Texas Coastal Management Program: Technical Papers

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

ISL4LI 61

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMIAITIOIN CENTER

Texas
Coastal
Management

TD
195 rogra
N83
C373
p

1978

Texas Coastal Management Program
Technical Paper No. 18

A CASE STUDY OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SITING:

THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

r-Property of CSC Library

The General Land Office of Texas
Bob Armstrong, Commissioner

RPC, Inc.
Austin, Texas

52
August 1978

U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASIAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 'KU1H HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-24 13

This is one of a series of technical papers, which cover a variety of

topics. For information concerning other technical papers in this series,

or to order more copies of this paper, contact:

Elizabeth Christian Wilds
RPC, Inc.
1705 Guadalupe
Austin, Texas 78701

This paper was prepared under contract with the General Land Office of Texas,
Coastal Management Program. The report was partially funded through financial
assistance provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, administered
by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Department of Commerce.

FOREWORD

This technical paper is one of four papers which provide additional
information relevant to the study entitled Siting Industrial Facilities
on the Texas Coast. Many individuals assisted in the production of these
technical papers. Public officials, private citizens, and industrial re-
presentatives provided invaluable assistance.

The principal-in-charge was Ron Luke. Project managers were Leah
Pagan and Frank Sturzl. The principal research was conducted by Jim Kimmel
with assistance from Barbara Haefeli. The technical editor was Nancy Grona.
Production assistance was provided by Kyle Pierce and David Fox.

Bob Armstrong, Commissioner
General Land Office of Texas

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Description of the South Texas Project . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. Brief History of the South Texas Project . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. Area and Site Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Texas Gulf Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Matagorda County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
South Texas Project Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5. Siting Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Suitability of the Matagorda County Site . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Hydrologic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Geotechnic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Demographic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Land Use Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Meteorological Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Ecological Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

7. Site Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Opposition to the South Texas Project . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. Public Announcements and Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10. Local Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix: Nuclear Plant Siting Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

LIST OF MAPS

Page

1. Texas Middle Coast Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. South Texas Project Surrounding Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. South Texas Project Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. Cumulative Population, Annual Cumulative Dose, and Average
Annual Total-Body Dose Due to Gaseous Effluents in Selected
Annuli About the Plant . @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2. Summary of Radiological Consequences of Postulated
Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1. INTRODUCTION

The rural Texas coastal plain, predominantly rice fields and pastures,
is increasingly the selected site for industrial development. Basic
to industrial development is adequate and dependable electric power.
Four South Texas utilities elected to build a major nuclear generating
plant, the South Texas Project, in Matagorda County, Texas. This case
study examines the public and private policies, requirements, and con-
straints that influenced the siting decisions for the South Texas Project.
It is the siting process which is detailed here. Many related issues
are not discussed, including the economic feasibility of the nuclear
power plant, the efficiency of nuclear power as compared to other types
of power, and the moral and environmental issues concerning the advisability
of the use of nuclear energy. The study uses information from South
Texas Project documents, published information, and personal interviews.
That information is organized in the following way. The first three
sections of the case study provide a description and history of the
project and a description of the area and site, while the next section
describes the siting process. A section on the suitability of the Mata-
gorda County site describes governmental, social, environmental and
economic factors and how they were met by the South Texas Project site.
The next three sections describe site acquisition, opposition to the
project, and public announcements and hearings. The last section dis-
cusses local impacts of the project. An appendix lists and describes
federal and state permitting agencies and processes and also includes
permits issued.

2. DESCR1PTION OF THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

The South Texas Project, when completed in the early 1980s, will
consist of two 1,250-megawatt nuclear powered electric generating units.
These units will be cooled by water circulated through a 7,000-acre reser-
voir, constructed especially for the project. The lake will receive
make-up water from the Colorado River, immediately adjacent to the plant
site. The generating units, cooling lake, switch yard, exclusion area,
and all additional roads, storage areas, pump stations, and waste treat-
ment stations are being constructed on a 12,352-acre tract of land owned
by the project. The South Texas Project is owned jointly by Houston
Lighting and Power (30.8%), City Public Service of San Antonio (28%),
Central Power and Light (25.2%), and the city of Austin (16%). The
project is managed by Houston Lighting and Power. Two of the owners,
the city of Austin and City Public Service of San Antonio, are munici-
palities and currently claim exemption from taxation.

3. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

In 1971, various members of the Texas Interconnected System, including
Houston Lighting and Power, Central Power and Light, the city of Austin,
the Lower Colorado River Authority, and the city of San Antonio, recognized
the need for more generating capacity. Since they also recognized the
efficiency of scale of a large generating facility, joint development of a
major four-unit generating plant came under consideration. It was evident
at the time that fossil fuel probably would not be a good choice, and a nuclear
plant was considered.

Selection of nuclear fuel over fossil fuel was based on a projected life-of-
plant cost per kilowatt hour. Other costs such as the disposal of nuclear waste
and the decommissioning of the plant at the end of its lifetime were considered
in the initial decisions on whether to construct a nuclear plant or not. These
considerations are not pertinent to the siting process as discussed here.

The prospective participants in the South Texas Project sought guidance on
joint-development projects, especially those complicated by participation of
both public and private entities. No such development had previously taken
place in Texas. Representatives of the participants went to Page, Arizona, to
tour the Navajo Project. Though coal fired, the Navajo Project is owned by a
combination of public and private interests, including the city of Los Angeles.
The organizational structure and legal relationships of the participants of the
Navajo Project served as a model for the South Texas Project (Hancock, 1977).

By the fall of 1973, the organizational and legal arrangements had been set,
and several candidate sites were selected. However, several of the original
participants,had considered withdrawing from the project, and the Lower Colorado
River Authority did withdraw after the initial planning phase was completed.

4. AREA AND SITE DESCRIPTIONS

TEXAS GULF COAST

The Texas Gulf coast has been the site of major industrial develop-
ment and urban growth since the end of World War II, and the petroleum
industry has been the primary stimulus of that development. However,
the availability of transportation, energy, capital, and sites, plus
favorable labor relations, tax rates, and minimal restrictions have
attracted a broad range of industries to the area. While the Houston,
Corpus Christi, and Beaumont/Port Arthur/Orange areas have been the
focal points of this industrial development, in the early 1950s some
plants were located in nonurban areas of the coast. Refineries and
petrochemical plants that did not depend on adjacent plants for feed-
stocks were free to locate away from industrial centers. Advantages
included less expensive land and fewer zoning regulations.

