ML20205T493

Comments on Des.Emergency Preparedness Plans Inadequate & Require Coordination W/Affected Local Govt Units

ML20205T493
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	06/05/1986
From:	Meriwether H TEXAS, STATE OF
To:	Joshua Wilson NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
NUDOCS 8606130281
Download: ML20205T493 (2)

Text

- I  !

s.a..

OFF!CE OF THE GOVERNOR MARK WHITE STATE CAPITOL GOVERNOR AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 June 5, 1986 Mr. J. H. Wilson Division of Technical Information and Document Control Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Wilson:

The Governor's Office has received for coordinated review and comment the draft copy of the Environmental Impact Study for the South Texas Nuclear Project Operation Units 1 and 2, which was prepared for review by your office.

The Houston-Galveston Area Cohracil has noted in its staff comments section that the emergency preparedness plans are inadequate and are in need of coordination with affected local governmental units.

The Texas Water Commission (TWC) makes note of needed additions and clarifications to several Tables, notably p. 6-4, 6-5 and Table 6.1. In addition, Appendix F does not contain analysis of the possible risk of nuclear accident resulting from a severe hurricane.

The Public Utility Commission (PUC) noted in its comments that the decommissioning figure appeared low and in conflict with recent PUC staff figures. In addition, that figure was given in 1984 dollars, while Table 6-4 indicates figures are in 1987 dollars. The PUC also notes that Section 4.2.7 on pages 4-5 and the accompanying Figure 4.2 on page 4-18 are incomplete descriptions of power transmission systems associated with the proj ect. An explanatory map is enclosed.

The Texas Department of Health (TDH) raised the possibility of either of two species of clams causing an eventual condenser tube clogging problem which could theoretically necessitate facility shut-down. These two native clams, Rangia cuneata and Rangianella flexuosa, should be studied in a pilot reservoir program in order to avert future problems. -

N

$,[ ,v FI O

p

~

Mr'. J. H.' Wilson June 5', 1986 Page Two The Governor's office appreciates the opportunity to provide information on this proposal. Please do not hesitate to contact us if our further assistance is required.

Sincerely,

'pohk,, <5 v 21-I Hershel S. Meriwether, II Associate Deputy Assistant for Programs HSM:ph Attachments:

Comments by Public Utility , Commission Texas Water Commission Texas Air Control Board #

Houston-Galveston Area Council Texas Department of Health b

e

'4 e

O gd 11 Omce of the Executive Director HoustonCialveston Area Council PO Box 22777 + Threes 55 Trnmons

• Houston, Texas 77227 + 713/627-3200 May 21, 1986 Mr. Vincent S. Norman, Director Division of PWR Licensing-A Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Areawide Clearinghouse Review of the Draft Environmental Statement for Operation of the South Texas Project Units 1 and 2

Dear Mr. Norman:

The Houston-Galveston Area Council has reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement on the South Texas Project Units 1 and 2. A Status Report with staff coments (copy enclosed) was presented to H-GAC's Project Review Com-mittee and Board of Directors on flay 20, 1986. H-GAC coments are contained on page 4 of the status report.

Thank you for the opportunity to coment on this project. If you have any questions or we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. Carl Masterson at 713/993-4561.

Sincerely, Jack Steele JS:ss xc: Pat Hall, Governor's Office Enclosure l

?-sh] y) '

ff-P

3

• e

^

STATUS REPORT TX-86-04-02-0002-16 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM:11SSION DRAFT ENVIROMiENTAL STATEMENT RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 2 Staff of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has prepared a Draf t Environ-mental Statement (DES) which examines the environmental impacts, consequences and mitigation actions, and environmental and economic benefits and costs associated with the operation of the South Texas Nuclear Plant (STNP) Units 1 and 2. The facility is located in Matagorda County southwest of Bay City.

This assessment augments and updates the Final Environmental Statement for the construction phase issued in March 1975. Conments on this environmental statemeqt are forwarded to:

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Director of PWR Licensing - A The DES details environmental issues and impacts which are sumoarized as follows:

LAND USE Plant Si te - 1,700 acres of bottomland habitat designated as a wild-life preserve; leasing for grazing will continue.

