ML071430497

Responses 39, 41- 44, and 46 - 51, to Master List for Audit Needs of NRC Request for Additional Information Re License Renewal Application

ML071430497
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	05/09/2007
From:	Wolf Creek
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ET 07-0017
Download: ML071430497 (433)

Text

39. Residential locations, by city and county, of full-time WCGS employees.

Land Use/Socioeconomics Page 1 of 1" Residential locations, by city and county, of full-time WCGS employees.

• Approximate on-site land area used by major structures and facilities, in square feet.-Information on plant noise and what can be heard at the site boundaries." Records of public water usage by WCGS (e.g., water bills from City of Burlington)." Federal lands and Native American lands inthe area." Information regarding the source of the water Public Wholesale District 12 and the City of Burlington distribute as potable water.

Hooper Diane M From: Dale Julie A Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:14 PM To: Hooper Diane M

Subject:

City/County Diane -Attached is the info you requested.

Thanks, Julie Countyl.xls 1

Americus -_1 Auburn 1 Burlingame 1 Centerville 1 Eskridgle 1 Fort Scott 1 Lane 1 Moran 1 Neosho 1 Neosho Falls 1 North Bethesda 1 Overbrook 1 Paola 1 Quenemo 1 Shawnee 1 Wakarusa 1 Welda 1 Wellsville 1 Bern/ton 2 Chanute 2 Kincaid 2 Lawrence 2 Richmond 2 Parker 3 Princeton 3 Wichita 3 Williamsburg 3 Carbondale 4 Scranton 4 Colony 5 Madison 5 Neosho Rapids 5 Vassar 5 lola 6 Olpe 7 Pomona 7 Reading 7 Olathe 8 Osage City 10 Overland Park 10 Hartford 12 Lyndon 14 Melvern 14 Yates Center 14 Westphalia 16 Gridley 19 Topeka 22 Le Roy 34 Garnett 38 Ottawa 50 Lebo 56 Neosho 1 Wabaunsee 1 Bourbon 1 Erie I Bethesda, MD 1 Douglas 2 Miami 2 Sedgwick 3 Linn 4 Greenwood 5 Allen 8 Woodson 15 Johnson 19 Shawnee 26 Osage 54 Anderson 61 Franklin 66 Lyon 162 Coffey 519 New Strawn 61 Waverly 75 Emporia 130 Burlington 273

41. Information on plant noise and what can be heard at the site boundaries.

Land Use/Socioeconomics Page 1 of 1" Residential locations, by city and county, of full-time WCGS employees.

° Approximate on-site land area used by major structures and facilities, in square feet.* Information on plant noise and what can be heard at the site boundaries.

• Records of public water usage by WCGS (e.g., water bills from City of Burlington).

• Federal lands and Native American lands in the area.* Information regarding the source of the water Public Wholesale District 12 and the City of Burlington distribute as potable water.

ON-SITE LAND AREA WCGS occupies 9,818 acres. The acreage beyond the site property is leased as farmland and rangeland.

The site buildings and adjacent areas comprise 135 acres, and the WCGS cooling pond (Coffey County Lake) occupies 5,090 acres plus 60 acres for the dam and dikes. The site also includes a 31-acre pond originally constructed primarily to receive lime sludge. Buildings on the property include the reactor containment building, turbine building, auxiliary building, control building, fuel handling facility, switchyard, radioactive waste building, training center, visitor's center (includes Emergency Operations Facility and the simulator), outdoor firing range, and other supporting buildings.

The surrounding area is mostly flat to gently rolling landscape with occasional sedimentary rock outcroppings.

Maximum topographic relief is 100 feet or less from the uplands to the valley floors. The land is primarily used for rangeland and farmland, with occasional woodland in river and creek bottoms. The rangeland is mostly native and tame (introduced) grass, brush, and managed pastures.The Wolf Creek Environmental Education Area is an approximately 500-acre nature area accessiblT from 17th Road near the north end of the site property.

It consists of five trails that guide the visitor through a variety of natural Kansas habitats, including native tall grass, woodlands, and wetlands.

Added to the natural areas are shelterbelts, planted trees, restored native grasses, developed wetlands, and planted winter food plots for wildlife.

The area is the result of a partnership between private citizens, civic organizations, local, state, and federal governments, and the WCGS owners.ON-SITE STRUCTURES Given the flat nature of the viewscape, the WCGS containment building is a prominent feature of the area. The structure is approximately two hundred and thirty four foot high.Interconnecting structures include the fuel building, control building, auxiliary building, diesel generator building, and the turbine building.The turbine building is a horizontal structure with a lower profile than the reactor building.Its steel structure has metal siding and is approximately one hundred and fifty foot high..The radwaste building is located nearby, facing the fuel building.

Also included among the power block structures are the condensate storage tank, refueling water storage tank, reactor makeup water storage tank, dematerialized water tank, emergency fuel oil storage tanks, and several transformers vaults.Railroad sidings are installed to serve the fuel and turbine buildings.

The main access railroad leads into the site from the north and branches into several spurs, which provide access to the outlying structures and encircle the principal building complex.The major non-power block structures include the administrative building, general office building, Technical Support Center, switchyard, shop building, security building, sewage treatment plant, warehouse, circulating water pumphouse, circulating water discharge structure, meteorological tower, and the essential service water pumphouse.

Also located around the site complex are several storage tanks and small buildings for storage of acid, compressed gasses, water and fuel oil.The Emergency Operations Facility, Simulator, Visitors Center complex is located about 2 and 3/4 miles northwest of the station.The upper part of the station is visible from U.S. Highway 75, which is 2-% miles 4,est.The station is also visible from a number of local roads, some of which pass within 1-Y2 miles. Most other structures are low-visibility structures that do not appreciably change the skyline of the station.PLANT NOISE.Noise measurements are not available for the WCGS site. However, noise generated by WCGS operations is mitigated at the nearest receptor because the plant is buffered by undeveloped rangeland and the cooling lake. Most equipment is located within the plant buildings further reducing off-site noise levels.Higher noise levels are created when testing on-site alarms and off-site warning sirens.

42. Records of public water usage by WCGS (e.g., water bills from City of Burlington).

Land Use/Socioeconomics Page 1 of 1" Residential locations, by city and county, of full-time WCGS employees." Approximate on-site land area used by major structures and facilities, in square feet." Information on plant noise and what can be heard at the site boundaries.

• Records of public water usage by WCGS (e.g., water bills from City of Burlington).

• Federal lands and Native American lands in the area." Information regarding the source of the water Public Wholesale District 12 and the City of Burlington distribute as potable water.

WCNOC Water Consumption Report Feb.06 -Jan.07 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Actual Consumption (gal.)470000 626000 714000 780000 910000 720000 591000 794500 765000 1582000 190000 533000 8675500 Daily Average (gal.)14687.5 22357.1 21636.4 26000 29354.8 24000 11820 26483.3 25500 51032.3 6333.3 17193.5 276398.2 Water meters are read by the 20th of each month.This report only shows information for meter 120 which is the main line running into Wolf Creek.Wolf Creek does have 6 other water meters that service the: EOF, Learning Center, Nature Trail, Lake Access and the North and South residents.

A water leak was identified in Mar-06 and repaired in Oct-06 with an estimated leak rate of 10 gpm./6142t zllýja-leil-

--Avg

43. Federal lands and Native American lands in the area.

Land Use/Socioeconomics Page 1 of 1* Residential locations, by city and county, of full-time WCGS employees." Approximate on-site land area used by major structures and facilities, in square feet." Information on plant noise and what can be heard at the site boundaries.

• Records of public water usage by WCGS (e.g., water bills from City of Burlington).

• Federal lands and Native American lands in the area." Information regarding the source of the water Public Wholesale District 12 and the City of Burlington distribute as potable water.

FEDERAL LANDS AND INDIAN RESERVATIONS Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Reclamation Department of Defense (includes Army Corps of Engineers lakes)Fish and Wildlife Service / Wilderness Forest Service /Wilderness National Park Service / Wilderness Some small sites are not shown, especially in urban areas.MILES 0 20 40 60 80 Albers equal area projection Abbreviations AFB Air Force Base IR Indian Reservation NWR National Wildlife Refuge C* IOWA 0NEBRASKA" Sac And Fox Iowa Indian Indian Reservation Reservation I F racis Oberlin Nsorton .ebanon LKickaoo Lebas-un ,, * ) -Hiawatra.

Frncs thn Love eli Mays ie ickloo> ' , L-aKeith Sebelius iir.n .Rese orr Indian Reservatio

., SLake Nati onal Wildlife Refuge I --.Concord, F.Lavnw rt_-_. --_ ./- " ...._ T -u ttle C re e k P o ta a t o m i IR e a e w o t bri n """ 0 -.- .. ,'m " n ,a"on da- clay Cetl [. Tlak I e v n ot'x~ r- Webster Lake Lan\aa P venr ...Reservoir Lak Ka"sashta, Pry.Y ---- -....- Milfo4ke ee KansasC:WuteiiWlsn enopkaC wrence* ' l'Blu ilene. ;S Foroes AFb -Park* C. .l.' Russel Wilson Salina., Cot! ,nton Lake Sunflower..

Reservoir Lake-- Ri)/r.Army Ammun ion.......Hiv ll o-- Council Grove Pomonan i Lake M Ivern .e-.ntawa PlantKanopolis:-, Air Force Range aria Lke. De g'es Lake Targraete Lake Tallgrns Nine Flint Hills Garnett FortiLac ed Nation Preserve ; Garnel NLe i _ ra.N John Redmond Atonal Historic Site .a e a h e m n SyraJnlr~e

~ Huchinh (Riservoir

., Newton ,- ! " if...* ___ Garden City in * /Center.4insly y Ch ni !Ayl Doradii Yat Ceder.ott"4,' Reservo El0rd.Lake Toronrto Ulyses .odge City El W i ach oa/ Lae o) r~' ' Fall River I-- -- ~ Pr6fxt- ./3/4. Kingnn Lae r-' .Sublette.

-> 7 McCo nell Fal ivr A , Air F rce Base PsLakei rg.Meade Medicinn Lu -Elý City Partus Plss'Mehade \ Wellington, W41eild Indepen e Lae '-na ,ber 1 mJ- Cimarron Natlonal r Lake .Csfeyville lant'i-jElkrh-, " .Liberal Cpn Am m uiif OK HAGrassland -asa-OKLAHOMA I TEXAS Ii:'a 6 ited*SS i IT- --R"; L ' R--TN IRI U

44. Information regarding the source of the water Public Wholesale District 12 and the City of Burlington distribute as potable water.

Land Use/Socioeconomics Page 1 of 1-Residential locations, by city and county, of full-time WCGS employees." Approximate on-site land area used by major structures and facilities, in square feet." Information on plant noise and what can be heard at the site boundaries." Records of public water usage by WCGS (e.g., water bills from City of Burlington).

• Federal lands and Native American lands in the area." Information regarding the source of the water Public Wholesale District 12 and the City of Burlington distribute as potable water.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment Public Water Supply Section Capacity Development Program March 2006 Public Wholesale Water Supply District Status Date Water Source Status Public Wholesale Water Formed Supply District PWWSD #1 Edgerton 8/15/77 None Dissolved-1983 Gardner.Spring Hill Johnson Co. RWDs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 6-A, 7 .PWWSD #2 Melvem 5/1/78 None Dissolved-Mid 1980s Revived in 1989 as Waverly PWWSD #12 with expanded membership.(AN Co. RWD 4 & OS Co. RWD 4) "__" PWWSD #3 Gamett 9/1/78 None Inactive -Garnett built iake and sells to AN Anderson Co. RWDs 2, 4, 6 Co. RWDs 4 & 6 PWWSD #4 Altamont 9/30/80 Big Hill Lake- Active -Water production for members since Bartlett KWO Water 1985 Cherryvale

.Marketing Contract Edna I Mound Valley Parsons Labette Co. RWDs 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 Montgomery Co. RWDs 2, 4, 6, 12 Neosho-Labette Co. RWD 4 PWWSD #5 Colony .9/16/80 Neosho River- Active -Water production for members since La Harpe Cottonwood/Neosho 1985 with a water treatment plant near the Moran Assurance District Neosho River Walnut Allen Co. RWDs 4, 6, 8, 16 Anderson Co. RWD 5 Bourbon Co. RWD 2C Neosho-Allen Co. RWD 2 PWWSD #6 Tonganoxie 5/21/82 Bonner Springs Active -Supplies water to members through a Leavenworth.Co.

RWDs 6 & 9 ..water purchase contract with Bonner Springs PWWSD #7 Sedgwick CO. 12/22/82 Unknown Unknown Sedgwick Fire District #1 PWWSD #8 Butler Co. RWD 3 7/26/82 City, of El Dorado Active -.Supplies water to members through a State Park at El Dorado Lake water purchase contract with El Dorado PWWSD #9 Gridley .7/1/85 None Inactive -Gridley and Hamilton purchase from Hamilton Burlington and Madison, respectively and Virgil Virgil connected to Wilson RWD 9 Greenwood Co. RWD 3 PWWSD #10 Abilene McPherson 10/7/88 None Inactive -District originally considered BelAire Moundridge Milford Lake as a possible source of water Chapman Newton supply with a pipeline for members to connect Halstead Park City to along a route from Milford to Wichita.Hesston Salina Members have since pursued other options to Hutchinson Sedgwick address water supply needs.Lindsborg Valley Center Wichita

",A Public Wholesale Water Date Water Source Status'Supply District Formed PVWWSD #11 Arcadia 4/10/89 Bone Creek MPSL.. Active -Water production for members since Arma March 2000 with a water treatment plant near Cherokee Bone Creek Lake Chicopee Columbus Girard Mulberry Weir West Mineral Cherokee RWD 6 (not a voting member)Crawford Co. RWD2D 2 & 6 PWWSD #12 Lebo 9/11/89 Melvern Lake -Active -Water production.for members since Lyndon KWO Marketing 1995 with a treatment plant near Melvern Melvem Contract Lake.Pomona Quenemo Possible addition of Franklin Co. RWD #4, Waverly Anderson Co. RWD #3 and City of Richmond Williamsburg contingent upon funding from USDA Rural Anderson Co. RWD 4 Development.

Coffey Co. RWD 3 Osage Co. RWD 4 PWWSD #13 Amoret, MO 1/4/94 Critzer Dam MPSL Under Construction

-District secured funding Blue Mound (Little Sugar Creek) for construction of MPSL through the State Fulton Conservation Commission and funding from Greeley USDA Rural Development for the treatment Hume, MO plant and distribution system. Construction Mound City started in the Summer 2005 with an estimated Parker completion of Fall/Winter 2006.Anderson Co. RWD IC (2&6)Bourbon Co. RWD 2C Linn Co. RWD 1, 2 & 3 PWWSD #14 Kechi 2/1/94 Unknown Unknown Valley Center Butler Co. RWD 7 Sedgwick Co. RWDs 1 & 2 PWWSD #15 Hays 2/22/96 Unknown Under Development

-District is identifying Russell and evaluating potential sources of water. The treatment and distribution system will be determined based upon the source selected.PWWSD #16 Douglas Co. RWDs 4 & 5 2/13/97 Clinton Lake Inactive -District formed to explore the~feasibility of building a water treatment plant at Clinton Lake to meet the growing demands on their systems due to rapid growth in rural Douglas County. RWDs opted for other alternatives.

PWWSD #17 Halstead 2/4/97 Wells Active -Water production for members since Newton February 2001 from 4 wells in Harvey Co.North Newton Sedgwick PWWSD #18 Holton 9/15/97 Banner Creek Active -Construction of MPSL and treatment Jackson Co. RWD 3 MPSL plant completed.

Water Production for members since 2003.

"<.3 Public Wholesale Water Date Water Source Status Supply District Formed PWWSD #19 Baxter Springs 2/16/98 Spring River Under Development

-District is exploring Columbus options for funding.Galena Riverton (CK Co. RWD 9)Scammon Cherokee Co. RWDs 1, 2, 3, 7 PWWSD #20 Cedar Vale 7/24/98 Quivera Boy Scout Active -Phase I completed, water service Chautauqua Lake commenced February 2006 to Sedan, Grenola .Chautauqua,.

Chautauqua RWDs #1 & #3 and Peru Peru. Phase II funded by USDA Rural Sedan ,. Development with construction scheduled to Chautauqua Co. RWDs 1, 2,3,4 begin Spring/Summer 2006.Montgomery Co. RWD 5.PWWSD #21 Holton 7/5/00 Unknown Under Development

-District cooperated with.Horton the Kickapoo Tribe, the Kansas Water Office Marysville and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on a McLouth Northeast Kansas regional public water supply Nortonville study. Sources of water considered include the Oskaloosa Missouri River, Perry Lake, Tuttle Creek Lake Sabetha .and a proposed MPSL on the Kickapoo Seneca I Reservation.

The district continues to explore Valley Falls options for regional cooperation.

Some Winchester members are pursuing alternatives separately.

Atchison Co RWD 4 Jackson Co RWDs 1, 3 Jefferson Co. RWDs 1, 3, 9, 12 Nemaha Co. RWDs 3, 4 Pottawatomie Co. RWD 2 Shawnee Co. RWD 4 PWWSD #22 Derby 8/1/00 Unknown Inactive -District was formed to explore water Mulvane supply options. Members are pursuing Sedgwick Co. RWD 3 alternatives separately.

PWWSD #23 Altoona 10/12/00 Bg- Hil-l Lake Under Development

-District received Buffalo KWO Waner funding for design and construction from Fredonia Mar,,ting Cntra.. USDA Rural Development.

District is Neodesha working with engineer to develop final plans Thayer Fall River via and specs for upgrade of Fredonia treatment Montgomery Co. RWDs 9, 12 Fredonia Intake & plant and the distribution system.Neosho-Labette Co. RWD 4 water rights Neosho Co. RWDs 6, 7, 9, 12 (additional water Wilson Co. RWDs 1, 2, 5, 7, 10,11, 13 right must be Woodson Co. RWD I secured).PWWSD #24 Elk City 11/10/2003 Unknown Under Development-District received Howard funding under KDHE's PWS Regional Supply Longton Grant Program to conduct a preliminary Moline engineering study. The study indicated the Severy best alternative was a connection/consolidation Elk Co. RWD #2 with PWWSD #20. An agreement has not been finalized between PWWSD #24 & 20.

CITY OF BURLINGTON, KANSAS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS/UTILITIES Landfill Projects Recycling Centers Sanitary Sewer Service Rates Street Department Wastewater/

Sewer Water LANDFILL:

-COFFEY COUNTY LANDFILL Location:

1498 12th Lane SE; Burlington, Kansas Mailing Address: Coffey County Engineer 110 S. 6th Street; Room 5 Burlington, KS 66839 Phone: (620)364-2048 or 800-232-9423

/ FAX 620-364-5192 Hours: Monday -Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.1st & 3rd Saturday of Month: 8:30 a.m. -4:30 p.m.THE COFFEY COUNTY SANITARYLANDFILL, owned and operated by Coffey County, is approximately one mile northeast of Burlington.

All solid waste is brought to the existing landfill from six incorporated communities by commercial haulers and from rural areas by individual residents.