Geographically, the Texas Gulf coast is hospitable to industrial
development. The climate is mild, and even major storms have not been
a deterrent to development. The terrain is almost completely flat and
poses few problems for construction or transportation, though subsidence
has been a problem in certain areas.

MATAGORDA COUNTY

Matagorda County is located in the area commonly referred to as
the "middle coast" (see Map 1). The county covers 1,157 square miles
and had a 1972 estimated population of 29,400 people. Over 17,000 of
those residents live in Bay City, the county seat. Matagorda County
has 55 oil and gas fields, and it is the site of seven major petrochemical
and related industrial facilities. The Celanese Plant, which employs
over 400 people, is the largest of those facilities. The most obvious
activity in Matagorda County, however, is agriculture. Rice is the
major crop, with 57,000 acres planted annually, while soybeans are im-
portant as alternate year crops (South Texas Project Environmental
Report, 1974).

Map 1

co TEXAS MIDDLE COAST AREA

San Antonio IPA

SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT 35

2W
Bay Ci ty
80
m
Palacios
victoria

. . .........

Corpus Christ

Source: South Texas Project Media Information Kit.

Matagorda County is flat, and its shore is broken by Tres Palacios
Bay, Matagorda Bay, and East Matagorda Bay. The Matagorda Peninsula
forms a barrier between the open Gulf of Mexico and the Matagorda County
mainland. The Colorado River, which bisects the county, is navigable
to barge traffic from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway upstream approxi-
mately 20 miles to the Port of Bay City. Several industries have sited
along this stretch of river. Matagorda County is served by a good net-
work of paved state highways and farm to market roads.

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT SITE

The South Texas Project site covers 12,352 acres located approxi-
mately 12 miles southwest of Bay City (see Map 2). Most of the site
had previously been agricultural land; it had contained only one occu-
pied residence and had no other development. The Colorado River, which
forms a portion of the eastern boundary of the project site, will be
used for make-up water for the cooling reservoir and as a receptacle
for blowdown water and treated waste water. A barge slip to serve the
.project will be built on the Colorado River (see Map 3).

Map 2

C) SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT SURROUNDING AREA

Markham Ba City

Midfield

35
Buckeye

Elmaton
Blessing

Francitas
616 Wadsworth

521
60
SOUTH TEXAS

NUCLEAR PROJECT

016ol I egeport
35
Matagorda Ice,
Palacios

Source: South Texas Project Media Information Kit.

Map 3

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT SITE

410-ft. WIDE TR
MISSION LINE
TO DANEVANG
PROPERTY LIMITS
METEOROLOGICAL TOWER
R -- _\ ,

RELOCATED 100-ft. WIDE TRANSMISSION
FM 521 ESSENTIAL LINE R/W TO VELASCO
COOLINO
POND
too-it. WIDE TRAN VISITOR'S CENTER
MISSION LINE RIW
TO LON HILL LINE PLANT ACCESS ROAD

1512 METER RADIUS
EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY

KE LLY
NEA;EST OCCUPIED LA.E
HOU E/FARM __J
HEAVY HAUL ROAD

DIKE
M;@ UP MAKE-UP
PIP@LINE PUMP STATION
RELOCATED LITTLE MBANKMENT
RO SLOUCH BARGE
OBINS
BLIP & WHARF

DIKE SPILLWAY & BLOW-
DOWN FACILITIES-,

EMBANKMENT

SPILLWAY DISCHARGE CHANNEL
1 0.5 0 1 MILE BLOWDOWN PIPELINE

(Modified from U.S.A.E.C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, South Texas
Project units I and II)

5. SITING PROCESS

Siting of the South Texas Project was a process of elimination,
using evaluation criteria established by the guidelines of various per-
mitting agencies and by operational requirements. Criteria mandated
by permitting agencies included geotechnic, demographic, land use,
ecoological, and meteorological characteristics. Operational criteria
included hydrological characteristics (for cooling water) and economic
factors.

The siting process proceeded from general areas to specific sites
(using the factors listed above) to judge the suitability of regions
and sites for both regulatory and operational requirements. After
specific sites were selected using this process, final site selection
was made on the basis of cost effectiveness comparisons.

Though the South Texas Project siting process appears to be cut
and dried, there was a degree of flexibility that is not evident in
a superficial description of the process. Since the siting process
used increasingly specific criteria, there was always the possibility
that a region or a site might ultimately prove unsuitable, even if it
had met all previous standards. In addition, in the words of D. R.
Betterton of Houston Lighting and Power, siting involves many subjective
factors in a "fine balance of judgments" that cannot be made simply by
fladding things up."

The prime contractor for the project, Brown and Root, performed
the siting study, though supplementary studies were made by other con-
sulting firms. The study involved preliminary selection of candidate
regions, final evaluation of candidate regions, site selection, and
cost comparison of candidate sites. A numerical rating system was used
for each level of the site selection process and for each factor con-
sidered. The rating system assigned a value of 0 to conditions not
presently feasible from engineering or economic standpoints, and ranged
incrementally to a value of 5 for particularly favorable conditions.

Preliminary selection of candidate regions was based on the presence
of adequate water supplies (hydrological characteristics) and lack of
serious geotechnic problems within the 52,000 square mile combined
service area of the owners of the South Texas Project. This geographic
region, roughly bounded by an imaginary line from Houston to Austin,
to San Antonio, to Corpus Christi and back to Houston, including the
offshore portion of the Texas Gulf coast between Corpus Christi and

Houston, was divided into inland and coastal water regions. Rating
of inland regions was based on sufficiency and availability of fresh
surface water, while rating of coastal regions considered fresh, brackish,
or saltwater availability and accessibility.

Initial geotechnic evaluation of candidate regions focused on soil,
stratigraphic, and seismic characteristics of the regions. An evalu-
ation was made of typical soil conditions related to the dominant geo-
logic formation and the suitability of subsurface materials for nuclear
power plant foundations. Notation was made of any geologic features
which might make nuclear power plant siting significantly less desir-
able. General assessments were made of foundation design and construc-
tion requirements for each region, including probable seismic design
criteria.