Transmissian Lines - Requires 4,773 acres for rights of way; about 734 of right of way used for crops and pasture; 1,211 acres are potentially prime farmland.

Possible effects from transmission lines are induced electrical shock and interference with cardiac pace-makers; applicant must follow recommendations of the Rural Electrification Administration (1976) regarding grounding and clearances in addition to other specified reporting and monitoring conditions.

WATER Thermal - When the difference between the temperature of the cool-ing reservoir cad Colorado River is more than 6.90C (3.80C) there will be no discharge to the river.

Wa te r Qu al i ty_ - Discharge to the river may occur only when the fresh-water flow of the river is greater than 800 cubic feet /

second at the Bay City gauging station and the river is flowing to the Gulf at a velocity of 0.4 feet /second or grea ter.

Page 1 of 5 CEM:cm 5/8/86

Sanitary wastes will be treated prior to discharge to the cooling reservoir and will meet requirenents of the Texas Water Commission (TWC).

Cooling reservoir discharge must meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and TWC effluent guidelines for flow, temperature, suspended solids, oil and grease, 5-D y Biochemical Oxygen Demand, iron, copper and total residcal chlorine. EPA and/or TWC may impose additional limi tations if needed.

WATER USE Surface Water - Under normal operating conditions 1,833,600 gallons per minute will be punped from the reservoir for cooling purposes and pumped back to be cooled through evapora-ti on.

!bke up water for the reservoir will come frmn the Colorado River; average annual withdrawal will be 83,900 acre-feet. Because of changes in future upstream water use, the ef fect of withdrawing water at the South Texas Project could change over the life of the plant.

Groundwiter - Used for potable and sanitary purposes; three wells will pump fron the deep aquifer and have been located to minimize the potential for regional subsidence; with-drawal expected to average about 750 gallons per minute during normal plant operation.

FLUODPLAIN Location of the main cooling reservoir in the floodplain of Little Robbins Slough is calculated to have no ef fect on 100-year flood levels off site.

Flood elevations have been calculated to be essentially the same for pre-project and post-project conditions.

The elevation of the 100-year flood in the Colorado River varies from about 16-20 feet; main plant struc-1 tures are at an eleva tion of 28 feet.

AIR QUALITY Fog - Using the Cooling Reservoir Fog Predictor !bdel it is estimated that cooling reservoir operation will result in one additional hour per year of ground fog on Route 60 and FM 1095 above the estimated 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> / year of naturally occurring fog.

A fog monitoring program will begin shortly before plant opera tion.

Page 2 of 5 CEM:cm 5/8/86

-r-- -

Other' Emissions - Emissions fro, operation of emergency diesel generators and auxiliary boilers are required to meet EPA and Texas Air Control Board standards.

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES Inpacts on the - Applicant states impact of plant operation on terres-Si te trial animals and plants will be slight and mitigated by the 1,700 acre lowland habitat and cessation of pesticide use in that area.

American Alligator is the only species on site appearing on the Federal list of endangered species.

Transmission - Inpacts include audible noise, radio and television Systen interference, light, production of ozone, oxides of nitrogen, induced electric and magnetic fields, bird collisions and ef fects from maintenance of corridors.

Little Robbins - Impacts include reduction of freshwater inflow causing Slough /!1arsh increases in salinity and reduction in the concentra-Complex tions of important nutrients and total dissolved solids.

Applicant has estimated the reduction in freshwater in flow to be about 6*,.

AQ9ATIC RESOURCES Entrainnent - Calculations indicate insignificant entrainment(pulling of organisms into the intake structure) of croaker, nenhaden, bay anchovy larvae, blue crab and shrimp in the intake structure when compared to impact on entire Gulf and Texas coast populations.

Inpingement - ihe nudber of all species impinged (dashed) on screens is expected to be low based on sampling in 1983 and 1984.

