ML20063H853
| ML20063H853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1982 |
| From: | Goldberg J HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20063H842 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-820831, NUDOCS 8209020171 | |
| Download: ML20063H853 (47) | |
Text
. ..
v,
- Before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Houston Lighting 6 Power Company, et, al.
South Texas Project Units 16 2 i
Amendment 5 Houston Lighting 6 Power Company, an applicant in the above captioned proceeding, for itself and for the City of San Antonio, Central Power 6 Light Company and the City of Austin, hereby files Amendment 5 to the Environmental Report - Operating License Stage.
Amendment 5 provides updated information consistent with the Application.
Respectfully submitted, HOUSTON LIGHTING 6 POWER COMPANY
( J. H. Goldberg Vice President Nuclear Engineering 6 Construction l
8209020171 820831 PDR ADOCK 05000498
- __._ . ._. . . - - - . - . . _ - - . . - - - .-. . . - . _ - . = .
1 1,
'5
(
Instructions for incc?porating Amendment 5:
In general, amendment pages will replace existing pages that i have the same :ge numbers. In some instances, a different number of pages will be added than are deleted. Affected pages are:
Remove Insert Table of Contents v, vi v, vi thru thru vii, viii vii, viii XiX, XX XiX, XX
, Chapter 2 2-1, 2-11 2-1, 2-11 2-v, 2-vi 2-v, 2-vi 2.1-1, 2.1-2 2.1-1, 2.1-2 thru
() 2.1-3 Figure 2.1-4 Figure 2.1-4 2.2-1, 2.2-2 2.2-1, 2.2-2 thru thru
- 2.2-13 2.2-13
- Figures 2.2-1 Figures 2.2-1
! thru thru 2.2-6 2.2-6 Appendix E Title Sheet E-il l
E-1 j E-2 E-3 i
_ - . . _ . . . . - . - __ _ . _ = . .
i STP ER l
i i
CONTENTS (Continued) l 1
- Page i
. CllAPTER 7--ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDE.NTS j 7.1 Plant Accidents Involving Radioactivity 7.1-1 I 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 1 8.2.2 Temporary External Costs 8.2-1 ,
8.2.3 Long-Term External Costs 8.2-4 l
- CllAPTER 9--ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 9.1 Introduction 9.1-1 9.2' Benefits of Operating the South Texas Project 9.2-1 '
I CHAPTER.10--PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 1
l 10.0 General 10.0-1 10.1 Cooling System 10.1-1 10.2 Makeup Water intake System 10.2-1 10.3 Discharge Sys tem 10.3-1 10.4 Chemical Waste Treatment 10.4-1 i 10.5 Biocide Treatment -10.5-1 l
10.6 Sanitary Waste Treatment 10.6-1 i 10.7 Liquid Radwaste System 10.7-1 i 10.8 Gaseous Radwaste System 10.8-1 l 10.9 Transmission Facilities -10.9-1 1 10.10 Other Systems 10.10-1 10.10.1 Emergency Generating System 10.10-1 l (N i --
i l
v Amendment 3, 10/10/80 L
STP ER CONTENTS (Centinued)
CliAPTER 11--SUMR\RY 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 Ef fects of South Texas Project 11.6-1 11.7 Conclusions 11.7-1 CilAPTER 12--ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATION 12.1 Introduction 12.1-1 12.2 12.2.1 Agency Approvals Federal Agency Approvals 12.2-1 12.2-1 12.2.2 Texas Licenses, Permits and Other Approvals 12.2-2 12.2.3 Local Agencies 12.2-4 12.3 Transmission System Controls 12.3-1 CilAPTER 13--REFERENCES 13-1 APPENDIX A--ENVIRONMENTAL TECilNICAL SPECIFICATIONS i
l APPENDIX B--BASIC DATA FOR SOURCE TERM CALCULATIONS l
APPENDIX C--RESPONSES TO NRC JULY 5,1978 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I APPENDIX D--RESPONSES TO NRC OCTOBER 9,1978, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPENDIX E--RESPONSES TO NRC APRIL 28, 1982 REQUEST I FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION l
vi Amendment 5
STP ER TABLES O Number Title Page 1.1-1 Characteristics of the Electric Loads of the STP Participating Utilities 1.1-11 ,
l 1.1-2 Past and Forecasted Annual Peak Demands, Interruptible Demands, Firm Purchases and Sales, and Energy Consumption 1.1-12 1.1-3 Forecasted Monthly Peak Demands 1984 and 1986 1.1-17 1.1-4 Forecasted Monthly Energy Loads 1984 and 1986 1.1-18 1.1-5 Installed Generating Units 1.1-19 1.1-6 Planned Generating Capacity Within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 1.1-24 1.1-7 Planned Generating Capacity for the South Texas Project Participants 1.1-29 2.1-1 Exclusion Area Boundary Distances 2.1-3 l
2.2-1 Towns and Cities Within 50 Miles of South Texas Project 2.2-6
{~}
2.2-2 Schools Within 10 Miles of South Texas Project 2.2-13 2.5-1 River Water Temperature: USGS Cage Colorado River Near Wharton, Texas 2.5-3 2.5-2 Little Robbins Slough: Changes in Drainage Characteristics Due to Reservoir Construction 2.5-5 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 vii Amendment 5
STP ER TABLES (Continued)
O Number Title P_a g e 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 Persistence--Slightly Stable (E) 2.6-15 2.6-15 Wind Speed Persistence--Moderately Stable (F) 2.6-16 2.6-16 Wind Speed Persistence--Extremely Stable (G) 2.6-17 2.6-17 Wind Direction Persistence--All Observations 2.6-18 2.6-18 Wind Direction Persistence--Extremely Unstable (A) 2.6-19 2.6-19 Wind Direction Persistence-Moderately Unstable (B) 2.6-20 2.6-20 Wind Direction Persistence--Slightly Unstable (C) 2.6-21 2.6-21 Wind Direction Persistence--Neutral (D) 2.6-22 2.6-22 Wind Direction Persistence--Slightly Stable (E) 2.6-23 2.6-23 Wind Direction Persistence-Moderately Stable (F) 2.6-24 2.6-24 Wind Direction Persistence--Extremely Stable (G) 2.6-25 2.6-25 Meteorological Data Recovery for the STP Site 2.6-26 l
vitt l 1
l
STP ER
,r~"x FIGURES U
Number Title 2.2-1 Population Distribution, 1980 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 f--
(g) 2.7-1 Land Resource Areas of Texas 2.7-2 Vegetational Areas of Texas 2.7-3 Soil Survey 2.7-4 Vegetation and Land Use Types of the Proposed Site With Vegetation Sample Areas Superimposed 2.7-5 Map of the Lower Colorado River Showing Sampling Stations 2.7-6 Location of Trawl and Plankton Tow and Seine Stations 1, 2, 3, and 5 Phase One Colorado River Entrain-ment Study (STP 1975-1976), Arrows Direction of Tows 2.7-7 Undeveloped Prime Farmland 3.1-1 Plant Profile, East Elevation 3.1-2 Plant Profile, West Elevation
/'" 3.1-3 Plant Profile, North Elevation xix Amendment 5