Preliminary screening of candidate regions produced 10 areas with
hydrologic and geotechnic characteristics that seemed to Warrant further
investigation. Those areas were:

1. Colorado River East Coastal
2. Colorado River North Coastal
3. Colorado River West Coastal
4. Lavaca/Guadalupe Rivers Coastal
5. Brazos River West Valley
6. Lower Colorado River Valley
7. Lower Brazos River Valley
8. Brazos/Galveston Valley
9. Guadalupe River North Central
10. Lavaca River East Coastal,

Final evaluation of candidate regions used more specific hydrologic
and geotechnic characteristics than were used in preliminary evaluation.
Final evaluation was also based on ecology, land use, demography, and
meteorology. Descriptions of aquatic and terrestrial ecology in each
of the candidate regions were developed. Predominant land uses within
the entire region were considered as well as specific land uses (i.e.
oil and gas production, recreation, etc.) applicable to sizeable portions
of each region. Four principal demographic factors were looked at:
(1) 1970 population density, (2) 2020 population density, (3) projected
population growth rate between 1970 and 2020, and (4) the proximity
of the region to the nearest metropolitan area (i.e. city of 25,000).
The meteorological factors considered included topography, ventilation,
dispersion, and annual average relative humidity (South Texas Project
Environmental Report, 1974).

These evaluation criteria were weighted as follows: hydrology,
25 percent; geotechnic considerations, 25 percent; ecology, 15 percent;
land use, 15 percent; demography, 10-percent; and,meteorology, 10 percent.
Screening of the 10 candidate regions using.these evaluation factors
allowed rational selection of five regions (defined as counties) for

an even more specific site search. Those counties were Calhoun, Colo-
rado, Fayette, Jackson, and Matagorda (South Texas Project Environmental
Report, 1974).

Site selection within the five counties used the same factors em-
ployed in screening of candidate regions, but in greater detail. Can-
didate counties were considered in order of preference. Matagorda
County was considered first due to particularly favorable hydrological
characteristics. Fayette and Colorado Counties were considered next.
Jackson County was considered fourth in priority, primarily for testing
using saline water for cooling a plant some distance from the shore.
Calhoun County sites were not actively pursued due to limitations of
fresh water availability and lack of access to the southern part of
the region. Offshore siting was considered, but it was not pursued
due to uncertainties of the feasibility of offshore floating power plants.

Initial site identification was made through use of topographic
maps, aerial photographs, and other published data. Eight potential
sites were identified: four in Matagorda County, one in Fayette County,
one in Colorado County, and two in Jackson County. After this identi-
fication of eight candidate sites was made, a team of ecology, land
use, and construction specialists visited each candidate site to gather
necessary data for final site selection. In addition to the land-based
sites, offshore nuclear siting concepts were also considered.

The final part of the site selection process was a cost comparison
of candidate sites. Acquisition costs for each site were estimated
by professional real estate appraisers. Differential construction and
operating costs were estimated through preliminary designs for each
site. Construction personnel visited each site to assess further the
differential construction costs. Transmission costs were estimated
for each site. (The city of Austin was not a participant at that time
and was not figured into transmission cost estimates.) Detailed tech-
nical and environmental evaluations were made for each site to quantify
major factors and to allow cost effectiveness comparisons. Those factors
and their relative weights were: cost differential, 50 percent; geo-
technic considerations, 10 percent; land use, 10 percent; demography,
5 percent; terrestrial ecologyj 10 percent; aquatic ecology, 10 percent;
meteorology, 5 percent. Two Matagorda County sites ranked first and
second on the basis of the cost-effectiveness evaluation. The site
ranked number one was selected for the project.

6. SUITABILITY OF THE MATAGORDA COUNTY SITE

This chapter describes the characteristics of the South Texas Project
site in Matagorda County in regard to each of the factors used in the
selection process. Because five of the seven factors (geotechnic, demo-
graphic, land use, ecological, and meteorological factors) are mandated
by Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements, brief descriptions of
those requirements are included.

HYDROLOGIC FACTORS

Eichholz (1976) makes the following point:

Adequate cooling water must be available and the site must
be suitable for dissipating the heat in an environmentally
acceptable fashion . . .. Within a given geographical area
access to cooling water may often be a dominant selection
criterion, but the type of cooling used will usually be deter-
mined by the site selected, not the other way around.

Four alternative cooling methods were considered for the South
Texas Project. The methods considered were cooling reservoir, spray
canal, mechanical draft wet cooling towers, and natural draft cooling
towers. Once-through cooling with Colorado River water was not considered
because the temperature and salinity of blowdown waters could exceed
standards allowed for discharges by the Texas Water Quality Act and
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Likewise, dry cooling towers
were not considered because the technology for their use had not been
sufficiently developed, and there were no cases of dry cooling towers
having been used on power plants the size of the South Texas Project.
The point is made in the South Texas Project Environmental Report that
local environmental factors did not provide a clear choice between
the various cooling alternatives. However, economic factors and the
capability to handle two additional units swayed the decision toward
the cooling reservoir.

GEOTECHNIC FACTORS

Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines (10 C.F.R. 100, Amendment
A) require two types of geotechnic investigations. First, all recorded
earthquakes in the region in a radius of up to 100 miles must be listed.
Second, where appropriate, geologically recent faulting in surface and
bedrock must be located. The proposed plant design is tested on the
criterion of the design earthquake, which is the combination of the
most severe motions from any earthquake which may affect the site.

The geological characteristics of the Gulf Coastal Plain Physio-
graphic Province, in which Matagorda County is located, do not give
rise to serious seismic problems. According to the South Texas Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

The Gulf Coast of Texas is a relatively inactive seismic area.
Faults within the coastal plain are characterized as growth
faults whose activity results in 'creep' as opposed to the
more severe ground movements usually associated with seismic
activity. Although faults do occur within the site area,
there is very )ittle seismic activity related to faulting.

Summarizing Amendment A of 10 C.F.R. 100, Eichholz (1976) says:

Natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanic action, land-
slides, flooding, and tsunamis are potentially so catastrophic
that their possible occurrence at any site could be considered
as sufficient cause to exclude the site from further consider-
ation.

Flooding, particularly due to hurricanes, was the only one of these
factors considered to be a possible hazard at the South Texas Project
site. The plant was, therefore, designed with the intention of being
able to withstand any such natural catastrophe which might occur in
the area.

DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

A rural, low-density population area is dictated by Nuclear Regu-
latory Commission (NRC) guidelines for location of a nuclear generating
plant. In order to ensure low population exposure to the "design-basis
accident," NRC exercises three requirements of nuclear plant siting
in respect to population. Those requirements involve the "exclusion
area," "the low population zone," and the "population center."