As of 1996, permitted area occupies approximately 40 acres, and receives approximately 15,000 cubic yards of waste per year.In December 2001, Coffey County the new Coffey County Landfill was officially opened with a ribbon cutting ceremony.

The first six cells of the new Landfill were completed at an estimated cost of $1,000,000 and has a life expectancy of more than forty years. Although this phase of the project is completed, this is an on-going project.Ordinance 606 approves a special use to establish the following:

limestone mining, crushing, stockpiling; temporary production of asphalt concrete; facilities for noxious weeds, household hazardous waste, recycling collection, waste tire monofill reduction and shredding, composting site; a solid waste management office, truck scales, scale house, groundwater monitoring wells, methane monitoring wells, lechate collection and treatment, storage of specialized Highway Department equipment and materials, and other used accessory to solid waste management operations in the 1-2 Heavy Industrial District.NOTE: Household Hazardous waste should be taken to the Coffey County Noxious Weed Department which is located next to the Coffey County Recycling Center. Tires: In 2004, Coffey County Landfill began charging a fee for tire disposal.COFFEY COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL RATES K.D.H.E. Permit No. 297 Effective January 1, 2005[Call 620-2048 for further information.]

All loads must be tarped or properly secured and all household waste, paper, and burned material mustbe bagged.PASSENGER CAR ][$ 2.50 per load Solid Waste (In County) JF$15.00 per ton ($5.00 minimum)Solid Waste (Out of County) $23.00 per ton ($7.50 minimum)TIRESI[Passenger Car Tires 11$ 1.00 each Passenger Car Tires on Rim 11$ 2.00 each Truck Tires 1[$ 5.00 each Truck Tires on Rim 11$10.00 each Rear Tractor Tires 11$15.00 each.Off-road Tires $30.00 each PERMITTED SPECIAL WASTE [KDHE Permit Required]55 Gallon Barrel 11$15.00 each 15 Gallon Barrel $ 6.25 each IN County 11$15.00 per ton [$5 minimum]OUT of County 11$23.00 per ton [$7.50 minimum]CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION Call: 620-364-2048,j IN County $112.50 per ton [$5 minimum]lOUT of County $20.50 per ton [$7.50 minimum]RECYCLING CENTERS: COFFEY COUNTY RECYCLING CENTER Telephone:

(620)364-8409 Hours: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and 1730 t400 Friday I3 a.m. to 4 p.m.Wednesdays 117:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.Saturdays (1st & 3rd Sat. of month) 8:00 a.m. to noon Location:

1432 12th Lane SE -Go east on Neosho Street out of Burlington; follow the signs. The Recycling Center is about a quarter of a mile west of the Coffey County Landfill.

For more information on the Recycling Center and on disposal of household hazardous waste, contact the Coffey County Noxious Weed Department.

CURBSIDE RECYCLING CALL THE RECYCLING CENTER FOR INFORMATION RECYCLING TRANSFER CENTER Metals and Metal Appliances 11 11 11 Telephone 1620-364-2151

[Hosford's]

11 MHours onday -Friday 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.Location I East of Burlington

-CALL FOR PICKUP STREET DEPARTMENT:

Doug Mast, Street Superintendent P.O. Box 207; 901 South 10th Burlington, KS 66839 Phone: (620)364-2703/FAX:

(620)364-2996 Email: burlstreets@mchsi.com Burlington has a total of 515.5 blocks of streets totaling 42.95 miles. This does not include a new housing development, development of Commerce Park, or the three industrial parks. There are no natural streets, 57 rock streets, 312 chip & seal (cold mix) streets, 75 hot mix streets, and 16 concrete streets in the City. (See also: "City Departments/Services")

WATER/WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT Dennis Smith, Water/Wastewater Superintendent P.O. Box 207; 101 E. Miami St.; Burlington, KS 66839 Phone: (620)364-8332/FAX:

(620)364-2996 Email: h2oburlington@mchsi.com See also: "City Departments/Services", and"Transportation/Industry/Economic Development", "Utilities" WATER: The City of Burlington not only supplies water to residents and business within the city limits, but also to Industrial Parks #1, #2, #3, and #4 just south of the city on U.S. Highway 75. The city also supplies water to Rural Water District No. 2, Rural Water District No. 3, the City of Gridley, the City of LeRoy, and the City of New Strawn.I Water Statistics Supplier I[City of Burlington Source [Neosho River ICapacity of Water Plant: ]F1,500 gal per minute. 2.1 MGD fAverage Consumption

]1600,000 gal/day Peak Demand: [I1,200,000 gal/day 1.2 MGD IStorage Capacity 1[450,000 gal~~Ikvmcauis 16 s As/kLr osf vs/ýr j0t)/ t4, 4r WASTEWATER/SEWER:

The sewage collection system for the City of Burlington has developed along with the expanding population to serve the residential and business activities.

The system consists largely of 8" gravity lines, however, there are a few 10" and 12" mains in the critical areas. The main lift station, located near Second Street and St. Lawrence Street, pumps directly to the sewage treatment plant. There are seven smaller lift stations located throughout the City, one of which also pumps directly to the sewage treatment plant.Sewer Lagoons -The City of Burlington has recently built new sewer lagoons on approximately 59.74 acres south of Burlington and east of Highway 75.Email: sburlingtond@mchsi.

com Visit the Home Page for Kansas A service of the Kansas State Library January 17, 1998

46. Examples of the implementation of these policies and procedures during past ground surface disturbing activities.

Cultural Resources Page 1 of 1* WCNOC policies and procedures concerning the identification and documentation of cultural resources in advance of ground surface disturbing activities.

-Examples of the implementation of these policies and procedures during past ground surface disturbing activities.

I.Al o F CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Al 07-002 EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE EVALUATION Responsible Manager Manager Regulatory Affairs Revision Number 3 Use Category Reference Administrative Controls Procedure No Management Oversight Evolution No Program Number 07 DC38 8/4/2006 Revision:

3 EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE AI 07-002 EVALUATION Reference Use Page 1 of 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 1.0 PURPOSE 2 2.0 SCOPE 2

3.0 REFERENCES

AND COMMITMENTS 2 4.0 DEFINITIONS 3 5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 4 6.0 PROCEDURE 5 7.0 RECORDS 7 8.0 FORMS 7 Revision:

3 EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE AI 07-002 EVALUATION Reference Use Page 2 of 7 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 This document provides methods to determine and document whether plant design or operational changes constitute an unreviewed environmental question according to criteria in the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP).2.0 SCOPE 2.1 Anticipated plant design or operational changes with potential environmental impact identified in accordance with AI 26A-003, REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN 10 CFR 50.59) shall be evaluated in accordance with this procedure.

2.2 Unanticipated operational events may be evaluated in accordance with this procedure.

3.0 REFERENCES

AND COMMITMENTS 3.1 References 3.1.1 Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions 3.1.2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, "Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues", June 21, 2001.3.1.3 Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR)3.1.4 Appendix B to Facility Operating License No. NPF-42, Environmental Protection Plan (Nonradiological) (EPP)3.1.5 NUREG-0878, Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1 (FES-OLS)3.1.6 NUREG-75/096, Final Environmental Statement related to the construction of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 (FES-CP)3.1.7 Wolf Creek Generating Station Environmental Report -Operating License Stage (ER-OLS)3.1.8 Wolf Creek Generating Station Environmental Report -Construction Permit Stage (ER-CP)3.1.9 AP 15A-003, RECORDS 3.1.10 AP 07-002, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM Revision:

3 EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE Al 07-002 EVALUATION Reference Use Page 3 of 7 3.1.11 AP 26A-004, COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC)3.1.12 AP 26B-001, REVISIONS TO THE OPERATING LICENSE AND/OR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 3.1.13 AI 26A-003, REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN 10 CFR 50.59)3.2 Commitments 3.2.1 None 4.0 DEFINITIONS 4.1 Cultural Resources 4.1.1 Means areas, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture.4.2 On-site Area 4.2.1 For the purposes of EPP evaluation, an on-site area is that property within the Owner Controlled Area..4.3 Owner Controlled Area 4.3.1 Property contiguous to the reactor site and acquired by fee title or easement for Wolf Creek Generating Station. This includes the 9,818 acres occupied by the site. (Reference 3.1.3 section 2.1.1.2)4.4 Site Preparation 4.4.1 Any on-site area ground-disturbing activity including but are not limited to, clearing and grubbing, plowing, excavating, digging and trenching, post driving or pole erection.4.5 Unreviewed Environmental Question 4.5.1 A proposed change, test or experiment which may result in one or more of the following:

1. a significant increase in an adverse environmental impact previously evaluated by the NRC, 2. a significant change in effluents or power level, 3. a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated by the NRC which may have significant adverse environmental

impact, Revision:

3 EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE AI 07-002 EVALUATION Reference Use Page 4 of 7 4. The following exceptions apply to this definition.

a. a change, test, or experiment with measurable nonradiological environmental effects confined to an on-site area previously disturbed during site preparation for plant construction, b. a change required by other Federal, State, and local environmental regulations.

5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 Supervisor Regulatory Support 5.1.1 Ensures preparation of design and operational.change evaluations for design packages received from other WCNOC personnel.

5.1.2 Ensures participation of appropriate organizational disciplines in preparation of evaluations.

5.1.3 Ensures resolution of comments generated as part of the evaluation review process.5.1.4 Obtains concurrence from the Manager Regulatory Affairs when an evaluation indicates that a change involves an unreviewed environmental question, reduces the effectiveness of the EPP, or an EPP change is required.5.2 Environmental Manaqement 5.2.1 Prepares evaluations as directed by thesupervisor.

Revision:

3 EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE AI 07-002 EVALUATION Reference Use Page 5 of 7 6.0 PROCEDURE 6.1 Design or operational changes that require evaluation for a potential unreviewed environmental question may be initiated from any source, but will typically be initiated by AI 26A-003, REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN 10 CFR 50.59).6.2 Upon receipt of a design or operational change determined to possibly involve an unreviewed environmental question, Form AIF 07-002-01, EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE EVALUATION shall be completed by Environmental Management.

The evaluator shall: 6.2.1 Log the sequential EPP evaluation number and enter the number on the evaluation form, 6.2.2 Identify applicable change package references, 6.2.3 Provide a summary of the change, 6.2.4 Provide a justification for each yes or no answer for documentation purposes, 6.2.5 Include source documents including section, subsection and topics which define the level of environmental impact previously evaluated by the NRC pertinent to the change (i.e., References ER-CP, FES-CP, ER-OLS and FES-OLS).6.3 IF an evaluation is required, THEN Form AIF 07-002-01 should be attached to a completed Form AIF 26A-003-01.

NOTE Question 2.B on Form AIF 07-002-01 should be interpreted to mean only changes mandated by a regulatory authority.

Changes made by design or operational choice will not be considered as necessary to achieve compliance with other environmental regulations, and therefore will require an unreviewed environmental question determination.

6.4 IF either questions 2.A OR 2.B on Form AIF 07-002-01 are answered yes, THEN an unreviewed environmental question determination is not required.

Section 3 on Form AIF 007-002-01 can be skipped.6.5 IF the change involves an unreviewed environmental question, THEN prior NRC approval is required and shall be acquired in accordance with EPP Section 3.1 and AP 26A-004, COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC).

Revision:

3 EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE AI 07-002 EVALUATION Reference Use Page 6 of 7 6.5.1 IF any of questions 3.A, 3.B, or 3.C on Form AIF 07-002-01 are answered yes, THEN an unreviewed environmental question exists.6.5.2 IF review by Environmental Management indicates that an unreviewed environmental question may exist, THEN concurrence from the Manager Regulatory Affairs is required.6.6 IF the change decreases the effectiveness of OR requires a change to the EPP, THEN an EPP change request shall be submitted to the NRC in accordance with EPP Section 5.3, AP 26A-004, COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) and AP 26B-001, REVISIONS TO THE OPERATING LICENSE AND/OR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.

6.6.1 IF questions 4.A, or 5.A on Form AIF 07-002-01 are answered yes, a decrease in the EPP effectiveness OR a change to the EPP exists.6.6.2 IF review by Environmental Management indicates that the change reduces the effectiveness of the EPP, OR requires an EPP change, THEN concurrence from the Manager Regulatory Affairs is required.The NRC staff concluded in NUREG-0878 that operation of the station will not result in any significant impact on cultural resources in the on-site area as there are none presently known.(Reference 3.1.5 section 5.7).6.7 IF question 6.A on Form AIF 07-002-01 is answered yes, THEN the change involves site preparation activities that have the potential to discover cultural resources.

6.7.1 IF cultural resources are discovered during site preparation, THEN all activity within a 50-foot radius of the discovery will cease AND Environmental Management will be immediately notified.1. IF cultural resources are confirmed, THEN Environmental Management will notify the Manager Regulatory Affairs.a. The NRC will be notified in accordance with AP 07-002, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM.b. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)at the Kansas State Historical Society will be notified by Environmental Management to evaluate the newly discovered cultural resources.

Revision:

3 EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE AI 07-002 EVALUATION Reference Use Page 7 of 7 2. Confirmed cultural resources shall not be disturbed without prior concurrence from the SHPO.7.0 RECORDS 7.1 The following QA records are generated by this procedure:

7.1.1 Completed EPP Plant Design Or Operational Change Evaluation Forms (AIF 07-002-01).

8.0 FORMS 8.1 AIF 07-002-01, EPP Plant Design Or Operational Change Evaluation

-END -

AIF 07-002-01 Rev. 2 Page 1 of 4 EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE EVALUATION No.1. GENERAL

SUMMARY

Document Number Rev Summary of Design or Operational Change: 2. EXCLUSIONS:

IF either questions 2.A OR 2.B listed below are answered yes, THEN an unreviewed environmental question determination is not required.

Section 3 on this form can be skipped. Provide explanations complete with applicable source document references.

2.A. Are all measurable nonradiological environmental effects confined to the on-site areas previously disturbed during site preparation and plant construction?

Answer: Yes El or No F]Explanation:

2.B. Is this design or operational change required to achieve compliance with other Federal, State, and local environmental regulations (EPP section 3.3)?Answer: Yes El or No l Explanation:

TE file 42072 Records file 21.7 AIF 07-002-01 Rev. 2 Page 2 of 4 EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE EVALUATION

3. UNREVIEWED ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION DETERMINATION:

An environmental question must meet one or more of the following criteria to be classified as unreviewed.

Provide explanations complete with applicable source document references.

3.A. Does this change constitute a matter, which results in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated by NRC?Answer: Yes L- or No-Explanation:

3.B. Will this change constitute a significant change in effluents or power level?Answer: Yes --I or No F-1 Explanation:

3.C. Will this change constitute a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in licensing documents, which results in a significant adverse environmental impact?Answer: Yes r-] or No I Explanation:

TE file 42072 Records file 21.7 AIF 07-002-01 Rev. 2 Page 3 of 4 EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE EVALUATION

4. EPP EFFECTIVENESS:

4.A Does this design or operational change constitute a decrease in the effectiveness of the EPP in meeting its objectives?

Answer: Yes El or No D Explanation:

5. EPP CHANGE: 5.A Does this design or operational change necessitate an EPP change?Answer: Yes F-1 or No D Explanation:

6. CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACT DETERMINATION:

6.A Does this change have the potential to discover cultural resources not previously reviewed and evaluated in licensing documents?

Answer: Yes or No F1 NOTE: Previous evaluation indicates that impacts to cultural resources should not be expected (reference NUREG 0878, FES-OLS Section 5.7). If question 2.A. is answered yes, then it should be identified in applicable planning and work authorization documents that if any cultural resources are discovered during site preparation, work shall be stopped and Environmental Management contacted.

Explanation:

TE file 42072 Records file 21.7 AIF 07-002-01 Rev. 2 Page 4 of 4 EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE EVALUATION If this design or operational change has been determined to be unreviewed with significant environmental impact, reducing the effectiveness of the EPP, or constitute an EPP change, a written evaluation must be submitted to the NRC and approval received PRIOR to initiation of the change. Submittals shall be in accordance with AP 26A-004 and AP 26B-001.Evaluation prepared by: Prepared by: Date Supervisory approval: Manager approval:/Supervisor Date/Manager Date (Manager approval required only if the design or operational change involves an unreviewed environmental question, reduces the effectiveness of the EPP, or requires an EPP change.)TE file 42072 Records file 21.7 d_WNULF CREEKP' NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Kevin J. Moles .Manager Regulatory Affairs FEB 2074200 RA 04-0026 Kansas Department of Health and Environment Attention:

Mr. Alan Brooks Bureau of Water -Industrial Programs Section 1000 SW Jackson St., Suite 420 Topeka, Kansas 66612-1367

Subject:

Notice of Intent for Storage Site Project the Wolf. Creek Generating Station Sediment

Dear Mr. Brooks:

.Please find enclosed with this letter a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a check for sixty dollars ($60.00) for.a construction project that will start on June .1, 2004, at Wolf Creek Generating Station. Attachment 1.0 to this letter contains the Sediment Storage Site Project description.

Also included on the attachment is the additional information required by the NOI for this construction project, A stormwater pollution prevention (SWP2) plan has been developed for this construction project.Please contact Mr. Ralph Logsdon at (620) 364-8831, extension 4730, if you have any questions regarding this submittal.

KJ M/rl Attachment Enclosures cc: Mr. Joe Mester, KDHE P.O.Box 411 I Burlington, KS 66839 I Phone: (620) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employaer M/F/HCVET 5See Attached Sheet for Instructions

• NOTICE OF INTENT (NoI)E L 9/ For Stormwater Runoff fromConstruction Activities Authorized by a Kansas Water Pollution Control General Permit SNo. 0 Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimrination System Submission of this Notice of Intent constitutes notice that the party identified in Section I of this form requests authorization for coverage under the Kansas Water Pollution Control general permit, or KDHE authorized successors, issued for stormwater runoff from construction activities in the State of Kansas. Becoming a permittee obligates the discharger to comply with the terms and conditions of the general permit. Completion of this NOI does not provide automatic coverage under the general permit. Coverage is provided and discharge permitted when the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) authorizes the NOI. A signed and dated copy of the authorized NO] will be provided to the owner or operator.

Upon authorization of the NOI, a Kansas permit number and a Federal permit number will be assigned to the construction project. ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS ACCOMPANIED BY THE $60 ANNUAL PERMIT FEE WILL BE PROCESSED.

KDHE WILL NOTIFY APPLICANTS WHOSE APPLICATIONS ARE INCOMPLETE, DEFICIENT, OR DENIED. Please Print or Type.I. OWNER OR OPERATOR ADDRESS & RECORD LOCATION INFORMATION Owner or Operator's Name: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corpor- Owner's Contact Name: Kevin J. Moles Company Name: WANOC ation Company Name: KGE. KCPL. KEPCQ Owner or Operator's Phone: (620) 364-8831 Contact Phone: (620) 364-8831 Mailing Address: P.0. BOX 411 Mailing Address:P.O.