STP ER FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title 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 3.3-2 Typical Relief Well 3.4-1 Site Layout 3.4-2 Reservoir Makeup Facilities 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 3.5-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) 3.5-1d Piping Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System (Sheet 4 of 6) 3.5-le Piping Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System, Waste Evaporator Package (Sheet 5 of 6) 3.5-1f Piping Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System, Miscellaneous Support Systems (Sheet 6 of 6) 3.5-2 Process Diagram: Liquid Waste Processing System xx Amendment 1, 11/22/78
STP ER CHAPTER 2--THE SITE O. CONTENTS-I Section Page 2.1 Site Location and Layout 2.1-1 2.2 Regional Demography, Land, and Water Use 2.2-1 2.2.1 Population and Population Distribution 2.2-1 2.2.2 - Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters 2.2-4 2.2.3 Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilities 2.2-4 2.3 Regional Historic, Scenic, Cultural, and Natural Landmarks 2.3-1 2.4 Geology and Soils 2.4-1 2.5 Hydrology 2.5-1 2.6 Meteorology 2.6-1 2.7 Ecology 2.7-1 2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology 2.7-2 2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology 2.7-9 2.8 Background Radiation Characteristics 2.8-1 2.9 Other Environmental Features 2.9-1 i
l 4
I i
2-1
.-. . _.,__ . _ -._ __.- - ~ . _ .,,-. _ . _..,.._ ._-~. ,___--_.___ ,_.__. _ __ __ _ . _ .. _.-. -. _ ,.
STP ER TABLES Number Title Page 2.1-1 Exclusion Area Boundary Distances 2.1-3 2.2-1 Towns and Cities Within 50 Miles of South Texas Project 2.2-6 2.2-2 Schools Within 10 Miles of South Texas Project 2.2-13 2.5-1 River Water Temperature: USGS Cage Colorado River Near Wharton, Texas 2.5-3 2.5-2 Little Robbins Slough: Changes in Drainage Characteristics Due to Reservoir Construction 2.5-5 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 Persistence--Slightly Stable (E) 2.6-15 2.6-15 Wind Speed Persistence--Moderately Stable (F) 2.6-16 llg 2-11 Amendment 5
STP ER l k TABLES (Continued)~ l 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- i 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 Open Water Marshes of Little Robbins Slough, with Notation of Species Observed During 1973-1974 2.7-35 2.7-24 Amphibians and Reptiles Likely To Occur in Open Water Marsh Area.of Little 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 ;
r a
i 2-v
r 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, 1980 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
! ?.6-2 Gross Wind Rose, Victoria 2.6-3 Gross Wind Rose, Corpus Christi 2.7-1 Land Resource Areas of Texas 2.7-2 Vegetational Areas of Texas 2.7-3 Soil Survey 9
2-vi Amendment 5
STP ER CHAPTER 2
(~
V) THE SITE 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND LAYOUT The South Texas Project (STP) is located in southwest Matagorda County, approximately 12 miles south-scuthwest 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 (3,188,669 m north--788,157 m east; Zone 14R); Unit 2 will be located at 96'03'00" west longitude, 28'47'42" north latitude (3,188,699 m north--787,974 m east; Zone 14R). The site consists nominally of 12,300 acres, of which 7,000 acres make up the cooling reservoir, 65 acres are modified or occupied by the plant and plant facilities, and approximately 1,700 remain as a natural lowland habitat.
Figure 2.1-1 shows the general area within 50 miles of the site. Figure 2.1-2 shows the one- through five- and ten-mile perimeters of the site. An aerial photograph of the STP site and environs before construction is shown on Figure 2.1-3. Superimposed on this photograph is the site boundary (utility owned). Figure 2.1-4 is a diagram of the site layout and surrounding area. The exclusion area and railroad spur are also shown.
5 The exclusion area is an oval shaped area, having a minimum boundary distance from the center of each containment building of 1430 meters. The center of
~'
the exclusion area " oval" is a point 93 meters directly west of the center of x the Unit 2 reactor containment building. This point is also the center of the Low Population Zone, which is a circle with a radius of three miles. The closest approach of FM 521 to the exclusion area boundary is approximately 76 meters. Table 2.1-1 presents exclusion area boundary distances for Unit 1 and Unit 2 in each of the 16 cardinal compass directions. The participants in the STP own the land comprising the site, shown on Figure 2.1-4, except for the right-of-way of FM 521 and the right-of-way for a county road extending south from FM 521 and adjacent to the western boundary of the site.
The abutting and adjacent properties as well as developments near the site are shown on Figure 2.1-6.
The local relief of the area is characterized by fairly flat land, approximately 23 feet above mean sea level. Through the site boundary flows the west branch of the Colorado River as well as several sloughs, one of which feeds Kelly Lake, a 34.4-acre water body in the northeast corner of the site. The site and its immediate environs fall within the Coastal Prairie which extends as a broad band parallel to the Texas Gulf Coast. Of the approximately 50,240 acres within a 5-mile radius of the site, bottomland comprises 19 percent; the remaining 81 percent is upland. The bottomland includes 52 percent cleared land and 48 percent wooded area, most of which, with the exception of two small islands, is classified as agricultural. The upland consists of 91 percent cleared agricultural land, 8 percent woodlands, and 1 percent industrial.
O 2.1-1 Amendment 5
STP ER Major road access to the site will be from farm-to-market road (FM) 521. The site development plan, shown on Figure 2.1-7, reflects the major features of plant development. The main element of the plan is the nuclear power plant h
and its support facilities. The plant was sited to enable functional and safe operation of a nuclear power plant compatible with the natural environment of the surrounding site and community.