Screens are mounted flush with the shoreline without protruding sidewalls, helping reduce entrapment.

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES Terrestrial - Fish, turtles and waterfowl in the cooling reservoir Species will provide food for the Anerican Alligator and possibly the Anerican Bald Eagle; Atwater's Prairie Chicken may find suitable habitat along the transnis-sion corridors.

Aquatic Species - Hone in the project vicinity.

• HISTORIC AND ARCHE 0 LOGICAL SITES - No impacts Page 3 of 5 CEra:cm 5/8/86 4

50C10EC0f0MIC - 1,334 employees will be required for operation of Units l'4 PACTS 1 & 2; about 500 contract workers required.

Estimated 70% of workers will reside in Matagorda County,141 in Brazoria County, and 161, in other surrounding counties.

Average annual workers payroll is projected to be about

$63,000,000 (1989 dollars); local annual average pur-chases of materials and supplies is expected to total

$770,000 (1991 dollars); purchases expected to be pri-narily in Brazoria, Harris, Matagorda, Calhoun and Wharton Counties.

RADIOLOGICAL - Applicant has considered radioactive releases to the l'4 PACTS environgent surrounding the South Texas site including accidents that could lead to core melting.

Applicant must meet regulatory requirements regarding radiation doses to members of the general public in unrestricted areas: 500 millirems in any calendar year, 100 millirems in any consecutive 7 days and 2 millirems in any I hour.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has dete mined there are no unique accident-related circumstances that warrant consideration of accident prevention or mitiga-tion al ternatives.

STAFF C0ft4ENTS o Emergency preparedness plans have not been fully completed. These plans, particularly evacuation measures, should be reviewed and coordinated with affected governmental units. Review must focus on ensuring the adequacy and compatibility of the South Texas Nuclear Plant's emergency preparedness plans and those of surrounding governmental units, o H-GAC has contacted local government officials in Matagorda County, who indicate their continuing support for the project (comment attached).

A copy of the DES is available for review in the H-GAC library. Please contact Carl Masterson at (713) 993-4561.

Page 4 of 5 CEM:ca 5/8/86'

- . TX-86-04-02-0002-16 co coutcl FRAFM HENDERSON. p.com nv CITY OF BAY CrfY uxR:HA Anem c- Hi$

J. ;.

THOMAS (Temmy)R GORDON WILUAM M. BELL. Moyor chMLYN B?OUGHTON Si Ji'C ,

84LLYEJ HARMER c e conou aENER BAY CITY' TEXAS  ?? "oo*3uEZ

?'A+? 1 TOMMYZ LeTULLE 1901 FIFTil STREET S$5)ONTEN (409) 245 5311 h!ay 2, 1986 Houston-Galveston Area Council P. O. Box 22777 Houston, TX 77227 ATTN: h!R . STEVE HOWARD

Dear h!r. Howard:

Thank you for your letter dated h!ay 1, 1986 regarding the South Texas Nuclear Project (STP).

The City of Bay City has always been a staunch supporter of STP.

We realize that the development of this new energy resource has put a new breath of air into the economy of our fair City. The recent developments in Russia have, surprisingly, not affected the outlook of the populace of Bay City regarding STP. We have no doubts to the safety measures going into this project. The staf f of STP have been f astidious in keeping the government al agencies of the City and the County abreast of all new develop-ments.

I f you require any f urther information regarding STP, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

With best regards, I am G ... _ _ ~~~  ;-

William 11. Bell n!ayor of Bay City Wh!B/kma Page 5 of 5

e g""" Texas Department of Healt, Robert Bernstein, M.D., F.A.C.P. 1100 West 49th Street Robert A. MacLean, M.D.