Box 411: City: Burl ington State.S Zip Code: 66839 City: Burl infgto.: State:KS.zip Code: 66839 Will permit records be located on site? [XY; 0 N If not, provide an address where records will be kept:.Company Name:____Street Address: City: State:_Zip Code: II. SITE INFORMATION A. LOCATION Project Name:

Storage Site Street Address: 1550 Oxen Lane City: Burl ington State: KSzip Code: 6 6 8 3 9 Physical Location:

Wolf Creek Generating Station Mailing Address: City: _State:__Zip Code:.On-Site Contact Name: Ron Trau.dt Company Name: WCNOC.Contact Phone: (620) 364-881*Mailing Address:P.0.

Box 411 city:Burl inqton State:KS Zip Code:_Conunty- Cnfffpv.66839.5, 8& 17, 21 South, QTR Section Township.16 ME; OW;Range QTR QTR 17- nr 'fhi,;l 77-: 'n~l,,r Countv: COffev Received Paid Authorized 0 Y; r3 N Date: Initials: Check No: Reviewer Secretary, Kansas Department of Health and Environment Date KS Permit No. S -_.- Federal Permit No. KS To receive a hard copy of the general permit information packet check yes: 0 Y; 0 N Revised January 18, 2002 NOI Stormwater Construction, Page 1 Name of Project: Sedirrmnt Storage Site Notice of Intent (NOI)B. EXISTING CONDITIONS/USES Is any part of the project located on Indian lands? 03 Y; IXN if yes, contact EPA regarding discharging stormwater runoff from construction activities on Indian lands.If site runoff goes into aMunicipal Separate Storm Sewer System; Owner/Operator's Name: N/A Name of the first receiving water; stream; or lake: Coffey County Lake River Basin: NWoSho Are there any known soil contamination areas which will be disturbed by the construction activity?

0 Y; IX N Are contaminated soils or hazardous wastes present on the site: *Y Y; rAN.Are there any surface water intakes for public drinking water supplies locaied within '1z mile of the site discharge points? .0 Y; I N Are there any known historical or archeological sites present within the site boundary?

0 Y; tX N Are any threatened or endangered species known to be present within the site boundary or in the receiving water body? 0 Y; W N If yes, list species and describe habitat location in relation to project location: Are any Critical Water Quality Management Areas, Special Aquatic Life Use Waters, or Outstanding National Resource Waters located within 1/2 mile of the site boundary?

0 Y; N N C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project

Description:

S.e 1.0 Anticipated Start Date: 6-1-04 and Completion Date: 12-31-08 Estimated area to be disturbed:

20; Acres Total area of the site: 500 Acres Do you plan to disturb ten or more acres that are within a common drainage area? 01 Y; EX N If yes, will a sedimentation basin be installed in that drainage area? 0 Y; rA N If not, on a separate sheet, explain what similarly effective erosion and sediment control measures that will be implemented in lieu of a sedimentation basin.D. EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Attach a site plan showing the erosion control measures and the locations of stormwater management or pollution control features including* BMPs. Incorporate details and notes as necessary to describe the erosion control plans and BMPs.Attach a description of the best management practices which will be utilized to control erosion, sedimentation and other pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction.

Include a description of applicable local erosion and sediment control requirements.

Describe the BMPs which will be permanent stormwater management or pollution control features.

Include a description of applicable local stormwater pollution control requirements for permanent stormwater management features.Summarize the sequence of major soil disturbing activities and the corresponding erosion control measures or BMPs.E. AREA MAP Attach a topographic map showing the project location and significant features in the surrounding area.III. ANNUAL FEE Enclose a check for the first year of the annual permit fee specified in K.A.R. 28-16-56 et seq. as amended. Make the check payable to"KDHE". Per K.A.R. 28-16-56, as amended, the current annual permit fee for this general permit is $60. An annual bill will be sent to the contact person requesting a permit fee until such time as the permit holder submits a Notice of Termination (NOT).Revised January 18; 2002 NOI Stormwater Construction, Page 2 Name of Project: Sedirrent Storage Site Notice of Intent (NOI)IV. APPLICANT CERTIFICATIONS I, the undersigned, certify that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be or has been developed for the construction site listed in Section II of this NO1. I further certify that the plan will be implemented at the time construction begins, and, as required by the NPDES. general permit for Stormwater Runoff from Construction Activity, will revise the SWP2 plan if necessary.

I understand that continued coverage under the NPDES general permit for Stormwater Runoff from Construction Activities is contingent upon maintaining eligibility as provided for in the requirements and conditions of the general permit, and paying the annual fee.I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properlygather and evaluate the information submitted.

Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my "owledge belief, true, accurate, and complete.

I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false informatio includi g the pos for knowing violations.

Signat"ure

\ Date Revised January 18, 2002 NOI Stormwater Construction, Page 3 RA 04-0026 Page 1 of 4.Attachment 1.0 Wolf Creek Sediment Storage Site Project Description Construct eight sediment storage sites for sediment that will be removed by-dredging from Coffey County Lake ultimate heat sink (UHS). The purpose for dredging is to return the UHS to design specifications, which will ensure that, sufficient cooling water from the UHS can reach intake pumps. The UHS is. an underwater reservoir within Coffey County Lake. It is required to provide cooling water for plant components if the main dam should fail. This dredging will remove approximately 125 acre-feet accumulated silt/sediment from the UHS by pumping the silt/sediment to eight sediment-settling sites located on upland areas adjacent to the UHS portion of Coffey County Lake over a four-year period of time. Further explanation is provided below for this construction activity in the next section.Sediment Storage Sites The sediment settling sites will be located on upland areas adjacent to the UHS portion of Coffey County Lake (CCL). Native grass areas were purposefully avoided if possible.

Water control structure will be installed on each sediment pool. The discharge water velocity will be slowed to control erosion using riprap, or other suitable material.

A minimum of two silt control structures (i.e. staked bales, silt curtains) will be installed in the discharge from each pool to prevent residual sediment from returning to CCL. A permanent grass cover will be established on all pool dikes and disturbed soil.The attached aerial photo and topographic maps indicate sediment storage area locations.

A brief description of each sediment site is described below: Site 1: This is an upland area previously disturbed by WCGS construction.

Existing ground cover consists primarily of domestic grasses including tall fescue and smooth brome.Small osage orange trees are scattered in some portions.Estimated sediment storage on this site is 21 acre-feet (34,000 cu yd). Maximum dike height will be less than eight feet with top-of-dike volume will be less than 40 acre-feet.

There will be little to no surface runoff into this pool. Future use may involve sediment removal and reuse to make room for future dredging, or perennial grasses may be established and managed as wildlife habitat.Site 2: Site number 2 is an upland area consisting primarily of idled cropland.

Vegetation cover is typical of succession stages of abandoned cropland.

Brush includes smooth sumac and rough-leafed dogwood, with osage orange trees scattered throughout.

RA 04-0026 Page 2 of 4 Estimated sediment storage is approximately 28 acre-feet (45,000 cu yd). Maximum dike height will be approximately eight feet with top-of-dike volume less than 48 acre-feet. Expected storm water runoff into this pool is less than 10 acres. Future use may involve sediment removal and reuse to make room for future dredging, or perennial grasses may be established and managed as wildlife habitat.Site 3: This site is an upland area previously used as cropland.

Vegetation cover includes annual and perennials common for succession stages of idled cropland.

American elm trees and rough-leaf dogwood are scattered within the area.Estimated sediment storage is approximately 18 acre-feet (29,000 cu yd). Maximum dike height will be approximately eight feet with top-of-dike capacity less than 33 acre-feet. Upstream drainage into this pool is expected to be less than five acres. Future use may involve sediment removal and reuse to make room for future dredging, or perennial.

grasses may be established and managed as wildlife habitat.Site 4: Site 4 is an area a portion of which was previously disturbed by WCGS construction.

Domestic grasses are present, but native perennial grasses are common. Eastern red: cedar, osage orange, and American elm trees are common.Estimated

sediment storage of this pool is 35 acre-feet (56,000 cu yd). Maximum dike height will be approximately 12 feet with top-of-dike capacity less than 48 acre-feet.

Land area upstream is estimated at less than 20 acres. Future use may involve removal and reuse of stored sediment to make room for future dredging, or management as shallow water habitat for wildlife.Site 5: This is an upland area previously used as cropland and native hay meadow. Vegetation typical in abandoned cropland is dominant.

Small eastern red cedar and osage orange trees are common in the area.Sediment volume capacity is estimated at 11 acre-feet (18,000 cu yd). Expected dike height will be a maximum of 12 feet with top-of-dike capacity less than 20 acre feet.Runoff area into this pool will be approximately 55 acres, including the area for Site 6.Future use may involve removal and reuse of stored sediment to make room for future dredging, or management as shallow water habitat for wildlife.Site 6: This area is, currently being used as cropland.

A native grass waterway is also included.Sediment volume capacity is expected to be 20 acre-feet (32,000 cu yd). Maximum dike height will be approximately 12 feet with top-of-dike capacity less than 30 acre-feet.

Runoff area into this pool will be approximately 40 acres. Future use may involve RA 04-0026 Page 3 of 4 removal and reuse of stored sediment to make room for future' dredging, or management as shallow water habitat for wildlife.Site 7: This is an area previously used as cropland.

Current use is as a hay meadow with long reestablished native grass species. Osage orange and American elm trees exist in portions of this site.Sediment volume capacity is expected to be 35 acre-feet (57,000 cu yd). Maximum dike height will be approximately eight feet with a top-of-dike capacity less than 45 acre feet.Runoff area into this pool will be approximately 100 acres. Future use may involve removal and reuse of stored sediment to make room for future dredging, or management as shallow water habitat for wildlife.Site 8: This area is identical to Site 7, which was previously used as cropland.

Current use is as a hay meadow with long reestablished native grass species. Osage orange and American elm trees exist in portions of this site.Sediment volume capacity is expected to be 7* acre-feet (11,000 cu yd). Maximum dike height will be approximately eight feet with top-of-dike capacity less than 16 acre-feet.

Runoff area into this pool will be approximately 115 acres, which includes the runoff area of Site 7. Future use may involve removal and reuse of stored sediment to make room for future dredging, or management as shallow water habitat for wildlife.Erosion Control and Best Management Practices 1. Proposed stormwater pollution control measures: A. temporary stabilization of exposed soil stockpiles and dikes with mulch.B. temporary stabilization of small drainage ditches with bales of straw.C. retention of stormwater using basin as needed.D. weekly erosion inspections of dikes, ditches, soil stockpiles and equipment staging areas.E. permanent stabilization of disturbed soil by seeding with grass.F. permanent stabilization of any borrow area by replacing topsoil and seeding with domestic grass.2. Local erosion control requirements:

Neither the Coffey County Health Department nor the Coffey County Engineer requires erosion control for construction projects in Coffey County.

RA 04-0026 Page 4 of 4 3. Sequence of major soil disturbing activities:

A. designate and use equipment staging area for the construction operation.

B. stake hay bales in drainage ditches to prevent down stream erosion and sediment transport.

C. monitor and maintain pollution control measures to ensure effectiveness.

D. upon completion of project, disturbed areas including equipment staging areas will be stabilized and re-seeded if necessary.

L~ýj--0 EISEN140WER LEMNINiO CEN 1I-4--a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ICAa LIA-SLae Po" CoiN!a~ OfO 0 R~alt o Oama MAKUP LINEuTO.a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O7AL a&~iC~ =A &TRW RAPLCTO TOPOGAPHI DAP NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Kevin J. Moles Manager Regulatory Affairs JUL 0 8 2003 RA 03-0086 Kansas Department of Health and Environment Attention:

Mr. Alan Brooks Bureau of Water -Industrial Programs Section 1000 SW Jackson St., Suite 420 Topeka, Kansas 66612-1367

Subject:

Notice of Intent for the Wolf Creek Generating Station Main Gate North Plant Access Project

Dear Mr. Brooks:

Please find enclosed with this letter a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a check for sixty dollars ($60.00) for a small construction project that was started on June 2, 2003, at Wolf Creek Generating Station.Attachment 1.0 to this letter contains the Main Gate North Plant Access Project description.

Also included on the attachment is the additional information required by the NOI for this construction project.This letter also serves as a follow-up to a phone call made to Mr. Joe Mester of Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) on June 26, 2003. The topic of the phone call was to notify KDHE that a small construction project began on our plant site without an authorized NOI. Mr.Mester did not impose a work stoppage on the construction as long as we 1) developed a stormwater pollution prevention (SWP2) plan, 2) we put into place best management practices (BMPs) on the construction site, and 3) submit a NOI to KDHE. The SWP2 and BMPs were implemented on June 27, 2003.Please contact Mr. Ralph Logsdon at (620) 364-8831, extension 4730, if you have any questions regarding this submittal.

Sincere, Kevin KJM/rll Attachment Enclosures cc: Mr. Joe Mester, KDHE-.. Box 411 8 -LWrlingtorl, KS 66s8m9 / ,rh'n1x (62 -.An Equal Opportunity Ernployer M/, CJVT See Attached Sheet for Instructions NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI)For Stormwater Runoff from Construction Activities Authorized by a Kansas Water Pollution Control General Permit 4 -Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Submission of this Notice of Intent constitutes notice that the party identified in Section I of this form requests authorization for coverage under the Kansas Water Pollution Control general permit, or KDHE authorized successors, issued for stormwater runoff from construction activities in the State of Kansas. Becoming a permittee obligates the discharger to comply with the terms and conditions of the general permit. Completion of this NOI does not provide automatic coverage under the general permit. Coverage is provided and discharge permitted when the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) authorizes the NOI. A signed and dated copy of the authorized NOI will be provided to the owner or operator.

Upon authorization of the NOI, a Kansas permit number and a Federal permit number will be assigned to the construction project. ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS ACCOMPANIED BY THE $60 ANNUAL PERMIT FEE WILL BE PROCESSED.

KDHE WILL NOTIFY APPLICANTS WHOSE APPLICATIONS ARE INCOMPLETE, DEFICIENT, OR DENIED. Please Print or Type.I. OWNER OR OPERATOR ADDRESS & RECORD LOCATION INFORMATION Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Owner or Operator's Name: Corporation (WCNOC) Owner's Contact Name: Kevin J. Moles Company Name: WCNOC Company Name: KGE, KCPL, KEPCO Contact Phone: 620-364-8831 ext. 4565 Owner or Operator's Phone: 620-364-8831 Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 411 City: Burlington StateKS_.Zip Code: 66839 Mailing Address: P.0.- Box 411 City: Burlington" State'KSZip Code6 6 839 Will permit records be located on site?.9Y; ON If not, provide an address where records will be kept: Company Name: Street Address: City: State: Zip Code: TI. SITE INFORMATION A. LOCATION Project Name: Main Gate North Plant Access Street Address: 1550 Oxen Lane N.E.City: Burl ington StateYKSZip Code: 66839 Mailing Address:_________________

City: State: Zip Code: On-Site Contact Name: Greg Stice Company Name: WCNOC Contact Phone: i20-3614-R3R ext. 4417 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 411 City: Burlington State:K.S Zip Code: 66839 Physical Location:.

QTR QTR-.TR, T_ , __ South, QTR Section Township 0 E; 0 W; County: Range For Official Use Only: Received Paid Authorized 0 Y; O N Date: Initials: Check No: Reviewer Secretary, Kansas Department of Health and Environment Date'KS Permit No. S ---Federal Permit No. KS To receive a hard copy of the general permit information packet check yes: 0 Y; 0 N Revised January 18, 2002 NOI Stormwater Construction, Page 1 NameofProject:

Main Gate North Plant Access Notice of Intent (NOI)B. EXISTING CONDITIONS/USES Is any part of the project located on Indian lands?If yes, contact EPA regarding discharging stormwater runoff from construction activities on Indian lands.If site runoff goes into a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System; Owner/Operator's Name: N/A Name of the first receiving water; stream; or lake:' Coffey County Lak(River Basin: Neosho Are there any known soil contamination areas which will be disturbed by the construction activity?Are contaminated soils or hazardous wastes present on the site: Are there any surface water intakes for public drinking water supplies located within 'A mile of the site discharge points?Are there any known historical or archeological sites present within the site boundary?Are any threatened or endangered species known to be present within the site boundary or in the receiving water body?If yes, list species and describe habitat location in relation to project location: 0 Y; RN" Y; RN" Y; RN r Y; 5N" Y; §N o Y; RtN Are any Critical Water Quality Management Areas, Special Aquatic Life Use Waters, or Outstanding National Resource Waters located within '/ mile of the site boundary?C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project

Description:

See Attachment 1 0 0 Y; RN Anticipated Start Date: 06-02-03 and Completion Date: 09-01-03 Estimated area to be disturbed:2__2_5kcres Total area of the site:.135Acres Do you plan to disturb ten or more acres that are within a common drainage area? 0 Y; IN If yes, will a sedimentation basin be installed in that drainage area? D Y; O N If not, on a separate sheet, explain what similarly effective erosion and sediment control measures that will be implemented in lieu of a sedimentation basin.D. EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Attach a site plan showing the erosion control measures and the locations of stormwater management or pollution control features including BMPs. Incorporate details and notes as necessary to describe the erosion control plans and BMPs.Attach a description of the best management practices which will be utilized to control erosion, sedimentation and other pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction.

Include a description of applicable local erosion and sediment control requirements.

Describe the BMPs which will be permanent stormwater management or pollution control features.

Include a description of applicable local stormwater pollution control requirements for permanent stormwater management features.Summarize the sequence of major soil disturbing activities and the corresponding erosion control measures or BMPs.E. AREA MAP Attach a topographic map showing the project location and significant features in the surrounding area.InI. ANNUAL FEE Enclose a check for the first year of the annual permit fee specified in K.A.R. 28-16-56 et seq. as amended. Make the check payable to"KDHE". Per K.A.R. 28-16-56, as amended, the current annual permit fee for this general permit is $60. An annual bill will be sent to the contact person requesting a permit fee until such time as the permit holder submits a Notice of Termination (NOT).Revised January 18, 2002 NOI Stormwater Construction, Page 2 Nameof Project: Main Gate North Plant Access\'otice of Intent (NOI)IV. APPLICANT CERTIFICATIONS I. the undersigned.

certify that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be or has been developed for the construction site listed in Section II of this NOI. I further certify that the plan will be implemented at the time construction begins, and. as required by the NPDES general permit for Stormwater Runoff from Construction Activity, will revise the SWP2 plan if necessary.

I understand that continued coverage under the NPDES general permit for Stormwater Runoff from Construction Activities is contingent upon maintaining eligibility as provided for in the requirements and conditions of the general permit, and paying the annual fee.I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.

Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system. or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete.

I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, i cluding the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Signature Date Warren B. Wood General Counsel !Ser'rrd-.ry Name and Official Title (Please Print)Revised January 18, 2002 NOI Stormwater Construction, Page 3 RA 03-0086 Page 1 of 2 Attachment 1.0 Wolf Creek Main Gate North Plant Access Project Description A plant access project is being constructed to provide improved control and working environment for plant employees.

This will provide better working conditions and ease of access into the plant for employees and visitors especially prior to and during refueling outages.The scope includes a multi-lane approach to a three point check-in, much like the approach of a turnpike entrance.