Currently no developed public recreation facilities exist along the Colorado River between Bay City and Matagorda. Neither are there any state or federal wildlife reserves along the river, but, since duck and geese are prevalent near the Gulf, some huating is done along the lower reaches of the river.
Recreational potential in the immediate vicinity of the project site is in the form of a group of vacation homes directly across (to the east of) the 2 Colorado River from the site. The area between the cooling reservoir and the Colorado River contains a wide variety of plant material dominated by mature live oak trees. Wildlife is abundant within the area of riparian influence.
With the natural vegetation, water habitat, and lack of development within the area of riparian influence, that area is a natural lowland habitat and will be allowed to remain such. On the project land, specific recreational and public use developments, other than the natural habitat, include picnic areas, a visitors' center, and a public boat launch facility on the Colorado River at the end of the heavy haul road.
Since there are no existing public access points in this area of the Colorado River and since a road and docking areas are to be constructed in conjunction with the construction of the facility, the dock facility will be designed to g accommodate and serve as a permanent public boat landing and launching W facility.
Parking and restrooms will be provided, as well as picnic tables and an interpretive exhibit at the visitors' center to describe the plant's development and operation. The plant and the visitors' center are close enough together so that plant facilities are discernable from the visitors' center. The visitors' center is located ot FM 521 near the plant access road (Figure 2.1-5). No swimming or boating will be allowed on Kelly Lake, mainly because of its size; however, Kelly Lake will afford a very fine foreground for a view from the picnic area into the natural habitat.
O 2.1-2 Amendment 5
i t
STP ER Table 2.1-1 J
EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY DISTANCES (meters)
Unit 1 Unit 2 N 1430 1430 NNE 1430 1492 Q311.1 NE 1430 1553 ENE 1430 1596 E 1430 16 15 ESE 1430 1596 SE 1430 1553 SSE 1430 1492
/ S 1430 1430 SSW 1543 1539 SW 1768 1671 WSW L932 1772 W 1985 1800 WNW 1932 1772 NW 1768 1671 NNW 1543 1539 i
I 2.1-3 Amendment 5
F
- '-.m
' 1 ' 4.' . .-
g(
h , of J' ,;,jdh,. ;.,
, c
%~'~ 4 . %. x . p x,. ,
e g,. ' J N -'
g Q:-- *
%e *
,g A , -. u ~ ,.,e~
3,-
w ",.
g, j , tr.y " t -
Ngs\ ,
Lo- % fL,% t.L ' ..! ' , ' g h
.,l...-.*,.-<t -
. ,e
.Z g
r n
2 ':;Md .
\
. #+ U" _s--g f r- # *L
_ [,_1 n.se. 3 J - . Y N-* 7 -/ l'"g '(
]
L ,
,,,,g,c,ao Jua'
') 'f ' . ,p= 'N **
g t,. )
h570 CM * ,
, ~, ,,
f-
,% c *f g .
r
.l j- EXCLUSION ' \ ,
,' '/ "J
+ .
r .jb g ' ' \
s 1 I 9 ,
ARE A B01/NDARY \', -'
. {c LA
't LOW P )PULATION 2ONE g 4., , s.
g p,
[] (3 MILE FJADIUS) eu s v. ..
. PROPERTY LtutTS m g
,s,'},
0
( ' . .j i.............. , s y
g g '
/
h, -
[- .
ioo' JE TRANsu WON T
/*
-g i -
t '
(sstNTIA ci 3
,, f*-;
j'4Qx_. J .- - /
, __ _ L ;Nt w 10, S L E .$nNG _ { ,
s nno - pi
,5 *11CH POND
- ,\
f .I
[
jg [1 3)
, , ; -4 ;. -
'~
. p
, {rt
~- ..r_
- 1_ 1],
_'t
,,./- .
1, u n s .sess ' }
' 1
- r
- 4 A
i i ? [ \
- ' [ ** A* r N AREST ULLTIME 4 / y
)
< 1 (
ESIDEN / FARM -
~*
. ~g.suojisYited L
f m.__ Q_ N '
- -/ k
,-V W ,.
^
r j s' .,, T b -...oi .p. ..--.- !
j.
/
./ ^([ ' o , ~
\
\ 7
' 'j b ,y ~\L
, t t
~
- xp 1 *
-\
\ ( , , -' **"*
> g R,-_
, V' b / '*' t' S
,). j - . . -
}l
\.
, y.
by j] ,
f
(
3, g; tue66corsi 25 t l' E
, g
- i. J . i ( /
's g -.
._.g. ir== 4
).,x
' As 6 ',
. j - ,
w ssel [ I h*}%;
f, k j"* -17 y* % p- '- "
t tocArto utit es =s stouGw x
~;
) P._ _. , .
-r i -
.i .
{
+
,<)' P-
[s'
,. ; tt 52o
/
~
i
\
'$h . / '
. $n%
'- I,'s . i >
.s { ' * >
'/ \ h g
( .\ - 7 g
~
cr-9 l I,l tus crest
,e! EL 66 50
$(\ g -
-M (g
- i b< '
l ,
- \ ..g. n . h' '. i
! r-EMBANuMENT;
,r m. r - *,t uB CRf '.
,) .
- . [-- .
ll
, ,., ~_[' (L 6 7 0%-
. ,f y ;
/ --
j ., %_ s _
c -. g J' ,
\c ;
F 3*0'000 f . . ,
{ .
. 't ;
, .s
[.., c s_
g p.
.m"' -
- _ _ _ ,
\
)s g' y I
., _./ ,
',0 8 - 8
% j. a .
(
6 g \~ 'f ',"- *
/
S E.
~
L
,a - NOTE, .4 s sto ou 7 ',' u m u
_Q r--
- s ouA LE I
, , 8 , sit.. sour 5",f C t~1E lf,,,,
coc ,g,,,7g
,.4 { s. . ,
(s < .r~t r
ij % ' .r_ - -
c., . . .
' f
, l.
l . r- . r- ,
e
e
- f. , / It. '
~
]" '
/
N.'90 j
a : /s . '
A
- g , y ,/
4:0 C"*) g .s . f,y::=.
?%r'.,b : .t.
k.jQ, 7
', i .
W ~
q W
W.
,g-,
p,.3.+-~
a} :'. t , -g
\
m., A , ,9'
.~~y.. ....~---~~**
8 N ,
'se
\
\. # ,,..... , ,./. , y0
,Q g A
.t 4Buu ra v, cuoor u -
^
\ .
'--+.
-l ..