Commissioner Austin, Texas 78756 Deputy Commissioner (512) 458-7111 Professional Services Hermas L. Miller May 22, 1986 Deputy Commissioner Management and Administration Mr. Robert E. McPherson Governor's Office of Budget and Planning P.O. Box 13561, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711

Subject:

South Texas Project (Nuclear), Units 1 and 2 Draft Environmental Statement related to the operation of the project Matagorda County Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-449 Houston Lighting & Power Company, et al U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Governor's Office of Budget and Planning EIS # TX-86-04-03-0001-50

Dear Mr. McPherson:

A copy of the Draft Environmental Statement (DES) related to the operation of South Texas Project. Units 1 and 2_ - Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499 - Houston Lighting & Power Company, et al has been reviewed for its public and environmental health implications. The DES was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) -- Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; it is dated March 1986.

The subject DES contains the second assessment of the environmental impact associated with the operation of the South Texas Project (STP) Units 1 and 2, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, as amended, of the NRC regulations.

The proposed action consists of the issuance of operating licenses to the Houston Lighting & Power Company, acting as Project Manager on behalf of itself, the City Public Service Board of San Antonio, Central Power & Light Company, and the City of Austin, for the startup and operation of the STP Units 1 and 2, located on the west side of the Colorado River in Matagorda County, approximately twelve miles south of Bay City, Texas.

The facility will employ two identical pressurized water reactors, each to produce up to approximately 3800 megawatts of thermal energy. A steam turbine-generator will use this heat to provide up to 1250 megawatts of electrical power per unit. The exhaust steam will be condensed by the flow of water in a closed-cycle system incorporating an off-stream cooling lake utilizing makeup water from the Colorado River. Blowdown from the cooling lake will be discharged into the Colorado River.

L

Mr. Robert E. McPherson

'Page Two May 22, 1986 -

The Texas Department of Health (TDH) comments regarding the subject DES are as follows:

Most of the comments pertaining to radiation previously submitted by this Department have been satisfactorily addressed.

The facility will employ about 1,334 persons. Other than sanitary waste, the document does not address the collection and disposal of waste generated by employees or disposal of sewage sludge from the wastewater treatment plants. Such waste should not be radioactive and may be handled as regular municipal solid waste, with no special handling requirements. By technical definition, such waste will be considered

" industrial" solid waste under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Texas Water Commission, unless collected and disposed with municipal solid waste. If, in the collection or disposal process, the waste is mixed with municipal solid waste, then the solid waste will be subject to regulation by the TDH.

Chemical and sanitary wastes should be treated appropriately and discharged directly to the river. Although the overall impact is probably minimal, the concept of pumping treated waste into the recirculating, cooling reservoir at the STP violates the principle that large-scale dilution is an unacceptable solution to short-term pollution events. Basically, the proposed configuration would reestablish a regulatory precedent which the first Texas water pollution control agency had originally prohibited.

Recirculating power plant cooling reservoirs using river water makeup in Texas provide ideal' habitat for Corbicula. Increasing the size of condenser tubes has alleviated clogging problems of tubes by the asiatic clam in certain instances.

During the biological STP site curvey, the native clam Rangia cuneata was not noted, although another native clam Rangianella flexuosa was found.

These two euryhaline species, particularly Rangia cuneata, may find the cooling reservoir to be an ideal habitat and huge populations may result.

~

Where favorable habitat exists, several hundred individuals of this species have been present on a one square meter area. These class are larger than Corbicula.

Should either of the two species find the cooling reservoir to be an ideal habitat, condenser tube clogging problems would probably not occur for several years until populations attained high levels and individuals grew to a size greater than tube diameter.

Should such a situation occur, it would necessitate facility shut-down for an extended period.-

e

Mr. Robert E. McPherson Page Three May 22, 1986 Studies should be started now on these two clams. Literature research, and if necessary field studies, should be conducted on the ecology - life history of the class. A pilot cooling reservoir having similar depth, salinity, flow velocity, etc., as the plant cooling reservoir, could be constructed and stocked with the two clam species. This would serve to determine if huge populations are likely to occur in the reservoir and would provide time to develop control methodology, if required.