There is one main checkpoint office structure that will be occupied full time by a Wolf Creek Security Officer. There are two other checkpoint booths that will be utilized for daily early morning traffic and increased outage traffic. One of the points will be designated as a large truck check point and search area that will be located on the west end.There will also be an additional 45' by 70' vehicle search building constructed just south of the check point to allow vehicle searches to be completed in a better controlled environment in a timely manor.Erosion Control and Best Management Practices 1. Proposed stormwater pollution control measures: A. temporary stabilization of exposed soil stockpiles and dikes with mulch.B. temporary stabilization of small drainage ditches with bales of straw.C. retention of stormwater using basin as needed.D. weekly erosion inspections of dikes, ditches, soil stockpiles and equipment staging areas.E. permanent stabilization of disturbed soil by seeding domestic grass.F. permanent stabilization of any borrow area by replacing topsoil and seeding with domestic grass.G. an underground drainage system is being install to collect stormwater runoff on the construction site. This drainage system connects up to a pre-existing system that drains stormwater from this area of the plant site.2. Local erosion control requirements:

Neither the Coffey County Health Department nor the Coffey County Engineer requires erosion control for construction projects in Coffey County.3. Sequence of major soil disturbing activities:

A. Designate and use equipment staging area for the construction operation.

B. stake hay bales in drainage ditches to prevent down stream erosion and sediment transport.

RA 03-0086 Page 2 of 2 C. monitor and maintain pollution control measures to ensure effectiveness.

D. upon completion of project, disturbed areas including equipment staging areas will be stabilized and re-seeded if necessary.

0- DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY F 1996 KANSAS CITY DISTRICT.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 700 FEDERAL BUILDING KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64106-2896 REPLY TO February 9, 1996 ATTENTION OF: Western Project Section (95-02651)(Coffey, KS, Wolf Creek Reservoir, NW 26, PDN)Mr. Warren B. Wood Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839

Dear Mr. Wood:

This is in response to your application dated January 12, 1996, for a Department of the Army (DA) permit concerning construction of a five lane boat ramp, breakwater, and associated excavation and dredge material disposal.

The project is located in Section 1, Township 21 south, Range 15 east, Coffey County, Kansas.Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), which is administered under Federal regulations 33 CFR 320-330, provides the Corps of Engineers with regulatory jurisdiction over all waters of the United States. These provisions require prior authorization from the Corps of Engineers for excavation or the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States, including wetlands.Based on our review of the information furnished and our coordination with other agencies in response to predischarge notification requirements, we have determined that your proposed project is authorized by nationwide permit (NWP) No. 26, provided you ensure that the conditions listed in the enclosed copy of excerpts from Appendix A.C.?, are met. In addition to these general conditions, you must also comply with the following project specific conditions.

a. You must coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks to identify important nesting and feeding areas for the federally listed Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus.

Following identification of these areas, you must protect these areas from disturbance by fisherman by placing marking buoys and signs to prevent water and land access to the areas. The closest disturbance distance around any nest site 6hould be no less than 300 yards. b. You must develop a plan in association with condition"al' above to monitor Bald Eagle activity during the first fishing season. This plan should address the impact fishing access has on the Bald Eagle. The results of this monitoring must be provided to the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by December 31, following opening of the waterbody to fishing.We have enclosed a copy of the comment letter provided by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). They have reviewed the project and have provided comments concerning the on-site disposal from the restroom facility proposed with the project. Although this portion of the project is not regulated pursuant to Section 404, we suggest you incorporate these recommendations in the final design of this facility.The KDHE also provided measures that should be incorporated to ensure water quality violations do not occur as a result of construction and/or operation of the proposed project. We suggest these measures also be incorporated into your project.This NWP verification is valid'until this NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked which is scheduled to be accomplished prior to January 21, 1997. It is your responsibility to remain informed of changes to this NWP. We will issue a public notice announcing the reissuance or changes when they occur.Furthermore, if this NWP is modified or revoked and you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the NWP is modified or revoked, you would have only 12 months from that date to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this NWP.Although an individual DA permit is not required, other Federal, state and/or local permits may be required, and you should satisfy yourself in this regard.If you have any questions, please feel free to write me or to call Brian A. McNulty at 816-426-5047 (FAX 816-426-2321).

Sincerely, Richard E. Lenning Chief, Western Project Section Regulatory Branch Enclosure Copies Furnished: (See attached list) Copies Furnished:

Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Protection Section wo/enclosure U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manhattan, Kansas Office wo/enclosure Kansas Department of Health and Environment wo/enclosure Kansas State Historical Society Historic Preservation Department wo/enclosure Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks wo/enclosure (Mammoliti)

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks wo/enclosures (Yasui/Badders)

Kansas State Board of Agriculture wo/enclosure CEKRK-OD-PC NOVEMBER 22, 1991 FEDERAL REGISTER EXCERPTS FROM 33 CFR PART 330, APPENDIX A ACTIVITIES IN WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES C. NATIONWIDE-PERMIT CONDITIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS:

The following general conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by a nationwide permit (NWP) to be valid: 1. Navigation.

No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation.

2. Proper maintenance.

Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety.3. Erosion and siltation controls.

Appropriate erosion and siltation controls.must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date.4. Aquatic life movements.

No activity may substantially disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water.5. Eguipment.

Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.

6. Regional and case-by-case conditions.

The activity must comply with any regional conditions which may have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e))

and any case specific conditions added by the Corps.7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a river officially designated by Congress as a"study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service.8. Tribal rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights.9. Water quality certification.

In certain states, an individual state water quality certification must be obtained or waived (see 33 CPR 330.4(c)).

10. Costal zone management.

In certain states, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(d)).

(3) Brief description of the proposed project; the project's purpose;direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause; and any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s) or individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity;(4) Where required by the terms of the NWP, a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands; and (5) A statement that the prospective permittee has contacted: (i) The USFWS/NMFS regarding the presence of any Federally listed (or proposed for listing) endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project; and any available information provided by those agencies. (The prospective permittee may contact Corps District Offices for USFWS/NHFS agency contacts and lists of critical habitat.)(ii) The SHPO regarding the presence of any historic properties in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project; and the available information, if any, provided by that agency.c. The standard individual permit application form (Form ENG 4345) may be used as the notification but must clearly indicate that it is a PDN and must include all of the information required in (b)(l)-(5) of General Condition 13.d. In reviewing an activity under the notification procedure, the District Engineer will first determine whether the activity will result in more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse environmental effects or will be contrary to the public interest.

The prospective permittee may, at his option, submit a proposed mitigation plan with the predischarge notification to expedite the process and the District Engineer will consider any optional mitigation the applicant has included in the proposal in determining whether the net adverse environmental effects of the proposed work are minimal. The District Engineer will consider any comments from Federal and State agencies concerning the proposed activity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permits and the need for mitigation to reduce the project's adverse environmental effects to a minimal level. The District Engineer will upon receipt of a notification provide immediately (e.g. facsimile transmission, overnight mail or other expeditious manner) a copy to the appropriate offices of the Fish and Wildlife Service, State natural resource or water quality agency, EPA, and, if appropriate, the National Marine Fisheries Service. With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will then have 5 calendar days from the date the material is transmitted to telephone the District Engineer if they intend to provide substantive, site-specific comments.

If so contacted by an agency, the District Engineer will wait an additional 10 calendar days before making a decision on the notification.

The District Engineer will fully consider agency comments received within the specified time frame, but will provide no response to the resource agency.The District Engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each notification that the resource agencies' concerns were considered.

Applicants are 3 SECTION 404 ONLY CONDITIONS:

In addition to the General Conditions, the following conditions apply only to activities that involve the discharge of dredged or fill material and must be followed in order for authorization by the nationwide permits to be valid: 1. Water supply intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake except where the discharge is for repair of the public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization.

2. Shellfish production.

No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production, unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by nationwide permit 4.3. Suitable material.

No discharge of dredged or fill material may consist of unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, etc.) and material discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see section 307 of the Clean Water Act).4. HitiQation.

Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e. on-site), unless the DE has approved a cnmpensation mitigation plan for the specific regulated activity.5. Spawning areas. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.

6. Obstruction of high flows. To the maximum extent practicable, discharges must not permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters).7. Adverse impacts from impoundments.

If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

8. Waterfowl breeding areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.

9. Removal of temporary fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to their pre-existing elevation.

5

ýV I FCREEK SOPERATING CORPORATION Al 07D-001 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAMS Responsible Manager Manager Regulatory Affairs Revision Number 8 Use Category Reference Administrative Controls Procedure No Management Oversight Evolution No Program Number 07D DC38 8/7/2006 Revision:

8 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAMS I AI 07D-001 Reference Use Page 1 of 9 I SECTION 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PURPOSE SCOPE REFERENCES AND COMMITMENTS DEFINITIONS RESPONSIBILITIES PROCEDURE RECORDS FORMS PAGE 2 2 2 3 3 5 9 9 Revision:

8 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGICAL AI 07D-001 MONITORING PROGRAMS Reference Use Page 2 of 9 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 This procedure defines the intent and format for the Lake and Land Management Programs, and Ecological Monitoring Programs administered by Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC)personnel.

These programs are designed to meet requirements in the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP).2.0 SCOPE 2.1 procedure is applicable to Environmental Management personnel responsible for land management activities at WCGS, excluding transmission line right-of-way maintenance.

2.2 This procedure is applicable to Environmental Management personnel responsible for fisheries management activities at WCGS.2.3 This procedure is applicable to Environmental Management personnel responsible for ecological monitoring including, but not limited to zebra mussel monitoring, waterfowl disease contingency plan, avian protection plan, and water quality monitoring.

3.0 REFERENCES

AND COMMITMENTS 3.1 References 3.1.1 APPENDIX B TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-42, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN (EPP) (NONRADIOLOGICAL) 3.1.2 WOLF CREEK UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (USAR)3.1.3 AP 15A-003, RECORDS 3.1.4 AP 26A-003, 10 CFR 50.59 REVIEWS 3.1.5 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) -OPENING LAKE FOR PUBLIC RECREATION AND FISHING -JUNE 20, 1996 3.1.6 PIR 95-2462, AGRICULTURAL LEASE EXPENSE ACCOUNTING IMPROVEMENT 3.1.7 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 02-014 EVALUATION 3.1.8 NUREG-0878, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 (FES-OLS)3.1.9 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT-OPERATING LICENSE STAGE (ER-OLS)

Revision:

8 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGICAL AI 07D-001 MONITORING PROGRAMS Reference Use Page 3 of 9 3.1.10 PIR 2002-3053, VAULTING FARM LEASE AGREEMENTS 3.1.11 Letter 05-00616, dated 11-14-05 from United States Department of the Interior regarding WCGS License Renewal 3.2 Commitments 3.2.1 ET 97-0021, R. A. Muench (WCNOC) To U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), March 7, 1997 (RCMS #1985-092) 3.2.2 ITIP 02047, NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 92-49: RECENT LOSS OR SEVERE DEGRADATION OF SERVICE WATER SYSTEMS 4.0 DEFINITIONS 4.1 Owner Controlled Area 4.1.1 Property contiguous to the reactor site and acquired by fee title or easement for Wolf Creek Generating Station for which public access is limited.4.2 Ecological Monitoring 4.2.1 Ecological monitoring refers to field research or monitoring activities completed to measure environmental impacts in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Generating Station to support licensing requirements.

This definition does not include monitoring required for specific permits such as the Air Operating Permit or NPDES permit.5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 Supervisor Regulatory Support 5.1.1 Directs the revision and implementation of the land management plan, the fishery management plan, the waterfowl disease contingency plan, and ecological monitoring plan(s).5.1.2 Directs the preparation of lease agreements with tenants to implement the land management plan.5.1.3 Directs the preparation of necessary reports which summarize land management activities.

5.1.4 Directs the preparation of necessary reports which summarize fisheries management activities.

Revision:

8 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGICAL AI 07D-001 MONITORING PROGRAMS Reference Use Page 4 of 9 5.1.5 Administers disposition of income and expenses associated with the land management program.5.1.6 Directs the preparation of the ecological monitoring plan(s).5.2 Manager Regulatory Affairs 5.2.1 Reviews and approves the land management plan and reports.5.2.2 Reviews and approves the fisheries management plan and reports.5.2.3 Reviews and approves the ecological monitoring plan(s).

Revision:

8 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGICAL AI 07D-001 MONITORING PROGRAMS Reference Use Page 5 of 9 6.0 PROCEDURE 6.1 Land Management 6.1.1 Land management activities shall attempt to achieve a balance between production and conservation values through the implementation of conservation and wildlife management techniques.

6.1.2 To facilitate proper management of WCGS property, an annual land management plan will be formulated which may include, but is not limited to wildlife habitat enhancement, land improvements, controlled burning, grazing, haying and crop activities, and other conservation measures projected for the applicable year.1. This annual plan will be implemented to the maximum extent possible through agreements with tenants farming WCGS lands.2. The land management plan and associated report will be submitted to the Supervisor Regulatory Support and Manager Regulatory Affairs for approval.3. A copy .of the land management plan shall be sent to Document Services for incorporation into the WCNOC Environmental Permits and Plans Manual.6.1.3 In accordance with the USAR, all land management activities will prohibit oil or gas exploration, mining and/or drilling on WCGS lands.6.1.4 In accordance with the EPP, land management activities will maintain a minimum of 500 acres of WCGS lands surrounding the cooling lake in naturally occurring biotic communities.

6.1.5 Tenants and cooperating elevators shall be instructed to transmit income payments to Environmental Management.

6.1.6 Land management income shall be processed and tracked for each tenant and forwarded to the Accounting group by Environmental Management.

6.1.7 Purchase Orders / Agreement will be used for local agricultural vendors to cover the plant's share of expenses as stated in applicable lease agreements if rent is based on a share of the production (refer to Step 3.1.6).

Revision:

8 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGICAL AI 07D-001 MONITORING PROGRAMS Reference Use Page 6 of 9 6.1.8 The Supervisor Regulatory Support or designee shall approve all invoices for lease expenses before payments are made. This includes deductions to rents received due to a tenant's improvement of a lease.6.1.9 Lease expenses will be. recorded and verified for each tenant to ensure that expenses are legitimate for the crops planted on WCNOC land if rent\is based on a share of the production.

6.2 Temporary Access 6.2.1 Activities on company lands that are not related to the agricultural lease agreements or are not related to normal work activities will be documented with Form AIF 07D-001-01, TEMPORARY LAND USE PERMIT, and approved by the Supervisor Regulatory Support or designee.1. The permittee on the Form AIF 07D-001-01 shall be made aware of the emergency planning information provided to the general public at public access facilities or through handouts.2. A copy of each Form AIF 07D-001-01 should be provided to Security for information purposes.3. In order to facilitate emergency notification, a pager, tone alert radio, or other suitable means of notification will be provided to the permittee.

6.3 Agricultural Tenants 6.3.1 Agricultural tenants will be informed of emergency plan evacuation expectations while on company lands.1. Evacuation expectations will follow, to the extent possible, the information provided to the public at the local recreational areas.2. A pager, tone alert radio, or other suitable means of notification will be provided to the agricultural tenants leasing WCNOC managed lands that are within the Owner Controlled Area.3. Environmental Management will provide emergency information to the tenants within lease agreements, mailings or other suitable means of notifications.

Revision:

8 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGICAL AI 07D-001 MONITORING PROGRAMS Reference Use. Page 7 of 9 6.4 Fisheries and Lake Management 6.4.1 Lake management activities shall optimize lake use, enhance fisheries and improve water quality.6.4.2 To facilitate proper management of Coffey County Lake, an annual fisheries management plan will be formulated which may include, but is not limited to young-of-year gizzard shad changes, adult shad and predator fish population dynamics, angler harvest impacts to the fishery and other similar projects for the applicable year.1. This annual plan will be implemented to the maximum extent possible through agreements with county, state and federal agencies.2. The fisheries management plan and associated report will be submitted to the Supervisor Regulatory Support and Manager Regulatory Affairs for approval.3. A copy of the fisheries management plan shall be sent to Document Services for incorporation into the WCNOC Environmental Permits and Plans Manual.6.4.3 During late summer of each year the growth of aquatic weeds will be surveyed [Commitment Step 3.2.21. The survey will target three primary areas as follows: 1. Immediately upstream from the Circulating Water Screenhouse.

2. In the vicinity of the Essential Service Water System Screenhouse.

3. The buoyed Owner Controlled Access Boundary approximately one-half mile south of the Circulating Water Screenhouse.

6.4.4 IF the survey indicates that mechanical removal of the aquatic weeds is not deemed necessary based on weed composition, concentration, or area covered, THEN justification will be documented and transmitted to Operations and Maintenance Support.

Revision:

8 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGICAL AI 07D-001 MONITORING PROGRAMS Reference Use Page 8 of 9 6.4.5 IF the survey indicates that removal of the aquatic weeds may be necessary to prevent excessive weed buildup on the rotating screens, THEN Environmental Management will inform Operations and Maintenance Support of the weed buildup potential and removal needs.6.5 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)6.5.1 The MOU for opening the lake to public access will be reviewed periodically.

This review may include, but is not limited to fishery management, public access, buoy replacement and any other measures projected for the future (refer to Step 3.1.5) (Commitment Step 3.2.1.].6.6 Ecological Monitoring 6.6.1 Ecological monitoring or study activities shall attempt to measure impacts from Wolf Creek Generating Station to answer specific environmental questions to support plant operations and licensing (refer to Steps 3.1.1, 3.1.8, and 3.1.9).1. As environmental questions arise a monitoring plan will be developed to guide field data collection activities to answer the operational or licensing needs.2. IF the type of monitoring is ongoing, such as zebra mussel presence or absence monitoring, THEN the plan should be updated annually.3. Reports shall be prepared according to the frequency specified in the applicable monitoring plan.4. The monitoring plan and associated reports shall be submitted to the Supervisor Regulatory Services and Manager Regulatory Affairs for approval.5. A copy of the ecological monitoring plan shall be sent to Document Services for incorporation in the WCNOC Environmental Permits and Plans Manual.6.7 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan 6.7.1 The Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan shall be updated periodically on an "as needed" basis to provide guidance in the event of a waterfowl disease outbreak at the cooling lake.

Revision:

8 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGICAL AI 07D-001 MONITORING PROGRAMS Reference Use Page 9 of 9 1. A copy of the Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan shall be sent to Document Services for incorporation into the WCNOC Environmental Permits and Plans Manual.6.8 Avian Protection Plan (Reference Step 3.1.11)6.8.1 The Avian Protection Plan shall be updated periodically on an "as needed" basis to provide guidance in the event of bird electrocutions or collisions events.1.- A copy of the Avian Protection Plan shall be sent to Document Services for incorporation into the WCNOC Environmental Permits and Plans Manual.7.0 RECORDS 7.1 The following QA records are generated by this procedure and are vaulted via the Permits and Plans Manual 7.1.1 Fisheries Management Report 7.1.2 The Land Management Plan and Report 7.1.3 The Fisheries Management Plan 7.1.4 The Zebra Mussel Monitoring Plan and Report 7.1.5 The Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan 7.1.6 The Ecological Monitoring Plan and Report 7.1.7 The Avian Protection Plan 7.2 The following Corporate records are generated by this procedure 7.2.1 AIF 07D-001-01, TEMPORARY LAND USE PERMIT 7.2.2 The Farm Lease Agreements 8.0 FORMS 8.1 AIF 07D-001-01, TEMPORARY LAND USE PERMIT-END -

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY KANSAS CITY DISTRICT.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 700 FEDERAL BUILDING KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI 64106-2896 REPLY TO September 11, 1997 ATTENTION OF: Western Project Section (97-02509)(Coffey, KS, NWP 27)Brad S. Loveless Superintendent, Resource Protection Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.1550 Oxen Lane P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839

Dear Mr. Loveless:

This letter concerns your application to the Kansas Department of Agriculture, Notice No. 97310, for the proposed creation of two wetland areas within the flood control pool of the Wolf Creek Reservoir.