[
,MANa SK VLlhE, AND [j,sD a--.--
,.e . - j .. e -
i,
..#' ./ j(
3
"' ~~ , s , . . . ... . , ._.
.f g %l -
,4 .
( -+ . 'g-Mc]'s '"\
3
- 100' WIDE R/W '
N g * *
'Wg&c'L'" m =y - v= =.", . }.
ig
(
PL ANT OA 1* 6 Mf ,
Dw" '
- e.'
~-
\
W -'
A s
'\ t'
% ')?g .
N \ #
< . j. s, ."^ *
. aTT.
1
s. ,,,,) ......# a . "* #
Q %n, V ~'
n ~- ~~-
%f=:& l ,) s'm . o f ,,
3 ,~p.6 e
%g -
(-/ ',
\,
Q~ ;f q '.f...........&./&2j.. .g,,;
m--
~
M L
0 f $
j Q 4:
{_ =
,,j
/ ~
- CIRCULA ON , ydr Y '
\ , CHANhEL ~ ~ ~ s*- p o
/ , ?*f /\ . rs. '- * .
L'
) UP PUWp STAT 60N Q _J p V O / #
[wa* ci pt.unc ' ,j , ,'
- g
. :=-
g
- - e I .i .
i I sBARGE SLIP f \
< j e%, .
No D*N f f
. [. [
- s. t - . 404 'E '
887 8 % i / "** U 4550,000 EMBAhadEN w I e, ""
, . . . Dia r +1 t f *
- (L 52 0
' m\
i * /
k A
.. I .
,- .g n , <
/
'_ r t
.y .
1 to
- a. aa.c, n
~
- / / .
sx : *-
s m .A. . BLc. ,, , - 1.,s
,f <. .). .U~ -
z.\ - .
3 g
- C,,,,
g.
Cis'J "";.f>;sp,gga,w
--a w -7TL es7 em 'g[BLOMw i ..-. ...... '85
- E
~.A'NN. s e : e -:
(
I i
~ ~ - - - - '
u, , , , , , , , , . . .
s Amendment 5 y .
c-t .
~. , , . . . _ SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT L--=- ~
q s
- s. (.x .
j UNITS 1 & 2 I s -
4;) e
. 6: ,
1 [ .a .,
(
F., . .- % , .3. .
i f* SITE LAYOUT AND SURROUNDING
.,y__; er , ~g l ,
AREAS OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT -t.
_ _ __; ~ J 5' 2,, -,~.I~,.,<
can. s ... s,. m u 5....
3 i ,
- (
.f d / '.
d FIGURE 2.1 - 4 1
l W
STP ER 2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY, LAND, AND WATER USE t'
(_)j 2.2.1 POPULATION AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION Towns and cities within 50 miles of the STP site are shown on Figure 2.1-1.
They are also listed in Table 2.2-1, along with their 1970 and 1980 (to the l5 extent available in 1980 U.S. census listings) resident populations and their distances and directions from the plant. Figure 2.1-2 shows the locations of the municipalities and other features within a 10-mile radius of the plant.
Within 10 miles of the plant the estimated 1980 population was 4,122 persons; Q311.2 within 5 miles it was 488 persons. The closest incorporated communities are Bay City and Palacios. Both, however, are outside the 10-mile radius.
Matagorda, an unincorporated community, is a~oout 8 miles southeast of the plant.
All full-time and part-time residences within 4 miles of the plant site are shown on Figure 2.2-0. The nearest full-time residence is in the west-southwest sector approximately 15,000 feet from.the reactors. Resident populations allocated to sectors within 10 miles of the STP, but beyond the Q site boundary, were developed from areal proportioning of 1980 census tract 311.lb data. Projections were developed on the same basis.
Figure 2.2-1 shows the estimated 1980 population distribution within 50 miles of the STP. These population data reflect information from the most recent (1980) census. Figures 2.2-2 through 2.2-6 show corresponding projected Q311.2
. populations for the years 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020 and 2030. 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 l tracts without significant urban population, it was assumed the population l was evenly distributed. Urban populations located in more than one sector were allocated in proportion to the 1980 census population to the tracts containing the urban area. The proportion was considered a constant for projections to 2030, 2.2.1.1 Residential Developments Two developments, Selkirk Island and Exotic Isle, are within approximately 4 miles southeast of the reactor containment buildings. Selkirk Island is a l
O l
2.2-1 Amendment 5 l
l I
STP ER 1,100-acre island development operated as a community. The project includes 384 homesites. 5 The other development, Exotic Isle, is a much smaller area and is a resort / retirement complex. The island is divided into 25 lots. Together the developments represent 409 home or retirement sites (Ref. 2.2-5). In projecting the population for the developments, which are planned almost entirely for retirement use, the figure of 2.5 persons per housing unit was used as a conservative number and the population was assumed to remain con-stant throughout the life of the project. The resort /home/ retirement nature of the developments makes them primarily recreational facilities. Selkirk Island provides, for its residents, boating, fishing, and hunting capabilities along with a swimming pool. During the warmer months, approxi-mately 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 four dwellings; no more building is planned by the developer. The 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 permanent dwellings in the area. There are twelve seasonal dwellings on the Exotic Isle development. The remaining seasonal dwellings are on Selkirk Island. 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 doing so as retirement investments, a number of people may reside in these homes seasonally until their retirement. See Figure 2.1-6 for location of the Selkirk Island and Exotic Isle developments with respect to the plant site.
2.2.1.2 Transient Population There are no schools, hospitals, prisons, wildlife preserves, sanctuaries, or recreational and sports facilities within 5 miles of the plant site. With respect to these land and water uses, the recreational developments and public use areas discussed in Section 2.1 are the only areas of projected use. There are presently 148 residences within 5 miles of the plant site.
l5 2.2.1.2.1 Visitors' Center and Picnic Areas of Site. As previously dis-cussed in Section 2.1, picnic areas and a visitors' information center will be constructed on the STP site. (Figure 2.1-6 shows location of each.)
Attendance figures at the visitors' center are expected to approximate 30,000 annually.
O 2.2-2 Amendment 5
STP ER 2.2.1.2.2 Migrant Labor Force. A recent inquiry of the Matagorda County q agricultural extension agent revealed that there are no migrant workers b within 10 miles of the plant. The mechanized nature of agriculture of the county has minimized hand labor (Ref. 2.2-5).
2.2.1.2.3 Seasonal Homes. According to the 1970 census of housing there were five vacant seasonal and migratory homes in Matagorda County (Ref.