The groundwater contamination pathway analysis seems reasonable. Since the hydraulic gradient in the deep aquifer is now reversed, water now moves toward the northwest away from the coast. Pumping 750 gpm at the plant site will probably result in some movement of likely poorer quality water from downdip toward the plant area. Effects should be insignificant.

The NRC requires that sixteen sectors around the plant be monitored by thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) at various distances from the plant.

The TLD's can be within the plant boundary (restricted area) or outside the boundary. An effort should be made to determine if it is possible to monitor the site south of the plant. Extensive marshes appear to make access and emplacement impossible or extremely difficult. During emergency response activities, knowledge of ambient doses would be necessary and essential to assess the dose to Matagorda.

In reviewing Appendix H, Consequence Modeling Consideration, several questions have arisen with respect to site-specific evacuation plans:

What contingency plans have been developed for plant shutdown and evacuation of personnel at the Dupont and Celanese plants? Has the time it would take to shut down these plants without endangering operation personnel at these plants been considered?

Evacuation plans should recognize that people having to leave Matagorda and Selkirk Island would pass through a potentially high radiation field. Highway 60 appears to be the only available highway and evacuation using the highway would require movement toward the facility, to within four to five miles of the STP plant.

The TDH staff had general comments relating to NRC's condition (item 9 (a) of the Summary and Conclusions, and Section 6.1) for the issuance of operating licenses where the term "significant environmental impact" was used. This Department believes the term "significant adverse environmental impact" should be defined or otherwise specified in the docum ent. This would be desirable inasmuch as different interpretations of the word "significant" are possible. The word appears to be appropriately used as an assessment finding, e.g.: page vi, item 5 (a),

but not as a license condition.

. 8 "Mr. Robert E. McPherson Page Four May 22, 1986 We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Statement (DES) related to the operation of South Texas Project. Units 1, and 2,

-- Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499 -- Houston Lighting & Power Company, et al.

i ya

.,f Day a M. Coc

)

an, P.E.

Associate issioner for Environmental and Consumer Health Protecion MWR:fhk cc: Bureau of Radiation Control, TDH Bureau of Solid Waste Management, TDH Bureau of Environmental Health, TDH Public Health Region 11, TDH Matagorda County Health Department 4

w

TEXAS AIR CONTR

r N c --issio er

,f.6 co, ,,

May 19, 1986 Mr. Robert E. McPherson Governor's Office of Budget and Planning P. O. Box 13561 Austin, Texas 78711 RE: South Texas Project Draft Environmental Statement EIS f: TX-86-04-03-0001-50

Dear Mr. McPherson,

The Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas has reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement related to the operation of South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Since the bulk of the information contained in that document concerns environmental issues which are more under the direct purview of other State agencies, we only have comments in two areas of the document.

Section 4.2.7 on page 4-5 and accompanying Figure 4.2 on page 4-18 concerning Power Transmission Systems present an incomplete description of transmission lines associated with the project.

Enclosed is a map of the area showing the existing 345 kv transmission lines emanating from the STP. When compared with Figure 4.2 some differences are indicated. First, as shown on the enclosed map, an existing line between Central Power and Light Company's (CP&L's) Lon 11111 and Houston Lighting and Power Company's (HL&P's) W. A. Parrish generating plants jointly owned by the two Companies was looped through the STP. This is not shown on Figure 4.2. In addition the San Antonio City Public Service Board double circuit transmission line from STP has one circuit terminating at their Hill Country substation and the other at their Skyline substation which also is not shown on Figure 4.2. It should be noted that all major bulk transmission lines associated with the operation of the STP with the exception of CP&L's STP to Blessing line have been constructed and are in service.

The second area of comment is in Section 6.4.2 on page 6-2 concerning Economic Costs. The $37 to $60 million per unit estimate in 1984 dollars for decommissioning appears low. A recent Staff report on decommissioning is based on a $100 million per unit cost in 1984 dollars.

1

]

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the subject document.

Sincerely, J Y hQ Richard Galligan Executive Director f

s -

- w, l

5 ' '7~

l 24 h. .

0-2ln S 7_7 h N .