The project is located in Section 24, Township 20 south, Range 15 east, Coffey County, Kansas.* The Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over all waters of the United States. Excavation or discharges of dredged or fill.material in waters of the United States, including wetlands, require prior authorization from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). The implementing regulation for this Act is found at 33 CFR 320-330.We have reviewed the information furnished and have determined that your project is authorized by nationwide permit (NWP) No. 27, provided you ensure that the conditions listed in the enclosed copy of excerpts from the December 13, 1996 Federal Register, Final Notice of Issuance, Reissuance, and Modification of Nationwide Permits (61 FR 65874) are met. General condition 14 requires you to sign and submit the enclosed "Compliance Certification" upon completion of the authorized work and any required mitigation.

This NWP verification is valid for a period of two years from the date of this letter. Should your project plans change or if your activity is not complete within this two year period, you must contact this office for another permit determination. Although an individual DA permit is not required, other Federal, state and/or local permits may be required.

You should verify this yourself.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment has certified that this NWP will not violate existing state water quality standards provided you comply with the conditions included in their attached letter. If you have any questions concerning state water quality standards or associated conditions, please contact the person listed in their letter.If you have any other questions concerning about this matter, please feel free to contact David R. Hoover, Regulatory Project Manager at 816-983-3653 (FAX 816-426-2321).

Enclosures Copies Furnished:

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks wo/enclosures Kansas Department of Agriculture wo/enclosures COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION General condition 14 of this Nationwide Permit requires that you submit a signed certification regarding the completed work and any required mitigation.

This certification page satisfies this condition if it is provided to the Kansas City District at the address shown at the bottom of this page upon completion of the project.APPLICATION NUMBER: 97-02509 APPLICANT:

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation P.O. Box 411 Burlington, KS 66839 PROJECT LOCATION:

Within the flood control pool of Wolf Creek Reservoir in Section 24, Township 20 south, Range 15 east, Coffey County, Kansas.a. I certify that the authorized work was done in accordance with the Corps authorization, including any general or specific conditions.

b. I certify that any required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions.

c. Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you have completed the authorized project as certified in paragraphs a and b above.(PERMITTEE) (DATE)Return this certification to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn: CENWK-CO-rw (97-02509) 700 Federal Building Kansas City, MO 64106-2896 Kansas Water Quality Certification Section 404 Nationwide Permits Kansas Department of Health and Environment Drafted February 10, 1997, 1st Revision:

April 24, 1997, final revision:

July 31, 1997 Authority This certification is prepared pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 401 and Kansas Administrative Regulation 28-16-28f(c)(1).

Certification All activities authorized by Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits published December 13, 1996, are not expected to result in violations of Kansas Water Quality Standards found at Kansas Administrative Regulations 28-16-28b through 28f, provided the person conducting the activity authorized by the nationwide permit adheres to the following certification conditions.

Certification Conditions

1. Water Quality Protection Plan Any person wishing to use a Section 404 Nationwide General Permit shall prepare and follow a written water quality protection plan. The water quality protection plan shall identify components of the permitted activity (i.e. solid waste handling, fuel storage and leaks, sediment from construction etc.) which may or will result in the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state. For each component which may discharge pollutants to waters of the state, the plan shall set out the physical, structural and management measures being implemented to prevent or minimize the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state.2. Outstanding Natural Resource Waters and Special Aquatic Life Support Use Waters: In the event the permitted activity occurs in or will impact an Outstanding Natural Resource Water, established pursuant to K.A.R. 28-16-28d(c) or a Special Aquatic Life Support Use Water designated pursuant to K.A.R. 28-16-28d(2)(A), the person responsible for initiating the activity shall submit a copy of the water quality protection plan to the Nonpoint Source Section -Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

Outstanding Natural Resource Waters subject to this provision are listed in the Corps of Engineers Regional Conditions.

A list of Special Aquatic Life Support Use Waters is available from Kansas Department of Health and Environment (see last page for contact information).

3. Solid Waste Disposal All solid waste materials produced during the execution of the project shall be disposed in accordance with the provisions of Kansas Solid Waste Management Statutes and regulations and applicable local regulations.

Direct inquiries to KDHE Bureau of Waste Management (785) 296-1612.

K.ANSAS 404 NWP 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION-July31. 1997 Page2 4. Discharge of Floatable Materials The person responsible for executing the permitted activity shall assure good house keeping is practiced at the site to minimize the discharge of floatable materials such as personal refuse such as food containers, packing materials, and other liter. Appropriate measures shall be taken to capture and/or recover any floatable materials discharged to waters of the state originating with the permitted project.5. Fuel, Chemical and Materials Storage Fuel, chemical and other materials stored at the project site shall be stored in a manner that minimizes the discharge of product to waters of the state. Spill minimization and recovery measures and procedures shall be documented in the Water Quality Protection Plan.6. Spill Reporting The Kansas Department of Health and Environment shall be notified of all fuel spills or unauthorized discharge of pollutants.

Spill reporting numbers are --KDHE -daytime (785) 296-1679; after hours (785) 296-0614 or 911 for local response.7. Drinking Water Intakes The person responsible for the permitted activity shall avoid adverse impacts on public water supplies.

Whenever permitted activities occur within one mile upstream of a public drinking water supply -surface water intake, the applicant shall contact the official in charge of the public drinking water supply to apprise the drinking water supply official of the permitted activity.

The person responsible for the permitted activity shall consider the suggestions and recommendations of the public water supply official when preparing the Water Quality Protection Plan.8. Treated Wastewater Effluent Mixing Zones As a general guideline any Section 404 activity within one-half (1/2/2) mile upstream or one-half (1/2/) mile downstream of a permitted wastewater effluent discharge may impact the effluent mixing zone. The person responsible for the permitted activity shall determine if the project will adversely impact the wastewater effluent mixing zones and take appropriate measures to avoid altering or changing the mixing zone. This may include but is not limited to: 1) The construction or placement of a recreation oriented facility or structure (i.e.boat ramp, walkway) which may require modification of the beneficial use designation to accommodate contact or non-contact recreation, thereby increasing the effluent limitations for the permit.2) Any activity which may alter or remove the stream channel geometry or natural oxygenation abilities of the stream such as bridge construction, channelization;, stream channel substrate modification etc.The person responsible for the permitted Section 404 activity shall advise and describe to the waste water discharge permittee and KDHE any potential mixing zone impacts and the measures the person responsible for the Section 404 activity will take to minimize adverse impacts on the mixing zone. Inquiries should be directed to KDHE Bureau of Water (785) 296-5527.

IKANSAS 404 NWP 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION-July 31,1997 Page3 9. Closure of Project Site Upon completion of the project, disturbed areas including equipment staging areas shall be expeditiously stabilized with temporary and permanent vegetative or other nonpolluting cover materials.

The person responsible for the permitted activity shall monitor and maintain cover materials until such time as the site is stabilized.

10. Kansas Water Pollution Control General Permit for Stormwater Runoff from Construction Activities.

This certification does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to determine if the. project is subject to the requirements of General NPDES Permit S-MCSTo-9601-1 to secure such permit as necessary.

Questions and inquiries may be directed to: Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Bureau of Water -Industrial Program Section, Building 283, Forbes Field, Topeka, Kansas 66620 -Attention

"- Dave Freise, Phone (785) 296-5557.11. Hydrostatic tests for pipeline activities shall be approved prior to discharge of water used for the test. Please contact Om Agrawal at (785) 296-5553 to inquire.Enforcement and Penalties This certification does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility for any discharge to waters of the state. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment retains the option of revoking this certification any-time an inappropriate discharge may occur. As provided for by K.S.A.65-171(f), failure to comply with the conditions of this certification may subject the responsible part to fines of $10,000 per violation with each day the violation occurs constituting a separate violation.

Variance If the applicant believes the conditions of this certification will result in impairment of important social and economic development, the applicant is advised of the variance provisions of K.A.28-16-28f(c)(3).

For Additional Information For a copy of the Kansas Surface Water Quality Standards, water quality protection plan assistance packet and lists of Outstanding Natural Resource Waters and Special Aquatic Life Use Support Waters, please contact Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of-Water Nonpoint Source Section at (785) 296-4195 or FAX (785) 296-5509.

This information can also be obtained by written communication directed to: Kansas Department of Health and Environment-Bureau of Water -Nonpoint Source Section, Building 283, Forbes Field, Topeka, Kansas 66620. Attention:

40 4 NWP 401 Certification.

CEMRK-CO-R DECME 13, 19 6, FEDERAL REGISTER F ACTIVITIES IN WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES C. NATIONWIDE PERMIT CONDITIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS:

The following general conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by a nationwide permit (NWP) to be valid: 1. Navigation.

No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation.

2. Proper maintenance.

Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety.34 Erosion and siltation controls.

Appropriate erosion and siltation controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date.4. Aquatic life movements.

No activity may substantially disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the activity s primary purpose is to impound water.S. Eauivment.

Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.

6. Regional and case-by-case conditions.

The activity must comply with any regional conditions which may have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e))

and with any case specific conditions added by the Corps or by the state or tribe in its gection 401 water quality certification.

7. wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status; unless the appropriate Federal agency, with direct:-management responsibility for such river, has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely effect the Wild and Scenic River designation, or study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from thei'.appropriate Federal land management agency in the-area (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.)8. Tribal rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights.9. Water guality certification.

In certain states, an individual Section, 401 water quality certification must be obtained or waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)).

10. Coastal zone management.

In certain states, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived (see Section 330.4(d)).

b. Contents of Notification:

The notification must be in writing and include the following information:

(1) Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee; (2) Location of the proposed project;(3) Brief description of the proposed project; the project's purpose;direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause; any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s) or individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity; and (4) For NWPs 14, 18, 21, 26, 29, 34, and 38, the PCN must also include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands (see paragraph 13(f));(5) For NWP 21 Surface Coal Mining Activities, the PCN must include an OSM or state approved mitigation plan.(6) For NWP 29 -Single-Family Housing, the PCN must also include: (i) Any past use of this NWP by the individual permittee and/or the permitees spouse;(ii) A statement that the single-family housing activity is for a personal residence of the permittee;(iii) A description of the entire parcel, including its size, and a delineation of wetlands.

For the purpose of this NWP, parcels of land measuring 0.5 acre or less will not require a formal on-site delineation.

However, the applicant shall provide an indication of where the wetlands are and the amount of wetlands that exists on the property..

For parcels greater than 0.5 acre in size, a formal wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps. (See paragraph 13(f));-(iv) A written description of all land (including, if available, legal descriptions) owiid by the prospective permittee and/or the prospective permittee s spouse, within a one mile radius of the parcel, in any form of ownership (including any land owned as a partner, corporation, joint tenant, co-tenant, or: as a tenant-by-the-entirety) and any land on which a purchase and sale agreement or other contract for sale or purchase has been executed;(7) For NWP 31 -Maintenance of Existing Flood Control Projects, the prospective permittee must either notify the District Engineer with a-Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) prior to each maintenance activity or submit a.five year (or less) maintenance plan. In addition, the PCN must include all of the following: (i) Sufficient baseline information so as to identify the approved: channel depths and configurations and existing facilities.

Minor deviations are-authorized, provided that the approved flood control protection or drainage is not increased;(ii) A delineation of any affected special aquatic sites, wetlands; and, (iii) Location of the dredged material disposal site.3 (ii) Optional Agency Coordination.

For NWPs 5, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, 27, 31, and 34, where a Regional Administrator of EPA, a Regional Director of USFWS, or a Regional Director of NMFS has formally requested general notification from the District Engineer for the activities covered by any of these NWPs, the Corps will provide the requesting agency with notification on the particular NWPs. However, where the agencies have a record of not generally submitting substantive comments on activities covered by any of these NWPs, the Corps district may discontinue providing notification to those regional agency offices. The District Engineer will coordinate with the resources agencies to identify which activities involving a PCN that the agencies will provide substantive comments to the Corps. The District Engineer may also request comments from the agencies on a case by case basis when the District Engineer determines that such comments would assist the Corps in reaching a decision whether effects are more than minimal either individually or cumulatively.(iii) Optional Agency Coordination, 401 Denial. For NWP 26 only, where the state has denied its 401 water quality certification for activities with less than 1 acre of wetland impact, the EPA regional administrator may request agency coordination of PCNs between 1/3 and 1 acre. The request may only include acreage limitati-ons within the 1/3 to 1 acre range for which the state has denied water quality certification.

In cases where the EPA has requested coordination of projects as described here, the Corps will forward the PCN to EPA only. The PCN will then be forwarded to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine, Fisheries Service by EPA under agreements among those agencies.

Any agency receiving the PCN will be bound by the EPA time frames for providing comments to the Corps.f. Wetland Delineations:

Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps. For NWP 29 see paragraph (b) (6) (iii) for parcels less than 0.5 acres in size. The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic site. There may be some delay if the Corps does the delineation.

Furthermore, the 30-day period (45 'days for NWP 26) will not start until the wetland delineation has been completed and submitted to the Corps, where appropriate.

g. Mitigation:

Factors that the District Engineer will consider when determining the acceptability of appropriate and-practicable mitigation include, but are not limited 5_o: (i) To be practicable, the mitigation must be available and capable of being done considering costs, existing technology, and logistics in light of the-overall project purposes;(ii) To the extent appropriate, permittees should consider mitigation banking and other forms of mitigation including contributions to wetland trust funds, in lieu fees to organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, state or county natural resource management agencies, where such fees contribute to the restoratdin, creation, replacement, enhancement, or preservation of wetlands.

Furthermore

, examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include but are not-limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing wetland or upland buffer zones to protect aquatic resource values; and replacing the loss of aquatic resource values by creating, restoring, and enhancing similar functions and values. Ini addition, mitigation must address wetland impacts, such as functions and values, and cannot be simply used to offset the acreage of wetland losses that would occur i=-order to meet the acreage limits of some of the NWPs (e.g., for NWP 26, 5-acresoff wetlands cannot be created to change a 6-acre loss of wetlands to a 1 acre loss;however, 2 created acres can be used to reduce the impacts of a 3-acre loss.).5

7. Adverse effects fromimpoundments.

If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

a. Waterfowl breeding areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.

9. Removal of temporarv fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to their preexisting elevation.

7 144Q FCREEK" E OPERATING CORPORATION AI 26A-003 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN 10 CFR 50.59)Responsible Manager Manager Regulatory Affairs Revision Number 6 Use Category.

Reference Administrative Controls Procedure No Management Oversight Evolution No Program Number 26A DC38 3/20/2006 4 Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 1 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 1.0 PURPOSE 2 2.0 SCOPE 2

3.0 REFERENCES

AND COMMITMENTS 2 4.0 DEFINITIONS 3 5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 3 6.0 PROCEDURE 7 6.1 General Requirements 7 6.2 Security (APF 26A-003-0i, Question 1.3) 8 6.3 Operating Quality Program (APF 26A-003-01, Question 1.2) 9 6.4 Fire Protection Program (APF 26A-003-01, Question 1.7) 11 6.5 Emergency Plan (APF 26A-003-01, Question 1.4) 13 6.6 Licensed Operator Requalification (APF 26A-003-01, Question V)13 6.7 Commitment (APF 26A-003-01, Question IV.2) 14 6.8 Appendix B and Environmental (APF 26A-003-01, Question V) 14 6.9 Other Regulatory Requirements and Controls(APF 26A-003-01, Question V) 17 7.0 RECORDS 17 8.0 FORMS 17 ATTACHMENT A 50.54 (Q) GUIDANCE 18 ATTACHMENT B 50.54 (P) GUIDANCE .27 ATTACHMENT C OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION GUIDANCE 29 Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 2 of 29 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 This document provides methods and instructions to determine and document whether changes can be-made without prior regulatory approval.

This instruction provides guidance for the Regulatory Evaluation process for evaluations other than those performed under 10 CFR 50.59.2.0 SCOPE 2.1 This instruction establishes guidelines for the preparation of Regulatory Evaluations identified by the Applicability Determination process (Form APF 26A-003-01).

This instruction is applicable to personnel performing or approving Regulatory Evaluations (other than 10 CFR 50.59).

3.0 REFERENCES

AND COMMITMENTS 3.1 References 3.1.1 Procedure AP 26A-003, "10 CFR 50.59 Reviews" 3.1.2 Procedure AP 05-005, "Design Implementation and Configuration Control of Modifications" 3.1.4 Procedure AP 15C-004, "Preparation, Review, *and Approval of Documents" 3.1.5 Procedure AP 07-002, "Environmental Protection Program" 3.1.6 Instruction AI 07A-002, "Environmental Protection Plan" 3.1.7 Instruction AI 26D-001, "Commitment Management System." 3.1.8 10 CFR 50.54, "Conditions of Licenses" 3.1.9 10 CFR 50.59, "Changes, Tests and Experiments" 3.1.10 PIR 96-01699, "10 CFR 50.54(q) Guidance Alignment With 10 CFR 50.47(b)." 3.1.11 Letter WO 97-0137, dated December 19, 1997, LER 97-016-01, "Fire Protection" (RCMS97-271 -archived).

3.1.12 WCGS Facility Operating License No. NPF-42 3.1.13 USA 50.59 Resource Manual (Desktop Instruction) 3.1.14 NEI 96-07 Revision 1, "Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation." 3.1.15 PIR 2003-1890, Qualifying Activities

-_-p Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 3 of 29 3.1.16 NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2003-18, Supplement No. 1,"Use of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels," Revision 4, dated January 2003" 3.1.17 NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-02, "Clarifying the Process for Making Emergency Plan Changes" 3.2 Commitments 3.2.1 Letter WM 91-0136,.dated September 27, 1991, "Response to Violation 482/9116-01 and Exercise Weakness 482/9116-02" (RCMS91-121)4.0 DEFINITIONS 4.1 Applicability Determination 4.1.1 A review to determine if a proposed activity is controlled by other more specific regulations and can be excluded from review under 10 CFR 50.59.4.2 Regulatory Evaluation 4.2.1 An evaluation completed in accordance with regulations or requirements other than 10 CFR 50.59 to determine whether the proposed change can be implemented without prior regulatory approval.4.3 10 CFR 50.59 Screen 4.3.1 A review conducted to determine the necessity for performing a 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation.

5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 Managers, Superintendents, And Supervisors must ensure: 5.1.1 Regulatory Evaluations are performed and documented prior to implementation of proposed changes to facilities, procedures, tests or experiments for which they are responsible, as specified by this procedure.