2.2-1). The resort / retirement communities of Selkirk Island and Exotic Isle .
located 3.5 miles southwest of the plant area provide the only seasonal dwellings within 5 miles of the site. These two developments represent a l5 total of about 23 seasonal dwellings and 96 permanent dwellings (Ref. 2.2-5).
2.2.1.3 Population Center The nearest " population center," as defined in 10CFR100, is the city of Victoria, Texas, which had a 1980 population of 50,695. Its nearest corporate boundary is 59 miles west 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 5 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.
2.2.1.4 Public Facilities and Institutions Two surveys, one in July 1973 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 O" assessment of socioeconomic conditions, completed in 1980, updated some of 5 the information provided in the 1973 and 1977 surveys. The results of the surveys and assessment are reflected in the subsections below.
2.2.1.4.1 Schools. There are no schools within 5 miles of the site.
Schools within 10 miles of the plant are listed in Table 2.2-2 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 the Matagorda Elementary School in Matagorda, Texas (8 miles SE). These schools have a combined enrollment of 584 students (Ref. 2.2-9). Four schools in Palacios are just l5 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. The 1977-78 enrollment is
- 2,047 students (Ref. 2.2-5).
2.2.1.4.2 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). l5 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, provides convalescent nursing facilities to area residents. The n Matagorda County Health Department is located in the county courthouse and b
2.2-3 Amendment 5
STP ER maintains a staff which includes one registered nurse and one health inspector (Ref. 2.2-1 and 2.2-2).
g 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 a staff of 59 (Ref. 2.2-5 and 2.2-9). 5-2.2.1.4.3 Prisons. There are no prisons within 10 miles of the plant site (Ref. 2.2-1).
2.2.1.4.4 Parks and R?creational 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 I gure 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. Carlson's Park (3), 10 miles southeast Q330.2 of the plant, has 2 acres of land and has boating and fishing facilities (Ref. 2.2-4). The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has plans to purchase or lease 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 Zoning Matagorda County and Bay City do not have land use zoning regulations or a planning commission. The only land use regulations within the county are deed restrictions for subdivisions. The county government for Matagorda County is a county commission made up of four precincts, each having a county commissioner. The STP will be located in Precinct 3. No building permit was h
required for the STP site.
2.2.2 USE OF ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS In accordance with the discussion in the Introduction to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revisica 2, pertaining to the applicant's " Environmental Report--
Operating License Stage," this section is not addressed since no updating of the corresponding material in the " Environmental Report--Construction Permit _
Stage" was necessary.
2.2.3 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES In accordance with the discussion in the Introduction to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2, pertaining to the " Applicant's Environmental Report--
Operating License Stage," this section is not addressed since no updating of the corresponding material in the " Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage" was necessary.
~
l 9 2.2-4 Amendment 5
' ~ ~~
7 '\. ;
W STP ER 1 .
e ' REFERENCES y '
V.' Sectio'n 2.2: -
Of 2.2-1 NJS Corporation, Demography, Land and Water Use Survey, (stockville, Maryland,1973).
BayCityChambero'fCommerce,MatagordaCountyFactBook
- 2.2-2
- .; '(Bay ' City, Texas , 1971) .
2.2-3 Acerican Hospital Association, The AHA Guide to Health Care t
flield (1971). -
-2.2-4 Houston-Galveston Area Council, Parks Recreation and Open s sSpace (1971) .
L2.2-5 Brown-6. Root [Ii.tc.,1977 Demography,LandandWaterUse Suryey : (Houston, Texas) .
~
2.'2-6 U.S. Department of Interior, Fish & Wildl..'e Service, Region
[.- 2, WetlandJPreservation Program, Category 8, Texas Culf Coast (March 1977) . .,
'2.2.7 Rice Center,'18 County Population and Employment Forecast, (December 1980, revised January 1981).
2.2d3 Rice Center, C'orrespondence to Dames & Moore regarding 5 f3 updating populatio'n forecast, (June 15, 1982).'
u .- . .
2.2-9 NUS Corporation, Revise _d__ Assessment of Socioeconomic Condi-
,e tions at the South Texas Project, (Rockville, Maryland, 1980).
d
~ ,
% -~ l 5
7
,=
~ ,
y (
V
/ '
. 2.'2-5 ^ -
Amendment 5
\
{ STP ER 1
1
(~ TABLE 2.2-1 TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT 4
Distance (mi) Population 0-10 Miles and Direction 1970 1980 i
Buckeye 8N 25 **
Rymers 8 NE 6 **
! Wadsworth 8 ENE 152 **
Culf Hill 8 ESE O **
Q311.2 Ma tagorda 8 SW 1,219 **
I Citrus Grove 4 SW 0 **
Collegeport 9 WSW 91 **
j Simpsonville 4W 12 **
El Maton 8 NW 165 ** -
4 l 10-20 Miles Markham 12 N 603 1,554 Rossge 15N * **
! Bay City 12 NNE 11,733 17,887 Van Vleck 19 NNE 1,051 1,157
- Caney 18 NE 296 **
}
Rugeley 19 NE * ** <
Chinquapin 17 E * **
l Gulf 11 ESE * **
Camp Hulen 14 WSW * **
- Palacios 13 WSW 3,642 4,667 fg
- Population information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1970 Q listing of current population.
! ** Population information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1980 5 listing of current population.
2.2-6 Amendment 5
i l
STP ER TABLE 2.2-1 (Continued)
TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT i.
, Distance (mi) Population
, 10-20 Miles and Direction 1970 1980 .;
1
- Blessing 12 WNW 571 **
i I
Francitas 18 WNW 30 **
Midfield 15 NW 70 **
Clemville 15 NNW 54 ** Q311.2 Magnet 16 N 70 **
j 20-30 Miles ,
Chalmers 21 NNE * **
McCroskey 24 NNE * **
Ashwood 25 NNE * **
Pledger 29 NNE 159 **
i Sugar Valley 24 NE * **
A11enhurst 21 NE * **
j Ha sima 24 NE * **
, Abercrombie 24 NE * **
Old Ocean 27 NE 900 **
Sweeney 26 NE 3,191 3,538 l Cedar Lane 23 ENE 85 **
Cainesmore 25 ENE * **
Hawkinsville 25 ENE * **
Cedar Lake 27 ENE 148 **
- Population information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1970 f- listing of current popula tion, j ** Population information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1980 5 l listing of current population.