1 8 \

.. _ - - - s

( ~~ g h 57

}  ! '

5

.I g x ,

58 ' - k \ -

f -y 7

/ y g gm is e6 6 qg '

MIC.46 - 59 s ,' 95 s.

'n ') (

7-- .

?- 7 w /

% ()

t 4 '

m

[N . /

b Iq64( N'b' M

[

~ '

s $ .-

s

' \

' / \ f' \

, x .- .% -

/-~ . l l ,

[ '

i  ;

\

1

..^

N ( ..

~  ; \

- __M ,

/ ( ..

s ,

T i 540

'. ,,- 3 ,

\ /..

- . N

( ~ ' ' -

l A3 . -

I

/

65j4 x s% *.

! " 28 Graham, T u

\ ./

f*

I ', -- 29. Pcint Creek l , _ .

30 f.e amon, EF

\ / *

31. Denver City j  ! '

, .. 32 Welsh, S WE'

-[- / . 33 Monticello, N' 34 Valley, TUE :

,./,[/*A j

35 " ' " " ' " ' * '

l ~~ ~ N ~~~ ~ '~ . '\ o GENER ATING 36 Jones Stofk

, /' '~s , .

STATIONS 37. Plcnt X, SP i [ l La Polmo, C PL 38 Tolk Static j f 2 Lon C. Hill, CPL 39 Cunningham i I ' . 3 Son Miguel Elect. Coop , SMEC 40 Sabine Stati l  ;

I ' ,____ _ - 4 W A Parrish, HLP 4i Lake Poy H.

I l 5 P.H Robinson , HLP

~

• l  ! i l , 6 Cedar Bayou, HLP 7 Greens Boycu, HL P I-i j 'f 8 Foyette , LC R A

% _f . _ , _

-s 9 T. A , Whartcn, HL P l ~ ~~ ] .

• 10. Neches Station, GSU I  ! 11. Pirkey, SWEPCO 12 Nelson Station,GSU l

13. Sendow, TU EC l

14 Gibbors Creek, TMPA

{

/-

~^ ~ '

/'~ l 15 thcrois Station,TVPA 16 Lakecreek , T U EC I? Tradirg House Creen,TUEC 7- 18 Big Brown, TUEC 19 Stryker Creek,TUEC l

/ .'m '

/' * -

20 Limestore,HLP

~

21 Martin Loke, TUEC l b

• 22 Trinidad , T U EC 23 De Cordovo ,TUEC g
• • - 24 Brenham, BM 25 Morgan Creek , TuEC l
• • W * * %, *
• 26 Wilkes, SWEPCO

....-r,,en

, c) - . , e-,, ,

-~

TEXAS WATER COMMISSION i :, .!

Paul Hopkins, Chairman ON Larry R. Soward, Executive Director Ralph Roming, Commissioner ,( '

Mary Ann Hefner, Chief Clerk John O. Houchins, Commissioner **

James K. Rourke, Jr., General Counsel May 22,1986 Mr. Robert E. McPherson Governor's Office of Budget and Planning P.O. Box 13561 Austin, Texas 78711 Attention: Pat Hall Re: Draft Environmental Statement, South Texas Project EI8_.#TX-00-04-08-0001-50 ;

Dear Mr. McPherson:

The staff of the Texas Water Commission has reviewed the report entitled

" Draft Environmental Statement related to the operation of South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2" prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The report is dated March 1986. This report augments and updates the Final Environmental Statement - Construction Phase published March 1975. Houston Lighting and Power Company was granted TWC Permit Number 3233 to appropriate state water for operations related to the South Texas Project. Additionally, Houston Lighting and Power Company was granted TWC Permit Number 01908 authorizing discharge of wastes into the Colorado River.

Comments related to the Draft Environmental Statement are attached. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact Jack Kramer of my staff at (512) 463-7791.