5.1.2 Support is provided to other organizations, when needed, to complete a screening or evaluation.

5.2 Preparer 5.2.1 Prepares and develops the Regulatory Evaluation and any supporting documents and forms in accordance with this procedure.

5.2.2 Is cognizant of the technical aspects of the proposed change being reviewed.

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 4 of 29 5.2.3 Is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the information provided as justification for the Regulatory Evaluations.

5.2.4 Ensures that the Regulatory Evaluation required by this instruction adequately and appropriately concludes whether NRC review and approval are required prior to implementing the proposed change.5.3 Approver 5.3.1 Reviews the Regulatory Evaluations and any supporting documents and forms in accordance with this procedure.

5.3.2 Is cognizant of the technical aspects of the proposed change being reviewed.5.3.3 Is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the information provided as justification for the Regulatory Evaluation.

5.3.4 Ensures that the Regulatory Evaluations adequately and appropriately conclude whether NRC review and approval are required prior to implementing the proposed change.5.3.5 Consults others with regard to complex problems that are beyond the approver's scope of expertise.

5.4 Superintendent Emergency Planning 5.4.1 Ensures the Form AIF 26A-003-01 is properly completed when prepared to document a review under 10 CFR 50.54(q).

Also ensures that the 10 CFR 50.54(q)evaluation adequately documents the disposition of all questions answered Yes on Attachment B.5.4.2 Approves the 50.54(q) evaluation by signing the Form AIF 26A-003-01.

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 5 of 29 5.5 Manager Security 5.5.1 Ensures the Form AIF 26A-003-01 is properly completed when prepared to document a Regulatory Evaluation under 10 CFR 50.54(p).

Also ensures that the 10 CFR 50.54(p)evaluation adequately documents the disposition of all questions answered Yes on Attachment B.5.5.2 Approves the 50.54(p) evaluation by signing the Form AIF 26A-003-01.

5.6 Supervisor Regulatory Support 5.6.1 Ensures the Form AIF 26A-003-01 is properly completed when prepared to document a Regulatory Evaluation for environmental issues in accordance with the WCGS Facility Operation License No. NPF-42.5.6.2 Approves the Regulatory Evaluation by signing the Form AIF 26A-003-01.

5.7 Manager Support Engineering Or Supervisor Engineer (Programs) 5.7.1 Ensures the Form AIF 26A-003-01 is properly completed when prepared to document a Regulatory Evaluation for fire protection issues in accordance with the WCGS Facility Operating License NPF-42, Section 2.C. (5) (b).5.7.2 Approves the Regulatory Evaluation by signing the Form AIF 26A-003-01.

5.8 Manager Quality (10 CFR 50.54(a))5.8.1 Ensures the Form AIF 26A-003-01 is properly completed when prepared to document a Regulatory Evaluation for Quality Program issues in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(a).5.8.2 Approves the Regulatory Evaluation by signing the Form AIF 26A-003-01 5.9 Manager Training (10 CFR .50.54(i-i) 5.9.1 Ensures the Form AIF 26A-003-01 is properly completed when prepared to document a Regulatory Evaluation for License Operator Requalification Program issues in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(i-1).

5.9.2 Approves the Regulatory Evaluation by signing the Form AIF 26A-003-01 Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 6 of 29 5.10 Supervisor Licensing 5.10.1 Ensures the Form AIF 26A-003-01 is properly completed when prepared to document Regulatory Evaluation for a change affecting a commitment in accordance with AI 26D-001, "Commitment Management System." 5.10.2 Approves the Regulatory Evaluation by signing the Form AIF 26A-003-01 5.10.3 Coordinates and prepares submittals to the NRC requesting approval of changes made in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54.

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 7 of 29 6.0 PROCEDURE 6.1 General Requirements 6.1.1 Preparation of proposed changes to the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) facility and procedures and development of proposed activities at WCGS are controlled in accordance with various station procedures (e.g., AP 05-005 for design changes and AP 15C-004 for procedure changes).

The proposed changes and activities to be reviewed in accordance with this procedure must be completely developed in accordance with applicable procedures prior to performing Regulatory Evaluations.

6.1.2 The Regulatory Evaluation(s), shall contain sufficient detail to allow for independent review. A simple statement of conclusion by itself will not be acceptable.

NOTE The Regulatory Evaluation is not required for changes or activities made in accordance with regulations or requirements listed in 6.9 of this procedure.

6.1.3 The Regulatory Evaluation(s) shall be usedto document the associated review and evaluation of regulatory issues other than 50.59.6.1.4 Regulatory Evaluations for Computer Software Modifications, Design Change Packages (DCP), Configuration Change Packages (CCP), and General Maintenance Requests should be based on the inservice condition of the proposed modification after installation in accordance with approved design.6.1.5 Completed Regulatory Evaluations, shall accompany the primary record copy containing the change or modification documentation to the vault (i.e., procedure, USARCR, CCP or DCP). This is the number recorded on the Applicability Determination forms as the document/activity number.6.1.6 The USA 50.59 Resource Manual is consistent with NEI 96-07 and provides useful guidance on application of rules other than 10 CFR 50.59. The current revision of the USA 50.59 Resource Manual is available on the NEI Website and in Paperless under Regulatory Information.

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 8 of 29 6.2 Security (APF 26A-003-01, Question 11.3)CAUTION Exercise appropriate Safeguards Controls.NOTE A Regulatory Evaluation is documented only when the activity results in a change to the Security Plan. Changes that result in a decrease to the effectiveness of the Security Plan are submitted to the NRC in accordance with AP 26B-001, "Revisions to the Operating License and/or Technical Specifications." 6.2.1 Could the proposed change potentially result in a violation of provisions of the following documents, or, result in any of these documents being untrue or inaccurate?:

1. The Security Plan, 2. The Safeguards Contingency Plan, or 3. The Security Training and Qualification Plan?6.2.2 These are all safeguards documents and all documentation relative to this question must be evaluated for potential safeguard controls.

If any questions arise relative to this question, the Manager Security or the Manager Design Engineering should be contacted depending upon the nature of the proposed change. If this question is answered "Yes," a security related plan change evaluation must be completed pursuant with 10 CFR 50.54(p) prior to making the change. This evaluation shall be completed in accordance with Attachment B of this instruction and approved by the Superintendent Security or the Manager Design Engineering.

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 9 of 29 6.3 Operating Quality Program (APF 26A-003-01, Question 11.2)NOTE A Regulatory Evaluation is documented only when the activity results in a change to the Quality Program as described below.A change cannot be made without prior NRC approval if it reduces a commitment in the Operating Quality Program.6.3.1 If all answers to the following questions are "No", the change may be accepted without further evaluation.

If any answer is "Yes", continue the evaluation in accordance with section 6.3.2.1. Does the change conflict with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B or Regulatory Guide or Standard (ANSI, ANS, etc.) committed to in the Operating Quality Program as described in Chapter 17.2 of the USAR?2. Does the change eliminate a function, control or activity described in Operating Quality Program described as in Chapter 17.2 of the USAR?3. Does the change reduce the size of control of the Quality Organization established in the Operating Quality Program as described in Chapter 17.2 of the USAR?4. Are there any other reasons that the change would reduce a commitment in the Operating Quality Program as described in Chapter 17.2 of the USAR?NOTE The bases for review conclusions of 6.3.2.1 through 6.3.2.8 shall be included in the Evaluation of Proposed Change (AIF 26A-03-01).6.3.2 Changes to the Operating Quality Program as described in Chapter 17.2 of the USAR are Not considered to be a reduction in commitment providing the changes are limited to and do not exceed the following:

1. Administrative improvements and clarifications.

2. Spelling corrections, punctuation, or editorial items.

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 10 of 29 3. The use of a QA standard approved by the NRC which is more recent than the QA standard in the current Operating Quality Program as described in Chapter 17.2 of the USAR.4. The use of a quality assurance alternative or exception approved by an NRC safety evaluation, provided that the bases of the NRC approval are applicable to WCGS.5. The use of generic organizational position titles that clearly denote the position function, supplemented as necessary by descriptive text, rather than specific titles.6. The use of generic organizational chart to indicate functional relationships, authorities, and responsibilities, or, alternately, the use of descriptive text.7. The elimination of quality assurance program information that duplicated language in quality assurance regulatory guides and quality assurance standards to which the licensee is committed.

8. Organizational revisions that ensure that persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions continue to have the requisite authority and organizational freedom, including sufficient independence from cost and schedule when opposed to safety considerations.

6.3.3 The Manager Quality must evaluate and approve changes processed per this procedure prior to implementation.

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 11 of 29 6.4 Fire Protection Program (APF 26A-003-01, Question 11.7)NOTE A Regulatory Evaluation is documented only when the activity results in a change to the Fire Protection Program. The change cannot be made without prior NRC approval if it would adversely affect the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire.6.4.1 Individuals performing an Evaluation of Proposed Change (Other Than 10 CFR 50.59) evaluation for a change to the Fire Protection Program shall be qualified in accordance with ES9280455, "Fire Protection Engineer" (Reference 3.1.15)6.4.2 Could the proposed change potentially result in a violation of provisions of the Fire Protection Program described in Section 9.5.1, or Appendices, in the USAR, or, result in this document being untrue or inaccurate?

1. If the proposed change modifies the descriptions of the Fire Protection Program in Section 9.5.1, or the Appendices, of the USAR, or makes them inaccurate, an evaluation pursuant to License NPF-42 paragraph 2.C(5) must be approved by the Supervisor Enginner (Programs) or an Engineering Manager responsible for Fire Protection prior to implementing the change. The evaluation shall be completed by a qualified fire protection engineer (Generic Letter 86-10) or an individual fulfilling the requirements of Table 9.5A-1, Section A.1 of the USAR.6.4.3 The licensee may make changes to, the approved fire protection program without prior approval of the Commission only if those changes would not adversely affect the ability to achieve and maintain safe shut down in the event of a fire.6.4.4 The Fire Protection Program is that as described in USAR section 9.5.1 and its appendices.

6.4.5 USAR Appendix 9.5B "Fire Hazards Analyses" documents an evaluation of the fire hazards for each plant area and fire protection provision provided to ensure at least one train of post-fire safe shut down equipment is free of fire damage following a fire. Any changes to the Fire Protection Program should be evaluated for its impact on the FHA.

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 12 of 29 6.4.6 The detail included in the evaluationshould be commensurate with the proposed change and the evaluation must provide sufficient evidence that fire safe shutdown is not impacted.

As a conclusion, the evaluation should state that the ability to achieve and maintain safe shut down in the event of a fire is maintained.

6.4.7 An evaluation performed in accordance with the license condition should include an assessment of the impact of the change on the existing fire hazards analysis for the area, as is current practice.

The assessment should address the effects on combustible loading and distribution and should consider whether circuits or components, including associated circuits, for a train of equipment needed for safe shutdown could be affected, or whether a new'element could be introduced into the area. Refer to NEI 96-07, "'Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation." 6.4.8 In accordance with the Quality Program (17.2.1.4) changes to the Fire Protection Program are submitted to the Plant Safety Review Committee for approval.

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Page 13 of 29 IReference Use 6.5 Emergency Plan (APF 26A-003-01, Question II.4)NOTE A Regulatory Evaluation is documented only when the activity results in a change to the Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP). The change cannot be made without prior NRC approval if it is a decrease in the effectiveness of the RERP.6.5.1 Could the change potentially involve a violation of provisions of the Radiological Emergency Response Plan, or, result in this document being untrue or inaccurate?

If the answer to this question is "Yes," an evaluation pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(q) must be approved by the Superintendent Emergency Planning prior to implementing the change.6.5.2 Attachment A provides guidance to perform an evaluation pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(q).

This evaluation must be approved by the Superintendent Emergency Planning prior to implementing the change. [Reference Commitment 3.2.1]6.6 Licensed Operator Requalification (APF 26A-003-01, Question VI)NOTE A Regulatory Evaluation is documented only when the activity results in a change to the NRC approved program. The change cannot be made without prior NRC approval if it decreases the scope of the NRC approved program.6.6.1 Could the change potentially result in a violation of provisions of the Licensed Operator Requalification Program as described in USAR Section 13.2.1.2, or, result in this document being untrue or inaccurate?

1. If the proposed change modifies the description of the Licensed Operator Requalification Program in USAR Section 13.2.1.2, or makes it inaccurate, an evaluation must be completed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(i-1) and approved by the Manager Training prior to implementing the change.6.6.2 Evaluation of the proposed change shall be performed in accordance with Attachment C of this instruction.

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 14 of 29 6.7 Commitment (APF 26A-003-01, Question V.2)NOTE The change cannot be made without prior documented NRC agreement if it is a reduction in a commitment in accordance with instruction AI 26D-001.6.7.1 NRC commitments are identified, tracked and maintained in a computer database.

In addition, NRC commitments associated with procedure changes should be specifically cross referenced in procedures.

For other proposed changes, the Regulatory Commitment Management System data base may be searched to identify potential affect on NRC commitments.

If NRC commitments might be affected, an evaluation must be coordinated by the Supervisor Licensing regarding NRC commitments.

6.7.2 Regulatory Commitments shall be evaluated in accordance with AI 26D-001." 6.8 Appendix B and Environmental (APF 26A-003-01, Question VI)NOTE The change cannot be made without prior NRC approval if questions 1 and 2 below are answered Yes. The proposed change could constitute a UEQ and require a license amendment under 10 CFR 50.90. The change cannot be made without prior KDHE approval if questions 3, 4, 8, or 9 below was answered Yes. Therefore, if any of the questions are answered "Yes," an environmental impact determination must be approved by the Supervisor Regulatory Support (using AIF 26A-003-01) prior to implementation of the change.6.8.1 Appendix B to the OPERATING LICENSE requires certain changes be reviewed and approved prior to implementation.

Contact Supervisor Regulatory Support for guidance.

Determine if the proposed change involves one or more of the following:

1. An increase in thermal power above the currently licensed level and/or alteration in the amount or temperature of cooling water discharges?

U Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 15 of 29 a. Since WCNOC cannot legally increase power above the licensed level, the first part of this question should not be a problem. However, the second part is still valid. We can make changes to equipment or procedures that change the amount or temperature of cooling water discharges.

For example, operating with two circulating water pumps instead of three changes the circulating water discharge temperature.

NOTE For purposes of the following paragraph, the Site Boundary is defined in accordance with USAR 2.1.1.2, as the 9,818 acres occupied by the WCGS site.2. A physical change in anarea outside of the Owner Controlled Area Boundary (OCAB), but within the Site Boundary which was not disturbed by previous construction?

a. Examples of this item would be the construction of a building, road, or parking lot.3. A change in the rate, volume, concentration, composition or flow path of nonradiological liquid effluents, including storm water run-off?a. This would involve changes to such things as sewage lagoon modifications, waste water treatment discharges, service water and circulating water discharges, ESW discharges, lime sludge pond discharges and all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)discharges.

b. This also includes discharges of previously unapproved chemicals, such as biocides and corrosion inhibitors.

4. A change that will result in the modification of an existing air emission source or the installation of a new air emission source?a. This could involve changes to such things as the Auxiliary Boiler and various diesel generators fuel consumption, or increases in the potential to emit sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides.

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 16 of 29 b. This could also involve air emission changes that result from open burning such as fire protection training, waste volume reduction or rangeland burning.c. This could involve the temporary use of boilers, and or internal combustion engines (e.g., diesel generators, pumps or gasoline powered compressors).

5. A change in the volume, concentration or composition of nonradiological solid waste?a. This would include changes such as sewage sludge disposal, hazardous waste disposal, and landfill disposal, as well as solids disposed of on company property.6. A change that will result in the procurement of a non-material code chemical in quantities greater than or equal to 10,000 pounds?7. A change that will result in procurement, modification, sale or disposal of a radiation producing device (e.g., x-ray machines) regulated by the State of Kansas?8. The addition of a new storage tank, or physical changes to the piping or capacity of an existing tank, that contains more than 660 gallons of any chemical?9. A change which involves adding dredge material to or removing dredge material from the cooling lake,.Neosho River or facilities such as the circulating water screenhouse, essential service water pumphouse, makeup water screenhouse and makeup water discharge structure?

a. This would involve the mechanical relocation of silt and sediment.

Examples include boat ramp construction, ESW intake canal dredging, and vacuuming the ESW or Circulating water screenhouse intake bays.6.8.2 The Supervisor Regulatory Support shall ensure the evaluation and approval of a Regulatory Evaluation prior to implementation of this change.6.8.3 Procedure AP 07-002 and Instruction AI 07A-001 shall be used in performing this evaluation.

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 19 of 29 ATTACHMENT A (Page 2 of 9)50.54 (Q) GUIDANCE A.2.4 Does the change affect the Emergency Action Levels (EALs) as stated in the RERP or Regulatory Guide 1.101, including:

1. Changing from one emergency action level scheme to another emergency action level scheme (e.g. a change from an emergency action level scheme based on NUREG-0654 to a scheme based upon NUMARC/NESP-007 or NEI-99-01).

F] Yes LI No 2. Have changes to the EALs been submitted to the State and County for their review? (This is not required for NRC approval.)

[ Yes [ No A.2.5 Does the change affect: how the State, County, and WCNOC Emergency Response Organization (ERO) are notified; the content of initial and followup messages to the State, County, Public and ERO; or the means to provide clear instructions to the public in the 10 mile EPZ, as stated in the RERP; and have the State and County concurred if changes to the Immediate and Followup Notification forms have been made?Ej Yes El No A.2.6 Does the change affect how prompt communications among principal response organizations to emergency personnel and the public are made, as stated in the RERP?[] Yes El No A.2.7 Does the change affect when the public is furnished information on how they will be notified and what their initial actions should be in an emergency, the principal point(s) of contact with the media for dissemination of information during an emergency and their locations, or the method of coordinating dissemination of information to the public, as stated in the RERP?R] Yes [] No Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 20 of 29 ATTACHMENT A (Page 3 of 9)50.54 (Q) GUIDANCE A.2.8 Does the change affect the emergency facilities or equipment to support the emergency response, as stated in the RERP, including:

1. Equipment for personnel monitoring?

E] Yes [ No 2. Equipment for determining the magnitude of and for continuously assessing the impact of the release of radioactive materials to the environment?

D Yes jj No 3. Facilities and supplies for decontamination of onsite individuals?

RI Yes E] No 4. Facilities and supplies for emergency first aid treatment?

F] Yes El No 5. Arrangements for the services of physicians and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies on-site?E] Yes El No 6. Arrangements for transportation of contaminated injured individuals from the site to specifically-identified treatment facilities outside the site boundary?E] Yes E] No 7. Arrangements for treatment of individuals injured in support of licensed activities on the site at treatment facilities outside the site boundary?El Yes EJ No 8. An onsite technical support center and a near-site emergency operations facility from which effective direction can be given and effective control can be exercised during an emergency?