2.2-7 Amendment 5
l
'STP ER i l
TABLE 2.2-1 (Continued)
TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Distance (mi) Population 20-30 Miles and Direction 1970 1980 Four Corners 29 ENE * **
Sargent 25 E 76 **
Olivia 26 WSW 200 **
Port Alto 24 WSW * ** Q311.2 Weedhaven 25 W * **
La Ward 26 W 247 218 Danevang 21 NNW 61 **
30-40 Miles
/ Lane City 30 N 111 **
Mackay 34 N * **
Boling 35 N 541 1,348 Iago 36 N 31 Burr 37 N * **
! Dinsmore 38 N * **
Wharton 37 N 7,881 9,033 New Gulf 35 NNE 963 **
Don-Tol 32 NNE * **
Danciger 32 NNE 300 **
Damon 39 NNE 360 **
l
[ West Columbia 35 NE 3,335 4,109 i
!
- Population information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1970
_e listing of current population.
- Population information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1980 5 listing of current population.
2.2-8 Anendment 5
STP ER TABLE 2.2-1 (Continued)
TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Distance (mi) Population 30-40 Miles and Direction 1970 1980 East Columbia 36 NE 89 **
El Barnardo 30 NE * **
Brazoria 35 ENE 1,681 3,025 Hinkles Ferry 34 ENE 35- ** Q311.2 Perry Landing 37 ENE * '**
Jones Creek 39 ENE 1,268 2,634 Churchill Bridge 33 ENE * **
Port O'Connor 33 SW
- 1,031 Indianola 33 SW * **
Magnolia Beach 34 WSW * **
Port Lavaca 3 7 WSW 10,491 10,911 Point Comfort 33 WSW 1,446 1,125 Keeran 39 W * **
La Salle 38 W 75 **
Vanderbilt 35 W 667 **
Lolita 31 W 300 **
Red Bluff 32 WNW * **
tbnson 37 WNW * **
Edna 39 WNW 5,332 5,650 Canado 33 WNW 1,640 1,770 Louise 32 NW 310 **
- Population information not available -in U.S. Census Bureau 1970 listing of current popula tion.
- Population information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1980 5 listing of current popula tion.
2.2-9 Amendment 5
STP ER TABLE 2.2-1 (Continued)
TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Distance (mi) Population 30-40 Miles and Direction 1970 1980 Hillje 32 NW 51 **
El Campo 31 NNW 8,563 10,462 El Campo South 30 NNW 1,880 Pierce 33 NNW 49 **
Jones 38 NNW * **
Q311.2 40-50 Miles Spanish Camp 42 N * **
Hungerford 43 N 178 **
Kendleton 46 N 161 606 i
Powell Point 48 N * **
Marlowe 42 NNC * **
Guy 43 NNE 25 **
Needville 45 NNE 1,024 1,417 Long Point 46 NNE * **
Fairchilds 48 NNE 95 **
Otey 4 7 NE 300 **
Chenango 48 N * **
Anchor 46 NE * **
.l Bailey Prairie 42 NE 228 353 Snide 42 NE 75 **
i
- Population information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1970 listing of current population.
i ** Population information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1980 5 listing of current population.
2.2-10 Amendment 5
STP ER
TABLE 2.2-1 (Continued) 1 TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Distance (mi) Population 40-50 Miles and Direction 1970 1980 Angleton 46 NE 9,770 13,929 Angleton South 47 NE 1,017 Van Pelt 46 ENE * **
Bastrop Beach 47 ENE * **
Lake Jackson 42 ENE 13,376 19,102 Q311.2 Clute 44 ENE 6,023 9,577 Lake Barbara 45 ENE 605 **
Stratton Ridge 47 ENE * **
Oyster Creek 47 ENE 600 1,473 :
() Velasco Heights 45 ENE * **
Velasco 45 ENE * **
Freeport 45 ENE 11,997 13,444 Culf Park 42 ENE 2,000 **
Seadrift 48 WSW 1,092 1,277 North Seadrift 49 WSW
- Long Mott 49 WSW 76 **
Green Lake 49 WSW 51 **
Clarks 43 WSW * **
Kamey 44 WSW * **
Placedo 48 W 500 **
Carr 44 W * **
- Population information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1970 listing of current population.
- Population information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1980 5 listing of current population.
2.2-11 Amendment 5
STP ER TABLE 2.2-1 (Continued)
TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Distance (mi) Population 40-50 Miles and Direction 1970 1980 Inez 46 W 300 **
El Toro 43 WNW * **
Navidao 39 WNW * **
Morales 50 WNW 25 ** Q311.2 Cordele 44 NW 74 **
Provident City 49 NW * **
New Taiton 41 NNW * **
Nada 48 NNW 165 **
Glen Flora 40 NNW 210 **
Egypt 45 NNW 26 **
Sand Ridge 46 NNW * **
Elm Grove 48 NNW * **
Bonus 48 NNW 42 **
Richwood 42 ENE 1,452 -2,591
- Population information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1970 listing of current population.
- Popuzc +1on information not available in U.S. Census Bureau 1980 5 listing of current population.
i I
l 2.2-12 Amendment 5
STP ER TABLE 2.2-2
() SCHOOLS WITHIN 10 MILES OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT (Except as Indicated)
No. of Students Distance (mi)
Schoo1* (1979 - 80) and Direction
- 1. Matagorda Elementary (Matagorda) 110 8 SSE
- 2. Tidehaven High School (El Maton) 247 8 NNW
- 3. Tidehaven Intermediate (El Maton) 227 8.5 NNW 5
- 4. Central Elementary (Palacios) 500 10 - 11 SW**
- 5. Eastside Elementary (Palacios) 342 10 - 11 SW**
- 6. Palacios Junior High School (Palacios) 303 10 - 11 SW**
- 7. Palacios High School O (Palacios) 251 10 - 11 SW**
l i
- Numbers correspond with Figure 2.2-7.
i
- These schools are just beyond 10 miles of the plant.
l l 2.2-13 Amendment 5 l
r
~
TOTALS Annulus 0-1 Mi. 1-2 Mi. 2 - 3 M i. 3-4 Mi. 4-5 Mi, 0-5 Mi. O-10 Mi.
Population 0 28 121 124 215 488 4122 N
NNW NNE 165 165 37 NW .
