V
y ,.,
f( yv, y_ -
=
khk
) ,
?
%_m 4
fO d res < C W F h!MWEr@'v9 '
Lm
% nym y w m a w 7_
-- ; guy
\]nIF/ M_ o .,
(W . \. n <
ku'y]s*.- \
'te,f ~'a
., 6 e N-
' s \ ,
d.gI ;
( - .
N9 '-
(
'j 1
~- ,'
Mj ;l g
{ - l'
) -
y ns.
,. $ ^G1 3 g,
., j h )
m s i. k#
. :--nk(IL4 Efk , 1 Qk$
2 yf
) Vlsf9' 'Q ,
l-- '
~
5 yjl K' ggg%RE
'n f ' e N "N w "
p' , ,j gN ,~ t g t- 1 ,A~
m l' ^
i L CARD
, ~
x x;( s ,3 s NwN_g[ [y % Also Available On 6 X. k,,b \hk _
' ,,; Aperture Card
--1 . -
7 ,
/o
. ' jdt B wN_ ,O wN d\, /
g;p . e,u
/jg[gb'- Qhi y' {_ , , , ' d '
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 M.6W'L>@-^['[4);
w!
L t b1q -;
l
\ '
2 t
r' p f
3 100 YEAR INUNDATION LIMIT FOR THE COLORADO RIVER AND
', - i'Ny s /
1 fJ I_ m _' ~d ' 3 % . i-s, k.# ,
-( l73 *
/1 WEST BRANCH COLORADO RIVER Figure Q240.01-2 Amendment 9 9/9/dWoM-W
- gave **
s
,, *i
- 4' ,7p h a < pN ..
W
[~< W Y N
~
' 'I
( ,,, _ k- -
i ;
4A x%
5 y=r-meg %- 2 =>v.
! {
g g; ,. >%
- -fry l (( t,4kg6 m , 5
< a *
- cw( s=.
V ' n lQ( i/ ) g//v :\ AQ--=6h- _,t s
. \ . _
a ,
s 4, i ._
__s Ant%. .~L& ALy
,.' L . APT
_ ^ i
< %yr'I/Xfh w 1 vawe >n '
s
. yc.m}e , t
. b s
qf gx xi i t,c w
[f -
(, .;
t, t ,37 7 Axgg p m,.! A;WL%
l k ^
~
I jr e ~~n ( hff k
,,, _ r m :a
^
vir% N-=% W
('s, '-
q u sh Gt ' '\\
Ip-$ 'N ,}' ],,
~
?
g av-
.-W~j
--*-~
') L -) ;
s ; py. 3 i .-- i N n, ; y V sQ A lq j
! n I ,
- 2. 7 -
T 4 o I 1lL.D Q j f= O f f h - -
?j
,k h.
i'"? i 1
b L=" , \
W ..- LNw
[ , dmN i $b :
) +
,Li ua s 1g c/m
, yy y%:,c gan.t. ,.
l 7 (y Vv . &%, w -
y b.
l _../
~
j
%j ,,
s$)\ (.A* 7.
<h:
&- 3/1.' 9
- 1 1/ M. N ss t -
e H. ,
~~ , v i"#* _y Je v / rw%-Wl28M M/ b 4 h j k W h ;77/
3L Y' $ . / > hl {f-fkb
%4,g %; & , gga7i pggi
_= ~ -
-e y ;, -
g q , gv g ye<g[4ffF' ='Q'a"4'A qp.,
?
,/]j
'k j$
Mb -= ;a- =+
--[ d - - - x ---
j 5% U f' as ft h i n /.a q e. __
1$,'
. r h N.
TI
, ((0- ///( k , .' '. _
I APERTURE l 4 CARD
^
f J Also Available On
, c' f f"~f")! ::.h f l ,,
w\ ym b a z y
I MN!
ig f^
r e/[ ,
~ , -
-, ~. a a
,%gy kv m > ,
Qw_
s i , g Dh $,DY ~F1 2 L-_ <h5 wka ~ ~ -
ri N ig e f + . w.hg f! J g-(N r L - j .-
(%w -7 - I y '{L ,
A& '
j g '- ? [ ]3 i _/ - 4 k . ' -
h, / #
. $1 , j ,' SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT L, ,t./ 1' I; , J "'i)"jl _t UNITS 1 & 2 fJyl") pypWUFV~~
f -
! T-v"ze z%
y y/zGK,h79h " "szeecruees
" " " ' ^ " " " ^ "_" "
4;-
l
,) , p / 4F)
% ., , .b m /43vh ~ t. Figure Q240.01-3 Amendment 9
- - _ _ _ _