The exclusion area is defined as "that area surrounding the reactor
in which the reactor licensee has the authority to determine all activi-
ties including exclusion or removal of personnel or property from that
area" (10 C.F.R. 100). The exlusion area is determined to be:

an area of such size that an individual located at any point
on its boundary for two hours immediately following onset
of the postulated fission product release would not receive
a total radiation dose to the whole body in excess of 25 rem
or a total radiation dose in excess of 300 rem to the thyroid
from iodine exposure. (10 C.F.R. 100)

The exclusion area for the South Texas Project comprises a 1,512-meter
radius around the reactor area (see Map 3).

The low population zone is defined to be:

of such size that an individual located at any point on its
outer boundary who is exposed to the radioactive cloud re-
sulting from the postulated fission product release (during
the entire period of its passage) would not receive a total
radiation dose to the whole body in excess of 25 rem or a
total radiation dose in excess of 300 rem to the thyroid from
iodine exposure. (10 C.F.R. 100)

Though documents for the South Texas Project do not specify a boundary
for the low population zone, radiation exposure levels for normal plant
operation and for postulated accidents were calculated for cumulative
population in concentric zones from one to 50 miles from the plant.
Figure 1 shows annual cumulative doses from normal operation, and Figure
2 lists estimated doses to population in a radius of 50 miles of the
plant resulting from various classes of postulated accidents. The esti-
mated 1980 population in the 50-mile radiu's is approximately 265,000
people.

The final NRC requirement relating to population in the plant area
is that the nearest population center should be at least 30 percent
farther than the distance to the outer boundary of the low population
zone. The nearest population center is defined as any densely populated
area containing more than about 25,000 people. The city nearest the
South Texas Project which meets that definit-ion is Victoria, 59 miles
away. However, since the population of Bay City for the year 2020 is
projected to be about 24,000, Bay City was designated the population
center. The corporate limits of Bay City are 12 miles from the site
boundary. This distance met NRC criteria as sufficient distance between
the plant and the nearest population center.

Figure 1

CUMULATIVE POPULATION, ANNUAL CUMULATIVE DOSE, AND
AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL-BODY DOSE DUE TO GASEOUS
EFFLUENTS IN SELECTED ANNULI ABOUT THE PLANT

Cumulative Cumulative Annual Average
radius population cumulative dose annual dose
(miles) (man-rem) (mil ,rem)

1 0 0.0 0.0
2 0 0.00 0.0
3 66 0.00 6.1 X10-3
4 575 0.00 1.9 X10-3
5 1.206 0.00 1.7 X10-'
10 4,281 0.01 ' -3 X10-3
20 31,085 0.02 4.8 X10-1
30 56.200 0.02 3.4 X10-4
40 159,961 0.03 2.0 X10-1
50 264,852 0.04 1.4 X10-4

Source: United states Atomic Energy Comission. 1974. South Texas
Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Figure 2
SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS'

Estimated fraction Estimated dose
of 10 CF R 20 to population
Class Event limit at site in 50-mile
boundarvb radius
(man-rems)

1.0 Trivial incidents c C

2.0 Small releases outside containment C c

3.0 Radwaste system failures
3.1 Equipment leakage or malfunction 0.015 1.1
3.2 Release of waste gas storage tank contents 0.06 4.5
3.3 Release of liquid waste storage contents 0.002 0.12
4.0 Fission products to primary system (BWR@ N. A.d N. A.
5.0 Fission products to primary and secondary systems (PWR)
5.1 Fuel cladding defects and steam generator leaks c c
5.2 Off-design transients that induce fuel failure above those <0.001 <0.1
expected and steam generator leak
5.3 Steam generator tube rupture 0.02 1.5
6.0 Refueling accidents
6.1 Fuel bundle drop 0.003 0.24
6.2 Heavy object drop onto fuel in core OM6 4.1
7.0 Spent fuel handling accident
7.1 Fuel assembly drop in fuel rack 0.002 0.15
7.2 Heavy object drop onto fuel rack 0.008 0.6
7.3 Fuel cask drop 0.048 3.6

8.0 Accident initiation events considered in design basis evaluation
in the SAR
8.1 Loss-of-coolant accidents
Small break 0.034 4.5
Large break 0.39 170
8.1 (a) Break in instrument line from primary system N. A. N. A.
that penetrates the containment
8.2(a) Rod ejection accident (PWR) 0.039 17
8.2(b) Rod drop accident (BWR) N. A. N. A.
8.3 (a) Steamline breaks (PWR's outside containment)
Small break <0.001 <0. 1
Large break <0.001 <0. I
8.3(b) Steamline break (B%VR) N. A. N. A.

'The doses calculated as consequences of the postulated accidents are based on airborne transport of radioactive
materials resulting in both a direct and an inhalation dose. The staff's evaluation of the accident doses assumes that
the applicant's environmental monitoring program and appropriate additional monitoring (which could be initiated
subsequent to a liquid release incident detected by in-plant monitoring) would detect the presence of radioactivity in
the environment in a timely manner such that remedial action could be taken if necessary to limit exposure from
other potential pathways to man.
b Represents the calculated fraction of a whole-body dose of 500 millirems or the equivalent dose to an organ.
'These releases are expected to be in accord with proposed Appendix I for routine effluents (i.e., 5
millirems/year to the whole body from either gaseous or liquid effluents).
dN. A. = not applicable.

Source: United states Atomic Energy Commission. 1974. South Texas
Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

COASTAL ZONE
IINIFORMATION CENTER 21

LAND USE FACTORS

The location of a nuclear generating plant must meet several land
use guidelines set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 10 C.F.R.
100 regulations for the low population zone indicate that it should
not contain concentrations of people such as major militar install-
y
ations, prisons, or educational institutions. None of these existed
closer than eight miles from the South Texas Project site. In addition,
it must be shown that the probability of an airplane crash affecting
the plant in such a way as to cause release of radioactive materials
in excess of 10 C.F.R. 100 guidelines is less than 1 in 10,000,000 per
year. With no scheduled commercial flights and no military aircraft
bases in the county, the project site was considered to be within accept-
able limits of probability.

Potentially hazardous industrial facilities and activities within
five miles of the site were identified. The Celanese petrochemical
plant is the only major industrial facility located in the vicinity
of the South Texas Project. This plant is located approximately five
miles from the site, a distance considered sufficient to provide required
safety. New plants within the low population zone are not automatically
precluded. However, the South Texas Project is continually monitored
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure that no design-based
accident will occur. In addition, other agencies require environmental
reviews that would scrutinize the South Texas Project and might provide
a factor limiting development. Such cases would be judged individually.