Sincerely, t

Larry R. Soward Executive Director P. O. Box 13087 Capitol Station

• Austin, Texas 78711
• Area Code 512/463-7898

Texas Watar Commission Comments on " Draft Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2"

1. Pages 4-21 and 4-22. Maps showing sampling stations on the Colorado River and the Little Robbins Slough / Marsh Complex are included. Types of parameters sampled (physical, chemical, biological) should be indicated.

3. Pcge 5-2, Section 5.3.1. The mixing zone is defined in TWC Permit No.

01908 as follows: "For outfall 001, the mixing zone shall not exceed 25 percent of the cross sectional area and/or volume of flow of the receiving waters. "

3. Page 5-3, Section 5.3.2.2.. The reference to Texas Department of Water Resources Development should be changed to Texas Water Commission.

4. P. ge 3-3, Section 5.3.2.3. The reference to Texas Department of Water Resourem Development should be changed to Texas Water Commission.

Attached ' excerpt from " Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, Informational Copy, Texas Water Commission, November 1985 (Draft:

Pending Final Approval of Texas Water Commission)" should be used to update discussion regarding water quality standards for Colorado River, Segment 1401.

5. Page 6-2, Section 6.4.2. Dollar figures are expressed in 1984 dollars, while the table on page 6-4 indicates figures are in 1987 dollars.

6. Pages 6-4 and 6-5. The benefit-cost summary (Table 6.1) should document indirect as well as direct costs and benefits. These are summarized in the text of the report.

7. Page 6-4. Those factors not subject to quantification in economic terms

(

can often be quantified in physical terms. This approach was used in the benefit-cost analysis in the impact statement prepared for construction of the South Texas Project. It would be preferable to summarize this information in Table 6.1 as well as referring the reader to the appropriate section of the report for additional detail.

j 8. Page 6.4. No impact is indicated for water quality changes. While the Colorado River is expected to remain within standards, some effects on temperature and dissolved solids are anticipated from this project.

i

9. Page 6.4. The referenced section (5.3.1.2) on Ground Water

! Consumption appears in the text in section 5.3.3.2 and the referenced I section (5.3.2) on " Ground Water Contamination" discusses ' surface water i and does not mention ground water. A discussion of the ground water

( monitoring requirements specified in TWC Permit No. 01908 should be documented in the impact statement.

10. Page 6-5. A footnote to table 6.1 states " Impact of an accident could possibly be large while the risk of an accident is small." Those factors most likely to be significantly impacted by an accident should be indicated in Table 6.1.

11. Appendix F, " Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents." This analysis excludes severe hurricanes (Appendix F, page 55). Due to considerations of comparability of the risks of the ~ South Texas Project with other nuclear plants, atmospheric effects on radioactive plume transport that would occur under severe meteorological conditions, and emergency response issues, the analysis should incorporate a site specific discussion of any increased risk of accidents resulting from a severe hurricane.

. ({Q., .

1 p-

?

J 5A .

1 .

n,

?

p i

S-h ih-M, b:.

?? -

t C-u

'd - TEXAS SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 1:

,r t

~

p i-

's f Informational Copy f

k.

?

i l Texas Water Commission I,

I November 1985 i

i 1 .

DRAFT: Pending Final Approval of the Texas Water Commission 1

l l

l

1 I

p.,

I USES I CRITERIA 0

, , 3m .

t t %t - 3% "'

2 y u

E%* i *5' t n m i 8 un n COLORA00 RIVER BASIN w S d3 33 03 E C* N E O x $u Du "u 55 w 3 " M. ~8 5 d 5 *O OO N= 2

• o Ie8 l5 3

2 g y 5 5 $ s, go 5u 5E d so u U u EE < E D 5' g" x D xu I" W B St 8t >$ "