F] Yes F] No Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 21 of 29 ATTACHMENT A (Page 4 of 9)50.54 (Q) GUIDANCE 9. At least one onsite and one offsite communications system, each system having a backup power source?E] Yes E] No A.2.9 Does the change affect the methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition, including the description for determining the magnitude of and for continually assessing the impact of a release, as stated in the RERP?E] Yes El No A.2.10 Does the change affect protective actions for the 10 mile EPZ for emergency workers and the public, the protective actions guidelines for the 10 mile EPZ and 50 mile EPZ (that are consistent with Federal Guidance)as stated in the RERP?[] Yes LI No A.2.11 Does the change affect the means for controlling radiological exposure to emergency workers in an emergency or the exposure guidelines that are consistent with EPA Emergency Worker and Lifesaving Activity Protective Action Guides, as stated in the RERP?E] Yes E] No A.2.12 Does the change affect the arrangements made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals as stated in the RERP?EYes LINO A.2.13 Does the change affect the general plans for recovery and reentry, as stated in the RERP?nl Yes nl No Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 22 of 29 ATTACHMENT A (Page 5 of 9)50.54 (Q) GUIDANCE A.2.14 Does the change affect the requirements for periodic exercises conducted to evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities or of periodic drills conducted to develop and maintain key skills and correct deficiencies as a result of drills or exercises, as stated in the RERP, including:

1. Testing the adequacy of timing and content of implementing procedures and methods; testing of emergency equipment, communications networks, or the public notification system; and ensuring.the emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties?E] Yes j] No 2. An annual exercise of the onsite emergency plan?D] Yes LI No 3. A biennial exercise with full participation by offsite authorities?

E] Yes [ No 4. An ingestion pathway exercise with full participation offsite authorities once every six years?El Yes [ No A.2.15 Does the change affect radiological emergency response training for those who may be called in to assist in an emergency, as stated in the RERP, including:

1. Training and exercising, by periodic drills, of employees, ensure that employees are familiar with their specific emergency response duties?El Yes E] No 2. Training and exercising, by periodic drills, of other persons from whom assistance may be needed in the event of a radiation emergency?

El Yes [] No Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 23 of 29 ATTACHMENT A (Page 6 of 9)50.54 (Q) GUIDANCE 3. The description of specialized initial training and periodic retraining for Directors of the emergency organization, accident assessment personnel, radiological monitoring teams, fire brigade, repair and damage control teams, first aid and rescue teams, medical support personnel and security personnel?

El Yes No 4. The radiological orientation training program available to local services personnel, including emergency preparedness, local law enforcement, and local news media personnel?

Ej Yes Ej No 5. Provisions for a formal critique in. order to identify weak or deficient areas that need correction for all training, including exercises?

[ Yes [] No A.2.16 Does the change affect responsibilities for the development, review, and distribution of the RERP and the training of the planners, as stated in the plan?DYes DNo A.2.17 Does the change affect the description of the organization for coping with radiological emergencies or the definitions of authorities, responsibilities, and duties of those assigned to the ERO, or the means for notification of those individuals, as stated in the RERP, including:

1. The description of the normal plant operating organization?

El Yes El No Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 24 of 29 ATTACHMENT A (Page 7 of 9)50.54 (Q) GUIDANCE 2. The description of the onsite ERO, including the detailed descriptions of; the authorities, responsibilities, and duties of the Shift Manager/Site Emergency Manager who will take charge during an emergency; plant staff emergency assignments; or the authorities, responsibilities and duties of the Site Emergency Manager or Off-site Emergency Manager who shall be in charge of the exchange of information with offsite authorities responsible for coordinating and implementing offsite emergency measures?E] Yes [] No 3. Identification, by position and function to be performed, of ERO personnel responsible for making offsite dose projections, and a description of how the results are transmitted to State, County, NRC, and other appropriate governmental agencies?[] Yes [] No 4. Identification, by position and function to be performed, of WCNOC personnel with special qualifications for coping with emergency conditions that may arise or of consultants who may be called upon, and a description of their special qualifications?

E] Yes LI No 5. The description of the local offsite services to be provided in support of WCNOC's emergency organization?

[ Yes 0I No 6. Identification of and assistance expected from appropriate State, County, and Federal agencies with responsibilities for coping with emergencies?

E] Yes E] No 7. Identification of the State and County officials responsible for planning, ordering, and controlling appropriate protective actions, including evacuations, when necessary?

E] Yes nI No Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 25 of 29 ATTACHMENT A (Page 8 of 9)50.54 (Q) GUIDANCE A.2.18 Does the change affect the description of the activation of the ERO for each emergency classification, as stated in the RERP?El Yes [ No A.2.19 Does the change affect the description of the message authentication scheme used with the State and County for each emergency classification, as stated in the RERP?[ Yes F] No A.2.20 Does the change affect the description of: the administrative and physical means of notifying the County, State or Federal agencies; the agreements with County, State, and Federal agencies for the prompt notification of the public and for the implementation of protective actions; or the identification of the appropriate County and State officials, by title and agency, responsible to implement protective actions?[ Yes [ No A.2.21 Does this change affect the yearly dissemination of information to the public in the 10 Mile EPZ of basic emergency planning information such as methods and times required for public notification; protective actions planned if an accident occurs; general information on the nature and effects of radiation; or the list of broadcast stations that will disseminate emergency information?

E] Yes El No A.2.22 Does the change affect the capability to notify the County and State within 15 minutes after declaring an emergency?

El Yes nl No Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 26 of 29 ATTACHMENT A (Page 9 of 9)50.54 (Q) GUIDANCE A.2.23 Does the change affect communication plans, including titles and alternates for those in charge at both ends of the communication links and the primary and backup means of communication, and:[ Yes [ No 1. Provisions for communicating with the County and State within the 10 Mile EPZ and for the monthly testing of those provisions?

E] Yes E] No 2. Provisions for communicating with Federal emergency response organizations and for the annual testing of those provisions?

E] Yes E] No 3. Provisions for communication between the Control Room, Technical Support Center, Operations Support Center, and Emergency Operations Facility, including the County and State Emergency Operations Centers and field assessment teams and the annual testing of those provisions?

El Yes E] No 4. Provisions for communication between the NRC headquarters and Regional Operations Centers and the Control Room, Technical Support Center, Operations Support Center, and Emergency Operations Facility, and for the monthly testing of those provisions?

El Yes nl No A.2.24 Does the change result in the use of an alternate method for meeting the regulations?

Alternate methods for complying with the regulations are the proposed means for meeting the regulation.

Regulatory Guide 1.101 states that licensees may propose means other than those specified by the provisions of the Regulatory Position of this guide for meeting applicable regulations.

F] Yes [] No END -

Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 27 of 29 ATTACHMENT B (Page 1 of 2)50.54 (P) GUIDANCE B.1 Effectiveness Evaluation 10 CFR 50.54(p)In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p), revisions shall be reviewed for changes which might reduce the effectiveness of the Security Plan, the Safeguards Contingency Plan or the Guard Training and Qualification Plan. If effectiveness is reduced, regulatory approval must first be granted before implementation of the change. Reference Generic Letter 95-08, "10 CFR 50.54(p)Process for Changes to Security Plans Without Prior NRC Approval," for further guidance.B.2 Section Title: Provide the section and title of where the change is proposed.B.3 Proposed Commitment:

Specify the relevant existing condition and revised condition.

Address any offsetting provisions.

B.4 Impact on Effectiveness of the Physical Security Plan; the Safeguards Contingency Plan or the Security Training and Qualification Plan: This section asks a series of questions.

If the response to each question is "no" and the rationale supports a "no" response, the change may be processed using the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(p) without NRC prior approval.NOTE Rationale for yes and no answers must be explained on Form AIF 26A-003-01.B.4.1 Does this change delete or contradict any regulatory requirement?

LI Yes fl No B.4.2 Would the change decrease the overall level of security system performance as described in paragraphs (b)through (h) of 10 CFR 73.55 to protect with the objective of high assurance against the design basis threat of radiological sabotage as stated in 10 CFR 73.1(a)?F1 Yes F] No Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59.)Reference Use Page 28 of 29 ATTACHMENT B (Page 2 of 2)50.54 (P) GUIDANCE B.4.3 For NRC approved Security Plan commitments that are alternatives to one or more of the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(b) through (h): Does the change decrease the overall level of security system performance needed to protect, with the objective of high assurance, against the design basis threat of radiological sabotage as stated in 10 CFR 73.1(a)? Explain why the change does not decrease the overall effectiveness of the plan while taking into consideration existing unique site-specific security features.

Consider historical reasons why specific commitments were included with security plans. Were there specific counter balancing commitments and has that counter balance been changed negatively.

F] Yes nj No B.5 Does this proposed revision decrease the effectiveness of the Physical Security Plan; the Safeguards Contingency Plan or the Security Training and Qualifications Plan?[] Yes jJ No-END-Revision:

6 REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN AI 26A-003 10 CFR 50.59)Reference Use Page 29 of 29 ATTACHMENT C (Page 1 of 1)OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION GUIDANCE C.1 Does the change cause the requalification program not to run continuously with back-to-back programs?F- Yes L] No C.2 Does the change cause the requalification program to exceed 2 year discrete cycles in duration?E] Yes El No C.3 Does the change cause the requalification program to depart from the systems approach to training?[] Yes [] No C.4 Does the change reduce the records documenting the participation of each licensed operator and senior operator in the requalification program?Rl Yes RI No C.5 Does the change cause a reduction in the record retention requirements for the requalification program?LI Yes [] No C.6 Does the change cause the requalification program to be administered by people other than Wolf Creek Nuclear Operation Corporation employees?

JJ Yes R No-END-

47. Site-specific hydrogeological information, including:

groundwater depth(s) at site; aquifer(s) present at site; location, elevation, construction, and historical analyses on current and past monitoring wells (including B-12, C-10, C-49, J-1, J-2, G-2, and F-I); details of the current monitoring and analytical program; flow direction information (direction, rate, fate); and comprehensive local production information (locations, construction information, history of analysis, pump rates, use).

Water Use/Water Quality Page 1 of 2* Site-specific hydrogeological information, including:

groundwater depth(s) at site;aquifer(s) present at site; location, elevation, construction, and historical analyses on current and past monitoring wells (including B-12, C-10, C-49, J-1, J-2, G-2, and F-1);details of the current monitoring and analytical program; flow direction information (direction, rate, fate); and comprehensive local production information (locations, construction information, history of analysis, pump rates, use).* Documentation of any environment releases, including any evaluations of the incident with respect to the nature, extent, and impact of the release.-Locations, volumes, and existing chemical and radiological analytical data on drinking water intakes for Burlington, Neosho Falls, Iola, and any other intakes on the Neosho River between JRR and Iola.-Correspondence, reports, and any other information related to any past restrictions on water withdrawal, if any have occurred.

If none have occurred, a statement that these restrictions have never been implemented.

• More detailed data regarding the groundwater quality study performed from 1973-87.Provide the locations of the wells included in the study, their depths, production rates, and water uses. Discuss any regulatory involvement, including the regulatory program of which the study was a part, which agency(ies) reviewed and approved workplans and conclusions, the chemical and radiological parameters that were measured, the periodicity of the sampling, and the standards to which results were compared.

Provide the rationale for ceasing the program only two years into operations, including any regulatory concurrence in this action.-A map showing the locations of all groundwater monitoring or production wells in the local area, including their depths, rates of production, and use of water, if known.Section 2.9.1 states that 80% of water use in the basin is from surface sources -describe the source, location, and use of the other 20%.* More detailed meteorological data, including historic rainfall data, to provide additional information for the evaluation of water use conflicts in Section 2.10 of the ER (WCGS, 1980). Include average rainfall, seasonal variations, and information on extreme conditions.

Please provide the average peak and low-flow values for the Neosho River.Also provide information on seasonal variability, if it exists.-Clarification of the relationship between the WCNOC contract with the Kansas Water Resources Board, versus the "Certificate of Appropriation" discussed in ER Section 4.1.It appears that the contract has controls based on available supply within the reservoir, while certificate has controls based on the flow rate in the river. Please verify if this is correct. Also identify if a different agency implements the controls in either case, or if this is a single agency.

Revision:

12 OFFSITE DOSE CALCULATION MANUAL AP 07B-004 (RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL Reference Use MnNTTORTN( PROC.RAM)

Page 27 of 35 ATTACHMENT A (Page 21 of 26)OFFSITE DOSE CALCULATION MANUAL (REMP)FIGURE 5.3 WATERBORNE PATHWAY SAMPLING LOCATIONS 0 = DRINKING WATER A = SURFACE WATER U = GROUND WATER * = SHORELINE SEDIMENT WCGS-ER(OLS)

• 2.4 HYDROLOGY.The surface-water, ground-water, and water-quality character-istics of the Wolf Creek Generating Station site and vicinity have previously been described in Section 2.5 of the EnViron-mental Report -Construction Permit Stage [ER(CPS)].

Section 2.4 of the ER(OLS) updates some of the information previously presented and also repeats much of the information from the ER (CPS) for continuity.

.Section 2.4.1.1 (Hydrosphere) incorporates some new informa-tion such as the drainage area of the Neosho River upstream of Burlington, the nearest downstream control structure on the Neosho River, and the average annual snowfall near the site.Portions of the section have been repeated for continuity with some editorial changes for clarity.Section 2.4.1.2 (Flow Characteristics) includes updated information on estimated Wolf Creek monthly streamflows, and Neosho River water rights downstream.of Wolf Creek. Portions of the section have been repeated with some editorial changes.Section 2.4.1.3 (Wolf Creek Cooling Lake) has been revised to Include information and descriptions of the cooling lake, make-up water supply from John Redmond Reservoir, and bathy-metry of the circulating water intake and discharge channels.Section 2.4.2 (Ground-Water) includes updated information on piezometer water-level readings, and supplemental permeability data not available at the time of the ER(CPS). These data are presented in updated tables and figures. The text of Sections 2.4.2.1 through 2.4.2.3 has been repeated for continuity with some editorial changes. Section 2.4.2.4 (Ground-Water Models -Seepage from the Cooling Lake) has been added to present the results of seepage analyses which were not available at the time of the ER(CPS).Figures which illustrate the locations of piezometers relative to site structures have also been updated to show the revised arrangement of site facilities.

Section 2.4.3 (Water Quality) has been revised to reflect the ongoing water quality monitoring program which has been conducted-near the WCGS site since 1973.2.4.1 SURFACE WATER The site of the Wolf Creek Generating Station is located in the Wolf Creek watershed.

Natural topographical, hydrological and other physical features of the Wolf Creek watershed as well as site facilities are shown on Figure 2.4-1 WCGS-ER (OLS)2.4.2 GROUND-WATER 2.4.2.1 Formational Hydrogeologic Characteristics Small quantities of ground-water are regionally available from three sources within a 50-mile radius of the site: 1. The alluvial deposits in the river valleys;2. The shallow soils and weathered bedrock; and 3. The deep bedrock.2.4.2.1.1 Alluvium The river alluvium in the region is composed of silt, sand, and gravel. The Neosho River flows southeast through Morris, Chase, Lyon, Coffey, Anderson, Woodson, Allen and Neosho counties, and passes within 3 miles of the site. The width of the alluvium in the valley ranges from about I to 10 miles.Other plluvial aquifers are associated with the Marlas des Cygnes River in Osage, Franklin, Miami, Anderson, and Linn counties; the Verdigris River in Lyon, Greenwood, Woodson, Elk, and Wilson counties; and the Osage River in Bourbon County adjoining the state of Missouri.The alluvium along the Neosho River in Coffey, Woodson, and Allen counties is less than 20 feet thick, has a water pro-ducing potential of less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm)to wells. The alluvium receives recharge mainly from pre-cipitation and from bedrock discharge In areas where an artesian head is higher than the river surface. The alluvium discharges ground-water to the Neosho River; the ground-water system contributes water to the Neosho, an effluent stream, from John Redmond Reservior to at least as far downstream as lola, Kansas (the furthest downstream place studied).

As there are no large withdrawals of ground-water to create water level declines in the alluvium, water from the Neosho River is not being artifically induced into the alluvium because of a gradient reversal.

Other than the supply well of the city of New Strawn, located above the confluence of Wolf Creek and the Neosho River, there are no irrigation, industrial, commercial, or public supply wells tapping the alluvium along the Neosho River as far downstream as Iola, Kansas. Because the alluvium does not yield sufficient quantities of water for irrigation, it is unlikely that significant irrigation withdrawals will be developed in the future. A detailed discussion of ground-water use along the Neosho River is presented in Section 2.1.3.4.High-water conditions of the Neosho River are not likely to affect ground-water conditions significantly.

Normal 2.4-10 WCGS-ER (OLS).'.-4 seasonal increases of the river stage. increases bank storage (water absorbed Into the banks of the stream channel) in the alluvium.

As the stage recedes, the water returns from the banks to the river. The actual horizontal migration distance of river water back into the alluvium under the'se conditions is on the order of up to 100 to 200 feet. The high volume of runoff during high river stage would dilute any blowdown effluent that might recharge the shallow ground-water during that period. There are probably no domestic or stock wells that would be affected by normal high seasonal stages of the Neosho River at least as'far downstream as Iola, Kansas.0 Therefore, the discharge of any effluents to the Neosho River is not expected to contaminate the shallow ground-water system.The flood control dams at Council Grove, Marion, Cedar Point and John Redmond Reservoirs help reduce the severity of flooding.

The July 1948 flood, selected as an inter-mediate flood by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1965), would not have flooded Neosho Falls had the flood control dams been constructed.

Thus, privately-owned water wells in the community of Neosho Falls would not now (1979) be affected by a flood of the July 1948 magnitude, and there are few residences and wells on the floodplain of the Neosho River.In a small watershed such as the Neosho River Basin, ground-water levels in the floodplain will have already risen and the soil will be saturated in response to precipitation so that, by the time a flood occurs, there will be little available room for additional recharge from the flood waters. Most of the flood waters would retreat by runoff as the stage falls.High dilution of any blowdown effluent would preclude deter-ioration of ground-water quality by recharge of flood waters.2.4.2.1.2 Soil and Weathered Bedrock The soil and weathered bedrock is composed of weathered shales, siltstones, sandstones, and limestones and the soils derived from them. The weathered materials usually retain some of the characteristics of the parent rock.Wells in the weathered zone yield up to 10 gallons per minute in the region (Bayne and Ward, 1967), and are gen-erally used domestically and for livestock.

Recharge to the weathered zone which may extend down to about 20 feet is from local precipitation.

Discharge Is into the alluvium, streams, and local wells.Water levels in the wells and shallow piezometers show that the shallow ground-water table closely resembles the top-ography within a 5-mile radius of the site area, as shown on Figure 2.4-6.0 2.4-11 WCGS-ER (OLS)The permeability values presented for the geologic strata in Tables 2.4-6 and 2.4-7 represent estimated horizontal permeabilities.

The actual vertical permeabilities are probably several orders of magnitude less than the horizontal permeabilities shown. There are, however, no accurate means to approximate the ratio of the vertical to the horizontal permeability using existing data. The vertical permeability can best be determined from laboratory tests. Laboratory tests of samples will only be reliable if the samples are consolidated and relatively undisturbed.