In accordance with NRC guidelines, aesthetic and recreation values
were considered in site layout, selection of cooling method, and selec-
tion of transmission routes. No land used for the South Texas Project
had previously been used expressly for recreation. However, the project
will provide a visitor center, a picnic area, and a public boat ramp
for access to the Colorado River. In addition, a nuclear plant cannot
supplant any place of significant historical or archeological interest.
An archeological survey was made of the area, and the Texas State Histor-
ical Survey Commission certified that the proposed facility would not
affect historical or archeological resources.

Preemption of land from other productive uses is another important
land use question. Eichholz (1976) says that for prospective nuclear
sites "to keep land costs reasonable, previous land use may include
marginal farming, wood lots or open pasture." The only major local
opposition to the South Texas Project was from rice farmers who resisted
taking several thousand acres of land from production. A study was
made to show that significant amounts of unused land capable of sup-
porting rice production were available in the county. Nevertheless,
the local opposition continues to maintain that highly productive land
should not have been used for an industrial site (United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Public
Hearings).

METEOROLOGICAL FACTORS

The three major meteorological concerns of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission are dispersion of the radioactive cloud in the event of a
major accident, fogging and icing resulting from cooling water evapo-
ration, and storm damage to the plant resulting in radiation loss.
The meteorological factors considered for the South Texas Project were
topography, ventilation, dispersion, annual average relative humidity,
extreme wind speed expected once in 100 years, and frequency of tornado
occurrence. The only specific meteorological problem that had to be
dealt with in the South Texas Project site was that of high water from
tidal backwash and rain from hurricanes. These were handled by appro-
priate drainage modifications.

ECOLOGICAL FACTORS

Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines require that an applicant
for a construction permit for a nuclear generating facility must describe
existing environmental conditions of the proposed plant area and make
an assessment of the environmental impact of the planned facility.
The summary preliminary environmental assessment of the Matagorda County
area was as follows:

Wildlife habitat conditions are poor to fair; vegetation is
sparse because of extensive agricultural activity. The coastal
area is marshy and terminates in Matagorda Bay, a sensitive
estuarine zone. The region is in the range of wolf, coyote,
fox and deer. Ducks and geese winter in the area. The present
stress level is fairly high due to the agricultural activity.
Due to the poor habitat conditions in the agricultural areas,
removal of several thousand acres would have minimal impact
on the regional ecology. Pipelines to the Gulf would cross
the sensitive estuarine zone but adverse effects would be
limited to the construction period. Indiscriminate withdrawal
of make-up water from the Colorado River could impact the
aquatic biology of the river and Matagorda Bay.
(South Texas Project Environmental Report)

The only rare or endangered species directly affected by the project
is Attwaters Prairie Chicken, whose range is crossed by some of the
transmission lines. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement outlined
mitigative actions to reduce this impact.

The South Texas Project site, complete with the cooling reservoir,
consists of approximately 12,352 acres. This includes 3,800 acres of
farmland, 3,600 acres of ranch land, and 1,700 acres of natural habitat.
A large portion of the watershed for Little Robbins Slough will be preempted
by the cooling reservoir.

Transmission lines will total 398.7 miles, with right-of-way be-
tween 100 and 400 feet wide. Approximately 123 miles of transmission
lines will be visible from highways. Of the total transmission line
right-of-way, 14.3 percent passes through wooded areas, 16.7 percent
through scrub areas, 29.3 percent through pasture, 33.1 percent through
cropland, and 5.1 percent through marshland. A total of 720 acres
of woodland will be cleared for transmission lines (South Texas Project
Environmental Report).

ECONOMIC FACTORS

(The economic values discussed below are those of 1974-75, when
siting decisions were being made.)

The site for the South Texas Project cost $11,952,144.49, including
mineral rights (city of Austin, Electric Utility Department, 1976).
That averages approximately $970 per acre for the 12,352 acres. At
the time of acquisition, land in this area of Matagorda County was
selling for approximately $350 per acre without mineral rights, according
to County Judge Bert Huebner.

Construction material costs will total approximately $638 million,
of which an estimated $82 million will be spent locally. Construction
labor for Units I and II will cost an estimated $158 million (South
Texas Project Environmental Report, 1974).

The primary transportation needs for nuclear power plants include
heavy-duty roads and navigable water or rail access for shipment of
large reactor parts (Gifford, 1974). Transportation of fuel and wastes
requires heavy-duty roads, but the volume of this transportation is
minimal compared to that required by a coal-fired plant. The South
Texas Project has good road and water access. The plant will require
398.7 miles of transmission lines with an estimated cost of $63,434,000,
including right-of-way.

Among other reasons, the South Texas Project was sited in Matagorda
County on the Colorado River in order to have a source of water for
its cooling lake. When Houston Lighting and Power (acting for the South
Texas Project) applied to the Texas Water Rights Commission for water
allocation, the application was challenged by the Lower Colorado River
Authority on the grounds that insufficient unappropriated water existed
in the river. Houston Lighting and Power entered into a contract with
the Lower Colorado River Authority to buy up to 102,000 acre-feet of
water per year at $10 per acre-foot per year. The contract was approved
by the Texas Water Rights Commission. The Lower Colorado River Authority
holds an allocation of up to 102,000 acre-feet of water per year to
sell to the South Texas Project. Texas Attorney General John Hill chal-
lenged the decision of the Water Rights Commission to issue a permit
based on the contract and brought suit against the Commission. The

Water Rights Commission subsequently agreed to a rehearing on the matter, but
after 17 months of hearings the Water Rights Commission issued a permit based
on the contract between the Lower Colorado River Authority and Houston Lighting
and Power. This second decision by the Water Rights Commission was reached on
June 20, 1977. Attorney General Hill has again brought suit against what is now
the Texas Department of Water Resources, Water Rights Division. A subsequent
Texas Supreme Court decision ruled that the attorney general could not bring
suit against a state agency, which had the effect of voiding the attorney
general's suit against the Water Rights Commission.

The South Texas Project has removed 3,800 acres of cropland and 3,600 acres
of grazing land from production. This resulted in a loss of about $2.4 million
per year in farm products and wages. Discounted over the life of the project,
this value is estimated to be $24.3 million (South Texas Project Environmental
Report).

At the time of land acquisition for the plant, land in Matagorda County was
selling for an average of $350 per acre. In the fall of 1977 land was selling
for approximately twice that figure. Local explanations of this increase range
from the inflationary effects of the South Texas Project to the observation that
rice and soybeans have increased in value and restrictive allotments have been
removed, stimulating more production and increasing the competition for land.