NE 22 22 7 139 165 22 l4 7 14 8 WNW E N' 165 14 6 g 97 11 11 7 22 11 11 14 6 777 11 7 0 11 0 0 W 149 22 14 11 20 1 0' 0' 11 8
6 7 91 (
8 0 4 0 4 ;
l 11 0 0 11 8 A 10 "i' 8 000 12
'O 0 0 12 7 95 0 63 8 0 ,
E S,l WSW 0 0 12 0 10 95 12 1571 12 SW SE 95 447 95 SSW SSE S
NOTE: ASSUMES NO RESIDENT POPULATION ON LAND OWNED BY STP.
enam em TOTALS Annulus 10-20Mi 20-30Ml 30-40ML4 0-5 0Mi. 10-50 MI. 0-50 MI.
Population 30,815 20,911 86,577 96,914 235,217 239,339 N
NNW -
NNE 4869 3469 6225 NW NE 12,691 13,322 5503 15,027 2336 1153
- 4078 1768 1112 6458 1447 2 19 18,007 54.584 693 8436 , 0 587 1543 797 2489 \
518 1065 j
- W 3911 913 609 435 3o 4122 to 573 708 0 387 E 30 so I 4o 4984 155 4o I wi, 50 #'
1543 0 "'-
116 0 13,747 90 0 30 3718 ' O E WSW 0 O ESE 1566 0 0 941 0
Amendment 5 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, 0-10 and 10-50 MILES, SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, 1980 FIGURE 2.2-1
l TOTALD Annulus 0-1 MI. 1-2 MI. 2 - 3 M I. 3-4 Ml. 4-5 Mi. 0-5 MI. O-10 MI.
Population 0 40 165 189 343 737 6290 N
NNW NNE 235 235 46 NW NE 31 235 21 11 169 31 0 11 20 11 WNW El 20 9 235 145 31 11 15 15 20 9 10 10 10 15 10 0 15 0 0 W 223 31 20 15 20 10 0 15 I 9 11 136 8 8 i 4 0 0 4 ,
17 0 0 15 e i 10 W-16 000 ' .
19 ft 0 0 23 ll 0 0 180 94 16 0 WSW E!
0 23 0 18 180 23 23 2382 23 SW SE 180 698 180 SSW SSE S
NOTE: ASSUMES NO RESIDENT POPULATION ON LAND OWNED BY STP.
v~
l TOTALS Annulus 10-20Mi 20-3GM1 30-40ML40-50MI. 10-50 MI. 0-50 Mi.
Population 40,389 27,027 107,438 121,811 296,665 302,955 N
NNW NNE 5947 3592 7719 NW NE 14,992 2579 13,907 16,726 6893 1751
- 4967 2298 4E WNW 1430 ENE 2611 9 2982 g@ 67,308 8805 21,856 819 2810 1515 3509 732 1889 E W 4672 1922 845 642 ,o 6290 ,o 864 1067 0 407 E 20 2o 3o j, j
- 40 5334 233 6 4o I us.
1592 0 ""'-
14,096 \ 0 171 0 45 8797 iE -0 0 WSW U ESE 2027 0 0 0 1453 0
1990 SSw SSE S
Amendment 5 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, 0-10 and 10-50 MILES, SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, 1990 FIGURE 2.2-2
r
%- TOTALS Annulus 0- 1 MI. 1-2 Mi. 2 - 3 M i. 3-4 Mi. 4-5 Mi. 0-5 Mi. 0- 10 MI.
Population 0 52 221 244 421 938 8291 N
NNW NNE 309 309 68 NW NE 40 309 40 13 794 40 27 13 g 15 WNW EN:
309 27 1 180 20 20 20 20 I
20 27 II 3 13 13 20 13 0 20 0 N 0 W 288 40 27 20 20 1 0' 0, 20 11 13 170 [
8 8 4 0 0 4 ;
L 21 0 0 0 s J 10 *- 19 00 0 ' '
23 0 0 27 13 212 g 0 0
/ 0
/ 117 WSW ESC 0
27 0 21
'/
212 27 27 3321 27 SW SE 212 951 212 SSW SSE S
l NOTE: ASSUMES NO RESIDENT POPULATION ON LAND OWNED BY STP.
l
.~
L
I TOTALS "
Annulus 10-20Mi 20-30Mi 30-40ML40-50Mi. 10-50 MI. 0-50 Mi.
Population 47,609 31,987 123,670 146,148 349,414 357,705 N
NNW -
NNE 7094 4159 9416 NW NE 17,385 2762 16,111 7957 21,160 2049
- 5749 2392 E WNW ENE 3125 1606 9566 3661 79,928 169 9146 @ 'gQ 26,855 1840 1 56 2m 4198 944 2201 4 W 5140 2426 974 801 3o 8291 ,o 1153 1425 0 E 431 l
30 30 I i
40 6227 312 do I wi. 50 #~ * "-
1653 0 14,383 '
0 11,254 0 N -
0 0 0 4 WsW -
ESE 0 0 2234 0 0 1679 0 0 0 0
sW sE 0 0 0
2000 ssW ssE ,
s Amendment 5 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, 0-10 and 10-50 MILES, SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, 2000 FIGURE 2.2-3
TOTALS Annulus C-1 MI. 1-2 Mi. 2-3 Mi. 3-4 Mi. 4 - 5 M i. O-5 MI. 0-10 Mi.
Population 0 68 277 300 521 1166 10,463 N
NNW NNE 390 390 88 NW NE 51 390 51 17 217 51 16 34 18 WNW ENE 34 13 390 220 25 25 25 25 25 34 13 17 17 17 25 17 0 25 0 0 W 359 51 34 25 20 1 0' Og 25 13 16 207 E 8 a 4 0 0 4 ,
l 27 0 0 25 =
5 f 10 *' OOO 29 ' "
0 0 32 16 0 0 0
253 142 22 0 WSW _- ESE 32 0 25 253 32 32 f/ 4277 SW SE 253 1215 253 SSW SSE S
NOTE: ASSUMES NO RESIDENT POPULATION ON LAND OWNED BY STP.
TOTALS Annulus 10-20Mi 20-30Mi 30-40ML40-50Mi. 10-5 0 MI. 0-50 MI.