"62 C

55 y:t m

8e 8 k "t $*

l -

a - a p -

j

= S--

! ij d l 1401 Colorado River Tidal CR H 4.0 6.5-9.0 200 95 1402 Colorado River Below Smithville CR H / PS 65 50 350 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 95 1403 Lake Austin CR H PS 100 75 400 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 90 1404 Lt.ke Travis CR E PS 100 75 400 6.0 6.5-9.0 200 90 y 1405 Nrble Falls Is.ke CR H PS 100 75 400 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 94 to 1406 Lake Lyndon B. Johnson CR H I'S 100 75 400 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 94 1407 Inks Lake CR H PS 100 75 400 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 90 1408 Lake Buchanan CR H PS 100 75 400 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 90 1409 Colorado River Above Lake Buchanan CR H PS 200 200 ,500 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 91 1410 Colorado River Below Concho River CR H PS 450 450 1,500 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 91 1411 E. V. Spence Reservoir CR H PS 950 450 1,500 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 93 1412 Colorado River Below Lake J. B. Thomas CR H IJ,000 2,500 20,000 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 93 1413 Lake J. B. Thomas CR H PS 50 60 500 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 90 1414 Pedernales River CR H PS 80 50 500 5.0 6.5-9.$ 200 91 1415 Llano River CR H PS 50 50 300 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 91 1416 San Saba River 6.5-9.0 90 CR H PS 80 50 500 5.0 200 1417 Lower Pecan Bayou NCR H 410 120 1,100 5.0 6.5-9.0 2,000 90 1418 Lake Brownmod '

CR H PS 150 100 500 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 90 1419 Lake Coleman CR H PS 150 100 500 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 93 1420 Pecan Bayou Above Lake Brownvood CR H PS 500 500 1,500 5.0 6.5-9.0 200 90 t

' ~ n*_. _ ._ __ . ~ . . 1

I.!. .

L, *. - ? -

h SEGMENT DESCRIPTION

k. 1304 Caney Creek Tidal - from the confluence with the Intercoastal Waterway in Matagorda County to a point 12.2 kilometers (7.6

+t l miles) downstream of the confluence of Linnville Bayou in Matagorda County 1305 Caney Creek Above Tidal - from a point 12.2 kilometers (7.6

! miles) downstream of the confluence of Linnville Bayou in j Matagorda County to Old Caney Road in Wharton County l[ 1401 Colorado River Tidal - from the confluence with the Gulf of

h Mexico in Matagorda County to a point 2.1 kilometers (1.3 l miles) downstream of the Missouri-Pacific Railroad in Matagorda County

[l g

1402 . Colorado River Below Smithville - from a point 2.1 kilometers y (1.3 miles) downstream of the Missouri-Pacific Railroad in 1

3 Matagorda County in Bastrop County to a point 100 meters (110 yards) downstream of SH 95/SH Loop 230 at Smithville in Bastrop County 1403 Lak'e Austin - from Tom Miller Dam" in Travis County to Mansfield Dam in Travis County, up to the normal pool elevation

l. of 492.8 feet (impounds Colorado River) l1 ii 1404 Lake Travis - from Mansfield Dam in . Travis County to Max

' Starcke Dam on the Colorado River Arni in Burnet County and to a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Fall Creek

.) - on the Pedernales River Arm in Travis County, up to the j normal pool elevation of 681 feet (impounds Colorado River) 1405 Marble Falls Lake - from Max Starcke Dam in Burnet County to Alvin Wirtz Dam in Burnet County, up to the normal pool r elevation of 738 feet (impounds Colorado River)

! 1406 Lake Lyndon B. Johnson -

from Alvin Wirtz Dam in Burnet County to Roy Inks Dam on the Colorado River Arm in

, , Burnet / Llano County and to a point immediately upstream of the h confluence of Honey Creek on the Llano River Arm in Llano County, up to the normal pool elevation of 825 feet (impounds

{

Colorado River)

I lI 1407 Inks Lake - from Roy Inks Dam in Burnet / Llano County to

!{

Buchanan Dam in Burnet / Llano County, up to the normal pool i elevation of 888 feet (impounds Colorado River)

, 1408 Lake Buchanan - from Buchanan Dam in Burnet / Llano County to Q' a point immediately upstream of thd confluence of Yancey -

p/ Creek, up to the normal pool elevatica of 1020 feet (impounds Colorado River)

J4 h

84