It was estimated in the South Texas Project Environmental Report (January
20, 1975) that the project would pay an estimated $565 million in discounted
lifetime tax payments to local, state, and federal taxing bodies. That estimate
was made on the assumption that the shares of the plant owned by the cities of
Austin and San Antonio would not be taxed. However, in January of 1978, Matagorda
County filed suit against Austin and San Antonio for payment of property taxes
in the hopes of being able to tax the additional 44 percent of the project owned
jointly by Austin and San Antonio. That question has not been resolved as of
September 1978.

Employment resulting from the South Texas Project is projected to involve
16,385,600 man-hours of employment in construction, with an income value of $158
million. Operation and maintenance over the projected 30-year life of the plant
will generate 7,500,000 hours of employment, with a discounted lifetime income
value of $19.7 million. In addition to this direct employment, it is projected
that approximately 80 service-oriented jobs will develop as a result of plant
construction and operations. The lifetime value of these jobs was estimated to
..be $7 million (South Texas Project Environmental Report).

7. SITE ACQUISITION

The process of site acquisition for the South Texas Project used
two levels of local contact. First, throughout the project, local nego-
tiations have been handled by Central Power and Light (CP&L), since
the South Texas Project is located in CP&L's service area. Second,
a local attorney was retained to act as trustee for CP&L in land ac-
quisition; agents acting for this trustee contacted landowners and made
their offers. It was necessary to use condemnation proceedings against
two of the owners involved. The acquisition process was simplified
in that one 5,500-acre tract needed for the project was already on the
market (Gwin, 1977). Public announcement of the impending project was
not made until about 75 percent of the land was acquired. The county
judge was not consulted about the project by the companies involved
until the land had already been acquired and the formal public announce-
ment was made on June 6, 1973.

8. OPPOSITION TO THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

Opposition to nuclear power plant siting has received dramatic
publicity in several instances. However, opposition to the South Texas
Project was minimal. The opposition that did arise focused on nuclear
power in general, the cost of the project, and the specific site. Oppo-
sition to nuclear power in general was based on safety and environmental
problems. People in Matagorda County had an underlying apprehension
of the nuclear plant, but these fears were relieved by explanations
from CP&L officials who are highly trusted by the community concerning
safety precautions (Huebner, 1977). Though opposition to nuclear power
plants was vocal, the only lasting voice of that opposition was the
Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. Included in the Final Environ-
mental Statement for the South Texas Project is a letter from the Lone
Star Chapter of the Sierra Club which details the club's objections
to the use of nuclear power and the chosen location of the South Texas
Project.

The strongest opposition to the project came in Austin and focused
on the cost of the project. Of the four project participants, the city
of Austin is the only one that had to go to the voters for authorization
to participate in the project. The debate surrounding the referenda
necessary to this process raised questions concerning project costs.
However, these questions were largely unique to Austin's participation
and had no bearing on plant siting.

The major opposition to siting the South Texas Project in Matagorda
County came from a few rice farmers who were directly affected by the
project. Their specific objection was that the site chosen for the
project contained some of the most productive rice land in the county.
They thought the project should be built on less productive ground.
A special study on the agricultural impacts of the project was included
in public hearing testimony. This study indicated that the approxi-
mately 3,800 acres taken out of production would have no measurable
effect on food supplies of the nation, nor would the local seven-county
area be affected economically. The study pointed out that Matagorda
County has large reserves of Classes I, II, and III land which are suit-
able for rice production. However, the study said that availability
of water for rice irrigation was the main limiting factor. The study
did not quantify the amount of suitable land with water that is avail-
able in the county. Local rice farmers still feel the plant should
have been sited elsewhere (Savage, 1977).

9. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS AND HEARINGS

The first public announcement about the South Texas Project was
made at an invitational gathering of community leaders and electric
company officials at the Oasis Motor Hotel in Bay City on June 6, 1973.
Mr. Barney M. Davis, President of Central Power and Light Company, de-
livered the address. Mr. Davis described the project and its benefits
to Matagorda County. He mentioned some of the reasons for selecting
Matagorda County for the plant location and explained the rationale,
including safety precautions, in selecting nuclear power. At the time
of this announcement, approximately 75 percent of the land for the
project had been acquired.

Three hearings were held by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
Bay City. The first, on Tuesday, April 22, 1975, was attended primarily
by local businessmen and officials, plus a number of other individuals.
Responses of business and community leaders were typified by that of
W. C. Jackson, mayor of Palacios. Jackson said:

It (South Texas Project) is the greatest thing that's hap-
pened to Matagorda County since the discovery of oil and gas
forty years ago. One final word to the Commission. The back
of our hand to the so-called environmentalists who put the
environment of alligators and crickets above improving the
environment of mankind. We feel that an abundance of energy
is necessary to maintain our way of life and standard of
living. (NRC Hearing Transcripts)

Mr. E. L. Gentry, vice-president of Bay City Bank and Trust, and
immediate past president of the Bay City Chamber of Commerce, reported
on a questionnaire mailed to 420 members of the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Gentry reported that 68 percent of the questionnaires were returned,
and 86 percent of these were in favor of the project, 6 percent were
undecided,, and 8 percent were opposed.

Six individuals spoke in opposition to the project. James Hughes,
representing Friends of the Earth, called for "small independent energy
sources," while James Morgan Scott questioned compliance of the South
Texas Project with the Federal Flood Insurance Act. George Bunk ("I
am a nobody and my following is all other nobodies back in the woodwork.")
and Harley Savage protested the removal of agricultural land from pro-
duction. Eugene Mueller and Randall Bailey expressed concerns about
the safety of the plant.

The second public hearing in Matagorda County was held by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, J. G.
Arnold, chairman. The hearing was held at the Oasis Motor Hotel on
August 27, 1975. This hearing was attended primarily by representatives
from various agencies and Houston Lighting and Power and served the
purpose of publicly describing reactor safeguards. The third public
hearing was held on November 12, 1975. Additional hearings on reactor
safety and antitrust concerns were held in Washington, D.C., and Bethesda,
Maryland.

10. LOCAL IMPACTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations require projections of
expected social and economic impacts resulting from construction and
operation of a nuclear power plant. A detailed socioeconomic impact
assessment of the South Texas Project was prepared by the NUS Corporation
(U.S. NRC Hearings, 1975). This assessment dealt with the major factors
of population, housing, schools, hospital and medical facilities, trans-
portation, public safety, recreation, water and sewerage capacity, and
economic benefits to the community. The socioeconomic impact report said
that in each of these cases the area would be able to absorb the impacts
of the plant without great difficulty. Current local assessment of impacts
substantiate the projections of the socioeconomic study except for a few
major areas. A description of the results of the socioeconomic impact
assessment follows, as well as a discussion of some of the immediate impacts
of and reaction to the siting process.