Population 55,519 36,586 141,410 172.118 405,633 416.096 N
NNW NNE 8211 4888 11,163 NW NE 19,910 2956 18,101 9338 26,149 2360 , 12 6396 2409 WNW ENE 1815 93,355 3644 g@
1450 4323 9495
- 1323 2946 2175 4955 1174 2499 W 5614 2944 lill 977 3o 10,463 o 1457 1800 0 460 E 3o 30 1 40 7113 393 40 i e-1725 0 **"'-
14,709 - 0 13,773 0 0 0 WSW ESE 0
2444 0 0 t 1905 0 0 0 l 0 l SW SE 1
- O 0 j 0 s010 ssw ssE s
Amendment 5 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, 0-10 and 10-50 MILES, SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, 2010 FIGURE 2.2-4 i
I
' ' ' ~
TOTALS Annulus 0-1 MI. 1-2 MI. 2 - 3 M I. 3-4 MI. 4 - 5 M i. 0-5 Mi. 0- 10 MI.
Population 0 76 319 347 594 1336 12,217 N
NNW NNE 448 448 115 NW NE 58 448' 58 20 253 58 20 39 22 WNW ENE 39 16 448 g 276 29 29 58 20 29 29 39 16 y919 19 29 9 0 29 0 0 I W 410 58 39 29 20 1 0' 0' 29 16 20 260 E 4
8 0 0 8
j ,
i 29 0 0 29 s i 10 *- 74 000 ' #
34 0 0 35 20 0 0 0
274 24 179 0
WSW ESE 0
35 0 29 274 35 35 5071 35 SW SE 274 1429 274 SSW SSE S
NOTE: ASSUMES NO RESIDENT POPULATION ON LAND OWNED BY STP.
I
1 TOTALS Annulus 10-20MI 20-30Mi 30-40ML40-50MI. 10-50 MI, 0-50 MI.
Population 63,548 41,471 160,602 197,393 463,014 475,231 N
NNW NNE 9341 5477 12,883 NW NE 3152 20,482 10,924 30,413 2678 3480 34,684 7347 2539 WNW 2002 ENE 4171 1625 5442 g
- 106,930 9851
- 1506 3140 2517 5823 1345 2861 W 6060 3475 1251 1106 so 12,217 to 1765 2181 0 490 E I 30 30 A 4o 8200 477 4o i
"- 6 M 1803 / 0 *-
15,051 0 60 91 16,342 0 0
0 WsW 0 gas 2657 0 0 0 2134
/
0 0 0 0
sW SE 0 0 0
2020 ssW ssE s
Amendment 5 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, 0-10 and 10-50 MILES, SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, 2020 FIGURE 2.2-5
TOTALS Annulus 0- 1 Mi. 1-2 Mi. 2 - 3 M i. 3-4 Mi. 4-5 Mi. 0-5 Mi. 0- 10 MI.
Population 0 92 376 407 705 1580 14,406 N
NNW NNE 526 526 130 NW NE 69 526 69 24 276 69 23 46 25 WNW 526 46 18 34 314 34 34 69 23 34 34 46 18 23 3 23 34 23 0 34 0 0 W 483 69 46 34 20 1 02 Og 34 18 23 293 8 8 4 0 0 4 ,
36 0 34 5
}, gg, 0 29 000 40 42 NN 0 0 23 333 ' 0 29 0 / 203 WSW
[ 42 0 34 333 42 ~42 5996 42 SW
NOTE: ASSUMES NO RESIDENT POPULATION ON LAND OWNED BY STP.
,- w a
=
TOTALS Annulus 10-20MI 29-3CMl 33-4'IM L49-5 0Mi- 10-5 C MI. 0-50 Mi.
Population 71,226 47,090 179,731 224,399 522,446 536,852 N
NNW NNE 10,605 5981 14,559 NW NE 3374 21,900 12,200 34,023 3083 7937
\
2804 ENE WNW ENE 4865 2255 4,337 121,524 6141 gft-1888 10,314 , 51 1761 3669 2975 6742 1574 3399 )
E W 6744 4182 1438 1298 go 14,406 ,o 2100 . 2594 0 525 E i 30 30 I i l g 40 8207 567 do 1905 0 0
6 09 19,761 0 0
EsE WsW ESE 0
2939 0 0 2438 0 0 0 0
sW SE O O O
2030 ssW ssE s
Amendment 5 l SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, 0-10 and 10-50 MILES, SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, 2030 FIGURE 2.2-6
i >
4 1
- I
- I
- STP ER i
4 i
l I '
! l
! l 1
l l
I J
i l ,
i I i
}
t t
i l
9 APPENDIX E SOUTl! TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 2 l
l RESPONSES TO NRC f l APRIL 28, 1982 l l REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION [
i i
L s
I i
I E
l s
O ,
l I
wer _ _ _-w.__ _.- - - _ _ _ < _ _ _ - _ -
STP ER I
i RESPONSES TO NRC l
~
APRIL 28, 1982 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION i
TABLE OF CONTENTS NRC Question Number Amendment Date Q&R Page Number
,! 311.1 08/31/82 E-1 1 311.2 08/31/82 E-2 1
311.3 08/31/82 E-3 l
l i
l
!0 o
E-ii Amendment 5
STP ER
, -'S Question 311.1
( !
a) Provide a drawing (s) or a detailed scale map (s) which clearly delineates the exclusion area and low popula tion zone, together or separately, with respect to the reactors and related plant structures within the exclusion area and in relation to the site property and immediate area surrounding the plant. Indicate the scale, orientation, and distances of the various entities, b) For clarification, please specify if the 1430 meter minimum exclusion area boundary distance is measured from the center, surface, or midway between the containment buildings.
Response
a) Requested information is provided on revised Figure 2.1-4.
b) Requested information is provided in revised Section 2.1.
b\
G
,-~
(s.s)
E-1 Amendment 5
STP ER Question 311.2 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
Requested information is provided in revised Section 2.1.3.
O 9
t l
I E-2 f__._ . ._ _ _ . -. _ _
Amendment 5
- .A_aA STP ER Question 311.3 t
Section 2.2.1.4.1 refers to four roads (Fig. 2.1 -5) that are located within five miles of the site. Except for FM 521, these roads are not very evident and the information about them is sketchy. To clarify the situation please provide the following information:
a) A map or drawing of the area which clearly shows the roads in relation i to the plant.
b) The closest major highway in the area near the site.
c) The specific designation or classification of each road.
d) The types and quantities of hazardous material transported over these roads, points of origin and destination if available, and the hazards they may present to safety structures at the plant if an accident should occur.
Response
! The section referenced in the request is located in the FSAR. A response to this request will be provided in the FSAR.
O E-3 Amendment 5
.. . _ - . . . .--- _ _ _ - - - . .- ---__ - --...__. . . - - . -