Projected maximum employment for construction of the South Texas
Project was 2,108 workers during 1978. Average employment for 1977 was
projected to be 1,621 workers. However, by the end of August 1977, 3,100
workers were employed by the project. Mr. D. R. Betterton, manager of the
Environmental Protection Department of Houston Lighting and Power, explained
that employment in excess of projected levels is difficult to avoid since
timely completion of the South Texas Project generating facility is crucial
in order to be "on line" to meet peak loads in its scheduled completion year.
Consequently, the contractor takes all necessary steps to ensure timely
completion of the project. These steps include increasing the work force.
Mr. Betterton made the point that studies are made of the capacity of the
area to absorb workers in addition to the original projected levels of
employment.

In order to help Matagorda County officials prepare for the possible
impacts of the South Texas Project on their county, the South Texas Project
arranged for them to visit with officials in three other counties where
nuclear plants are located. However, these trips were not made until
after June 6, 1973.

County Judge Bert Huebner (Houston Post, August 28, 1977, and per-
sonal communication) stated that the most noticeable impacts of the
project have been on the highways and the jail. The socioeconomic

impact assessment noted that automobiles of workers and trucks hauling
construction materials would have major impacts on the roads in the
county. A 9.5 mile stretch of U.S. Highway 71 in the northern part
of the county has been "wrecked." The judge said that if more "lead
time" had been given, the county could have responded to expected impacts
in order to prevent current problems such as these and to deal with
the situation more effectively. At the same time, however, he would
not have considered halting the project in order to get more lead time.
Other roads in the county have required increased maintenance, but they
are generally in good condition.

Economic impacts described by the socioeconomic impact assessment
were discussed previously. The socioeconomic impact assessment also
described characteristics of law enforcement agencies in the county.
The study made the point that law enforcement personnel would be in-
creased as population grew. No projections were made of crime rates.
County Sheriff Sam Hurta (Houston Post, August 28, 1977) indicated that
crime rates have increased between 75 percent and 100 percent since
plant construction began. Judge Huebner stated that the dollar figure
of fines through the county court has almost doubled for 1977, compared
to 1976. In addition, Judge Huebner reported that the county parole
officer has received approximately 50 parole referrals of individuals
employed to work on the project who are on parole in some other county.

The characteristics of the region surrounding a nuclear plant are
important to the smooth, successful completion of the project and to
the viability of communities located in the project area. Since con-
struction of a nuclear project requires five years or more and employs
upwards of 3,000 workers, the magnitude of impact on rural areas is
great. Siting a nuclear facility in an area with little capacity to
absorb a major population increase would produce problems for successful
completion of the project. Specifically, an area without sufficiently
large towns and cities within reasonable driving distance would not
provide essential services for a major work force. The South Texas
Project is located between Bay City and Palacios in Matagorda County.
These cities, particularly Bay City, were seen to be sufficiently large
to-absorb the impact of the 3,100 construction workers currently employed
by the project. However, even though Bay City had a 1970 population
of nearly 12,000, housing shortages have occurred, and housing is inflated
in cost.

Introduction of several thousand workers into a rural community
had obvious impacts. According to the Matagorda County judge, abrupt
declines in economic activity did not occur when the workers withdrew
from the three areas he visited where nuclear plants were already located.
However, withdrawal of those workers and their families could have pro-
found effects. Texas has not yet seen the completion of a nuclear
facility, and longitudinal studies of communities with completed facilities
are not available. Thus, it is impossible to determine whether the
hopes of continued development will materialize.

11. SUMMARY

Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines, along with other federal,
state, and local requirements, govern the siting of nuclear facilities.
The South Texas Project, owned jointly by Houston Lighting and Power,
Central Power and Light, City Public Service of San Antonio, and the
city of Austin, is a case in point. This study has detailed the steps
of the siting process from the initial decision to locate along the
Texas Gulf coast due to the need for more generating capacity, to the
selection of the specific site in Matagorda County near Bay City. It
thus serves as an illustration of the procedures necessary to the siting
of any such facility. In addition, local reaction to the process as
well as immediate local impacts were detailed. No attempt has been
made to discuss other related issues such as the economic feasibility
of the'nuclear power plant, the efficiency of nuclear power as compared
to other types of power, and the moral and environmental issues con-
cerning the advisability of the use of nuclear energy.

Appendix

NUCLEAR PLANT SITING CONSTRAINTS

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Due to the potential danger of radiation, the undetermined effects
of radiation from nuclear plants, and the publicly dictated necessity
to take every precaution, nuclear power plants are governed by more
exhaustive regulations than perhaps any other civilian activity. In
addition to the usual environmental impact assessment required for most
major installations, nuclear plants are governed by the Nuclear Reg-
ulatory Commission guidelines, especially those outlined in Title 10,
C.F.R. Part 50, Licensiu of -Production and Utilization Facilities;
Title 10, C.F.R.-, Part 51, Licensin@ and Regulating Polic@ and Procedures
for Environmental Protection; and Title 10, C.F.R. Part 100, Reactor
Site Criteria. Furthermore, the 1971 Calvert Cliffs decision-'l-nTFe
District-OTTolumbia Court of Appeals requ@ires-t-Fe-Tu-cT-e-ar--regulatory
Commission to ensure that nuclear plants meet environmental protection
criteria, not simply to ensure that other federal and state agencies
are monitoring the facility. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission guide-
lines both proscribe and prescribe the location of a nuclear site.
Simultaneously, however, state and local governments maintain their
authority to prevent or halt construction of a nuclear facility, as
for any facility which does not meet legal requirements.

Issuance of permits by the NRC depends on the resolution of four
main problem areas during construction and operation. Those are (1) pre-
vention of undue risk to public health and safety, (2) resolution of
environmental impacts to the extent that environmental damage is out-
weighed by the benefits of the plant, (3) prevention of sabotage and
loss of fissionable material, and (4) prevention of violation of antitrust
laws.

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1889, Section 10 (33 U.S.C.
403), the Corps of Engineers is responsible for issuina permits for
modifications to navigable waterways. Intake and discharge structures
for cooling water and pilings for monitoring devices in waterways must
be licensed by the Corps of Engineers. In its permitting process, the
Corps of Engineers submits applications to the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Interior, in addition to state agencies,
for their review.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

At the present time, the Environmental Protection Agency, acting
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, has
not approved the amended provisions of the Texas Water Quality Act.
Consequently, the Texas Department of Water Resources is not authorized
to approve applications for discharge, and approval must be sought from
EPA. Such approval was obtained by Houston Lighting and Power Company
on behalf of itself and the other participants of the South Texas Project
with NPDES Permit No. TX0064947. However, amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act are expected soon. These amendments will
probably clear the way for the Texas Department of Water Resources to
issue permits for discharge.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

It is necessary under article 77.13 of the Federal Aviation Regu-
lations that the Federal Aviation Administration be notified of con-
struction of the containment building for the nuclear reactor.

STATE AGENCIES

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, WATER RIGHTS DIVISION

Section 5.121 of the Texas Water Code requires the issuance of
a permit by the Water Rights Division for the appropriation and diversion
of waters from rivers and streams in the state of Texas. In addition,
the Water Rights Division must approve construction of intake and dis-
charge structures and the cooling water reservoir for the project.
Permits obtained by Houston Lighting and Power Company on behalf of
itself and the other participants of the South Texas Project are Permit
No. 3233, which has since been signed over to the Lower Colorado River
Authority, and Permit No. CP-327.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, WATER QUALITY DIVISION

The Texas Water Quality Act and its amendments charge the Water
Quality Division with enforcement of water quality standards in streams,
rivers, lakes, underground water, and estuaries within the territorial
limits of the state. A nuclear power plant which discharges cooling
blowdown water into a body of water which falls under the jurisdiction
of the Water Quality Division must apply for a permit for that discharge.

Likewise, discharge of sanitary wastes into such waters must be per-
mitted by the Water Quality Division. Since the Texas Department of
Water Resources has not received permitting authority from the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (see discussion above) these applications must
be sent to EPA for their approval. The permit obtained by Houston
Lighting and Power Company from the Texas Water Quality Board was Permit
No. 01908.

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department enforces the provisions
of the Texas Water Quality Act involving effects on aquatic life or
wildlife in violation of the Texas Water Quality Act.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RESOURCES

The Texas Department of Health Resources makes recommendations
to the Texas Department of Water Resources about water quality and solid
waste disposal matters. The Texas Department of Health Resources must
license use of nuclear material for calibration of nuclear equipment.
This licensing is carried out through the Radiation Control Agency,
which is part of the Department of Health Resources. The Radiation
Control Agency coordinates and approves emergency plans for evacuation
in the event of accident, and it monitors emissions outside the plant
boundaries. If these emissions violate standards, the Radiation Control
Agency contacts the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has enforcement
powers.

TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD

Under provisions of the Texas Clean Air Act, the Texas Air Control
Board issues permits for construction of facilities which may affect
air quality. The major air pollutant from a nuclear plant is from
testing of emergency diesel power generators. However, the Texas Air
Control Board exempts standby generators. Thus, no TACB permit was
required for operation of the facility. However, a permit to burn waste
during construction was obtained.

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

The Public Utilities Commission requires certification of all power
generation facilities, including nuclear plants. Though guidelines
have not yet been developed, the certification process through the
Public Utility Commission requires engineering reviews and justification

of need. The Public Utility Commission Examiner calls hearings and
makes a determination on whether or not certification should be awarded.

OTHER STATE AGENCIES WITH REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES

Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation

Texas Railroad Commission

Texas Industrial Commission

Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board

Texas State Historical Survey Committee

General Land Office

Texas Department of Agriculture

Texas Forestry Service

Bureau of Economic Geology

Governor's Office of Budget and Planning

LOCAL AGENCIES AND GROUPS

Texas counties generally have no permitting or land use regulatory
powers, nor do regional agencies or associations. However, it is usual
for private builders to consult with county officials, the council of
governments, area council or regional planning commission, city officials,
the local office of the Soil Conservation Service, and any local interest
groups including chambers of commerce.

REFERENCES

Betterton, D.R. Houston Lighting and Power. Personal interview. Novem-
ber 14, 1977.

Butler, R., Ex-mayor, city of Austin, Texas. Telephone interview.
October 17, 1977.

Eichholz, G., 1976. Environmental Aspects of Nuclear Power. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Electric Utility Report on South Texas Nuclear Generating Station and
Other Generating Options. City of Austin Electric Utility Depart-
ment. March 30, 1976.

Friedman, J., Ex-mayor, city of Austin, Texas. Personal interview.
October 10, 1977.

Gifford,, F.A. 1974. Power reactor siting: A summary of United States
practice. In L. A. Sagan, Human and Ecological Effects of Nuclear
Power Plants. Charles C. Thomas. Springfield, Illinois.

Gwin, L. P., Bay City attorney. Personal interview. October 12, 1977.

Hancock, R.L., Director of city of Austin Electric Utility Department,
Personal interview. October 17, 1977.

Houston Lighting and Power Public Hearings. Texas Water Rights Commission.
January 20, 1976 - June 20, 1977.

Huebner, B., Matagorda County Judge. Personal interview. October 11,
1977.

Hussey, J., Dames and Moore, Houston. Telephone interview. October
13, 1977.

Levett, F., Librarian, Public Documents Room, Matagorda County Court
House. Bay City, Texas. Personal interview. October 11, 1977.

Houston Post. Nuclear project ignites South Texas financial boom.
Auqust 28, 1977.

Roe, J. W. and J. H. Vanston. 1975. Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants.
Center for Energy Studies. The University of Texas at Austin.

Savage, H., Triangle Cattle Company, Bay City, Texas. Telephone inter-
view. October 13, 1977.

South Texas Project Environmental Report. Houston Lighting and Power.
November 1974.

South Texas Project Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. Houston Lighting
and Power. November 1974.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 1974. Draft Environmental Impact State-
IL ment. South Texas Project Units I and II.

1975. Final Environmental Impact Statement. South
Texas Project Units I and II.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10
Part 50 Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities
Part 51 Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environ-
mental Protection
Part 100 Reactor Site Criteria

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Early Site Reviews for Nuclear
Power Facilities. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations. May
1977.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-
guards Public Hearings. Bay City, Texas. Wednesday, 27 August,
1975.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hearings. Houston Lighting and
Power, South Texas Project. Bay City, Texas. Tuesday, 22 April,
1975.

COASTAL 7-0,
INFORMATION CENTER

DATE DUE

GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN U S A

fill 11111111111011111111
-3- -668_1410-6 5815 ---