The methods and techniques utilized in the determination of the in-situ permeabilities are outlined in Section 2.5.4 of the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. I Final Safety Analysis Report (WCGS FSAR).Permeability of the surficial materials is primarily de-pendent upon the Intensity of weathering of the parent rock.Near and at the surface, the weathered limestones are vuggy and exhibit a much higher permeability than do the weath-ered shples. The sandy facies of the Jackson Park Shale Member commonly has an appreciably higher permeability than the shaley facies. The depth of the weathered zone on the hill tops and upper hill slopes is less than the depth of weathering in lower, flatter areas where ground-water is closer to the ground surface.Generally, the surfIcial weathered zone in the upper 5 to.10 feet-is comprised of residual clayey soils (from shale parent rocks) with numerous root holes, insect burrows, and animal burrows. Desiccation and soil creep have opened minute cracks. These openings provide water channels that allow the rapid infiltration of water. As infiltration continues, internal scour produces detached particles that gradually clog the narrowest parts of the water passages, and swelling of the desiccated clay particles further re-duces the effective size of the openings.

In response to recharge, the coeffcient of permeability decreases to a small fraction of its "dry" or initial value.Where it Is saturated, the weathered bedrock (except lime-stone) has a greater permeability than the overlying soil zone. Table 2.4-7 provides a summary of the permeabilities of the bedrock as related to depth. The permeability values were broken down according to depth because of the variation with depth. The column labeled 0 to 20 feet provides a.tabulation of the permeabilities (essentially horizontal permeabilities) of the weathered bedrock units. The perme-abilities of the deeper bedrock (greater than 20 feet) are generally less and are representative of unweathered bedrock.2.4-12 WCGS-ER (OLS)As indicated on Tables 2.4-6 and 2.4-7, the numerous un-weathered shale units in the area retard the vertical movement of water. In the site area, the In-situ permeabilities obtained for the deeper bedrock strata are essentially hori-zontal permeabilities.

During the various In-situ testd, the shales restricted water flow in the vertical direction and the water, taking the path of least resistance, flowed radially and horizontally out from the tested interval.Briefly, the numerous shale units and residual soils, because* of their horizontal bedding structure, have permeabilities in the vertical direction of several orders of magnitude less than in the horizontal direction.

The in-situ permeability tests performed were adequate for measuring these values, and the horizontal permeabilities obtained are presented in Tables 2.4-6 and 2.4-7.2.4.2.1.3 Consolidated Bedrock The sandstone and limestone bedrock below the weathered zones in the region yield small quantities of water to wells (Merriam, 1963; and Bayne and Ward, 1967). Their strati-graphy and lithology are described in Section 2.5.6.1; a detailed site stratigraphic column is presented on Figure 2.5-9. The strata as determined from borehole data range upwards from the Lansing Group (Missourian stage) of the Pennsylvanian System. The yield of water from wells in these rocks ranges from 1 to 10 gallons per minute (Bayne and Ward, 1967). Practically all recharge is from rainfall and runoff, and occurs where the formations crop out at the surface. In the subsurface, the bedrock is commonly over-lain by shales and siltstones which partly confine and retard the vertical movement of water.Only a few of the deeper bedrock units have any appreciable permeability; four of them are described in the following paragraphs.

There are no published reports on aquifiers in Coffey County. A summary of the hydrogeologic characteristics of the bedrock strata is given in Table 2.4-6.The Plattsmouth Limestone Member of the Oread Formation is a fine-gralned, medium-bedded, fossiliferous, slightly frac-tured limestone with thin shale and silty clay layers. It is from 11 to 14 feet thick. It generally yields less than I gallon per minute of water to wells and has vertical fractures near the surface when weathered.

The Plattsmouth Limestone Member, which is semiconfined by the overlying Heumader Shale Member, exhibited a slight seasonal artesian head in piezometers located in the plant site area. The top of the Plattsmouth Limestone at the 5 plant site is at an elevation of about 1,065 feet. The 2.4-13 WCGS-ER (OLS)piezometric surface of ground-water in the Plattsmouth Limestone has ranged in elevation from 1,064 to 1,069 feet, fluctuating with variations in rainfall.

The undisturbed piezometric level is about 1,068 feet (Figure 2.4-9). The estimated (conservative) permeability of the Plattsmouth Limestone is very low (2.3 x 10 cm/sec, Table 2.4-6).At the WCGS site the Plattsmouth Limestone Member is un-weathered underneath the Heumader Shale Member. Further to the south, where the Plattsmouth Is overlain by only a thin layer of shale or is exposed at the surface,, the Plattsmouth may be weathered, and its permeability is slightly greater.The Toronto Limestone Member of the Oread Formation is 14 to 19 feet thick, and is a fine-grained, thin to thick-bedded limestone with pinpoint vugs, thin shale layers, and fossil fragment beds. Yields to wells are estimated to be less than 2 gallons per minute.The Toronto Limestone crops out east and south of the plant site. Discharge from this formation occurs in the valley of Wolf Crieek. The relatively impermeable nature of the over-lying shale units retards vertical water movement except where the depth of weathering has extended downward through the shale. In the vicinity of the site the Toronto Limestone is under semi-artesian conditions, and its potentiometric surface is at about elevation 1,054 (Figure 2.4-10).The Ireland Member of the Lawrence Formation is a fine-grained, calcareous sandstone with interbedded siltstone and laminated with clayey shale layers. It has some fractured zones and coal seams and is from 40 to 117 feet thick. It yields small quantities of water to wells, estimated to be less than 0.5 gallon per minute. The formation exhibits an artesian head at about elevation 1,049 in the vicinity of the site (Figure 2.4-11). It does not crop out in the valleys of nearby drainage areas. most recharge into the Ireland occurs where it is exposed to land surface, approximately 6 to 10 miles east of the site.The Tonganoxie Sandstone Member of the Stranger Formation ranges from 42 to 142 feet thick, is a fine-grained, slightly calcareous, micaceous sandstone interbedded with shale and siltstone, and has some vertical fractures.

The Tonganoxie Sandstone yields to wells small to moderate, quantities of water estimated at about 3 gallons per minute.2.4.2.2 Ground-Water Recharge and Discharge 2.4.2.2.1 Recharge and Discharge in Alluvium and Weathered Bedrock Recharge to the alluvium is from rainfall and the rivers during periods of flooding.

Discharge is to the rivers as 0 2.4-14 WCGS-ER (OLS)the ground-water table in the alluvium is normally above the river surface. Within a 20-mile radius, the towns of New Strawn and Hartford obtain water from an alluvial aquifer (Figure 2.4-12).Recharge to the weathered rock aquifer is from rainfall and vertical percolation through the soils. The rate of infiltration is high, as demonstrated by the high degree of correlation between rainfall and water levels (Figure 2.4-13).I.J During periods of drought, water levels in the weathered rocks drop significantly (Broeker and Fishel, 1961).C, A well inventory (Table 2.1-24) shows that there are num-erous dug wells within a 5-mile radius. Withdrawal from these wells constitutes an artificial discharge from the weathered bedrock.2.4.2.2.2 Recharge and Discharge in Consolidated.

Bedrock Strata There is some cross-bed leakage and recharge to the bedrock strata as deep as the Toronto at the plant site. In the deeper bedrock strata, recharge is essentially by rainfall and runoff where the formations crop out at the surface east of the site. Pressure tests show that the shale zones about 40 feet below land surface have very low permeability (Table 2.4-7). The semi-artesian heads measured in the Plattsmouth Limestone below the weathered bedrock indicate that the shale beds partly confine and retard the vertical movement of water from and to the limestone beds. The ground water frequently discharges from units lying within 30 to 50 feet below the stream beds in the low-lying areas. During the boring program, none of the formations yielded more than 2 gallons per minute in a 3-inch test hole. The permeability was determined by falling head permeability tests in the plezometers having slotted intervals for the various formations (Table 2.4-7).2.4.2.3 Ground-Water Hydraulic Gradients Potentiometric contour maps for the Plattsmouth Limestone, Toronto Limestone, and the Ireland Sandstone are shown on Figures 2.4-9 through 2.4-11, respectively.

The locations of the B-series plezometers are shown on Figure 2.4-14. The locations of the P-, HS-, and ESW-series piezometers are shown on Figure 2.4-15. A summary of water levels of each B-series piezometer is given in Table 2.4-8. A summary of the P-, HS-, ESW-, and LK-piezometer water levels is given in Table 2.4-9.Fluctuations in shallow piezometers (Figure 2.4-16, Tables 2.4-8 and 2.4-9) reflect residual boring and testing effects, 2.4-15 WCGS-ER (OLS)seasonal variations and sometimes nearby drilling and testing operations.

Water levels in the deeper piezometers fluctuate less than a few feet in response to natural seasonal changes.The water-table contour map of the ground-water in the weathered rock zone generally reflects the topographic sur-face. In the site vicinity, the gradients range from 20 to 1.60 feet per mile. The direction.of ground-water flow in.the weathered rock zone is perpendicular to the ground-water elevation contour lines (Figure 2.4-6).'The gradient of the potentiometric surface of.ground-water in the Plattsmouth and Toronto .limestones tends to follow the local and regional structure of those rock layers. The Plattsmouth Limestone is hydraulically connected to the weathered rock zone at the site area. The Heebner Shale retards the vertical movement of water and the transmission of head between the Plattsmouth and the Toronto limestones.

The Ireland Sandstone does not crop out in the site area..2.4.2.A Ground-Water Models -Seepage from the Cooling Lake.2.4.2.4.1 Introduction Seepage from the cooling lake was analyzed to assess its ability to degrade ground-water in the downgradient area by increasing the concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) and radionuclides.

The analysis included the effects of -both normal and-drought -conditions.

-.. .... -2.4.2.4.2 Seepage When the cooling lake area is flooded, the following bed-rock units, which are exposed in the Wolf Creek Valley, will be inundated:

Stull Shale Member, Clay Creek Limestone Member, Jackson Park Shale Member, Heumader Shale Member, Plattsmouth Limestone Memberl, Heebner Shale Member, Leaven-worth Limestone Member, Snyderville Shale Member, Toronto Limestone Member, and part of the Lawrence Formation.

These units are shown in the Detailed Site Stratigraphic Column (Figure 2.5-9) described in Section 2.5.6. A description of the water-bearing characteristics of these units is pre-sented in Section 2.4.13 of the WCGS FSAR and Section 2.4.2.1.3 of this report.Water from the cooling lake may migrate through either the inundated bedrock units, which dip gently to the southwest, or through the weathered bedrock that serves as the lateral confinement for the lake. The bedrock units may transmit water from their outcrops in the inundated valley to their outcrop on the hill slope opposite the lake. For the analysis, the eastern and western ridges bordering the lake were divided 2.4-16 WCGS-ER (OLS)into 10 sectors which have similar geologic and seepage characteristics.

The sectors are shown in Figure 2.4-17.The amount of seepage through bedrock units in each sector can be calculated using the Darcy equation (Ferris and others* 1962):* q kia, [2.4-1]where: q = quantity of ground-water seeping through the bedrock in a given sector, taken at an average width, of the sector (cubic feet per second);k = permeability of the bedrock unit (foot per year);i = hydraulic gradient of the head difference between the cooling lake surface and the bottom of the bedrock unit outs ide of the cooling lake divided by the horizontal distance between them;a = cross-sectlonal area; or outcrop width multiplied by the bed thickness, the values used a~e average values for the particular sector (feet ).Table 2.4-10 lists the results of the analysis and shows that seepage from the cooling lake will be negligible, about--0.014 cfs- (6.1- gpm)-..---That--value

--was obtained using aver-age permeability values obtained from pressure testing (Table 2.4-6). If the maximum known permeabilities are used (Table 2.4-7), the seepage is calculated to be about 0.029 cfs (13.0 gpm). For conservatism, seepage was cal-culated for the weathered portions of the Jackson Park Shale, Heumader Shale, and other bedrock units cropping out around the cooling lake, but the construction of saddle dams will significantly reduce seepage in those areas. Quarrying of portions of the Plattsmouth and Toronto limestones during construction will not significantly increase the rate of seepage after the filling of the cooling lake.2.4.2.4.3 Ground-Water Movement The actual rate of ground-water movement in response to the cooling lake will be very slow. The ground-water velocity can be calculated by modifying the Darcy equation: Vk [2.4-2J n 2.4-17 WCGS-ER (OLS)where: v = velocity (feet per year);k =.average permeability (feet per year);i = hydraulic gradient;n = effective porosity (estimated to be 5 percent.based on examination of core).For the Plattsmguth Limestone in Sector 3, k = 2.38 feet per year (2.3 x 10. cm/sec, Table 2.4-6), 1 = 0.022, n -5 per-cent, and v = 1.04 feet per year. Similarly, for the Jacksonand Heumader Shale Members, k = 24.8 feet per year (2.4 x 10 cm/sec), I = 0.065, n.= 20 percent, and v -8.1 feet per year. The outcrop of the Plattsmouth that is closest to the cooling lake is about 2,500 feet away, and, according to this analysis, the time of travel for ground-water for that distance is about 2,400 years. For ground-water to move 800 feet through the Jackson Park Shale and Heumader Shale, the time of travel would be about 100 years. The time of travel to wells D-42 and C-50 is several thousand years.2.4.2.4.4 Total Dissolved Solids and Radionuclide Con-centrations in Ground Water Data on existing ground-water quality in the site area are presented in Section 2.4.3. The total dissolved solids (TDS)concentrations and radionuclide concentrations which are ex-pected to occur in the cooling lake due to routine operations are presented in Sections 3.6 and 5.2, respectively.

Due to the negligible seepage from the cooling lake, the seepage will not significantly degrade the ground-water in the downgradient area.2.4-18 P-4 S-j-.WCGS-ER (OLS)TABLE 2.4-8 Page 1 of 42 PIEZOMETER WATER LEVEL READINGS -B BORINGS Boring/Plezometer Water Level Depth Water Level Elevation Date I.-.N 1.1*I B-1, P-1 Interval.:

132-272 (130-272)Tonganoxie Sandstone 8-04-73 8-04-73 8-11-73 8-23-73 8-30-73 9-06-73 9-13-73 9-20-73 9-27-73 10-18-73 11-15-73 12-14-73 1-14-74 3-14-74 4-19-74 5-16-74 7-18-74 8-15-74 9-12-74 10-17-74 11-14-74 12-19-74 1-15-75 3-13-75 4-18-75 5-22-75 9-15-75 12-22-75 3-25-76 9-10-76 12-14-76 11.5(a)11.2 11.7 11.5 11.3 11.4 11.4 10.9 10.9 10.9 5.4 10.8 10.9 11.0 10.9 11.5 11.5 11.2 11.2 11.0 11.0 11.2 11.0 10.9 11.1 11.6 11.6 11.6 14.8 14.6 1,008.3 1,009.7 1,008.7 1,008.1 1,008.3 1,008.5 1,008.4 1,008.4 1,008.9 1,008.9 1,008.9 1,014.4 1,009.0 1,008.9 1,008.8 1,008.9 1,008.3 1,008.3 1,008.6 1,008.6 1,008.8 1,008.8 1,008.6 1,008.8 1,008.9 1,008.7 1,008.2 1,008.2 1,008.2 1,005.0 1,005.2 Note: Effective interval given in parenthesis following slotted interval if intervals differ. Interval depths reported are to the nearest foot.avalue obtained following falling head permeameter testing.0 WCGS-ER (OLS)Io-4..:X Below the coal layer, sandstone content ranges from 10 to W 100 percent, although these beds rarely exceed 2 feet in thickness.

The sandstone percentage decreases steadily with depth, with a corresponding increase in the percentage of siltstone and shale. The basal contact of the Ireland MLmber is a gradational facies between the shaley siltstone of the Ireland and the pure shale of the Robbins Member.2.5.6.2 Ground-water Hydrology A detailed treatment of the ground-water and surface-water' hydrology is presented in Section 2.4 and in Section 2.4 of the WCGS FSAR. This section outlines the geologic framework at the site within which the ground-water occurs.The regional ground-water sources can be subdivided on the basis of lithology and weathering into three general types: alluvial deposits in river valleys, soil and weathered bed-rock, and deep, unweathered bedrock.Water-bearing strata below elevations penetrated by the deepest borings (below elevation 700) generally contain water of poor to unsuitable quality, and they are separated from the near-surface bedrock at the WCGS site by numerous low permeability shale units. This separation minimizes or eliminates any environmental impact the plant might have on the deeper aquifers.No bedrock aquifers of significance were found at the site during the boring program. The Tonganoxie Sandstone Member of the Stranger Formation (which in some areas of eastern Kansas is an important aquifer) was found in borings drilled in the site area as a facies of silty shale with thin interbeds of sandstone, and was characterized by very low permeabilities.

The channel-deposited facies of the Tonganoxie Sandstone Member that Lins (1950) describes as the important aquifer was not encountered In any of the borings and is not present at the site.At the site, the soil and weathered bedrock aquifer ranges from less than 1 foot to about 20 feet thick; the shallow zones develop on the more resistant limestones, and the deeper zones on the shales and sandstones.

The river alluvium is predominantly a silty clay with lenses and stringers of fine-grained sand. The silty clay has low permeability while the fine-grained sand lenses provide somewhat higher flow rates.2.5-13 0 SAr2e.WOLF CREEK 2.4.12.2 Radiological Dose Assessment A review of the concentrations of radionuclides in the refueling water storage tank (Table 11.1-6) shows that all nuclides except three are already at concentrations below 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2 limits. The exceptions are: TANK CONCENTRATION 10 CFR 20 LIMIT PCi/ml ACi/ml.H-3 2.5 1x10-3 1-131 3.87x107 6 3xi0-7 1-133 7.52x10-6 1xl0-6 The analysis in Section 2.4.12.1 shows that the tank concentrations would be diluted by a factor of 67,610. This is more than adequate to assure that concentrations at the cooling lake discharge and all downstream water users will be less than 10 CFR 20 limits. See Table 2.4-4 for a listing of water rights in Coffey County and Figure 2.4-8, which shows all water users and municipal users downstream of the site.2.4.13 GROUND WATER 2.4.13.1 Description and Onsite Use 2.4.13.1.1 Aquifer Systems This section describes the water-bearing characteristics of the soil and bedrock in the vicinity of the WCGS site. Information about regional aquifers, which includes a 50-mile radius around the site, was obtained from a literature search. Hydrogeologic characteristicsof the ground-water system within 5 miles of the site are based on the results of site investigations as described in Section 2.5.4.2.4.13.1.1.1.

Regional.

Ground-Water Systems Small quantities of ground water are available regionally from three sources within a 50-mile radius of the site. These sources are the alluvial deposits in the river valleys, the hear-surface weathered bedrock including shallow soils, and the deep bedrock.The major alluvial aquifers within a 50-mile radius are in the Neosho, Marais des Cygnes, Verdigris, and Osage river valleys. Nearest to the site, the'.Neosho River flows in a southeasterly direction through Morris, Chase, Lyon, Coffey, Anderson, Woodson, 2.4-46 Rev. 14 WOLF CREEK Allen, and Neosho counties (Figure 2.4-8). It passes within 3 miles southwest of the plant site. The width of the alluvium in the valley ranges from about 1 to I0 miles.The alluvial aquifer in the Marais des Cygnes River Valley is found in Osage, Franklin, Miami, Anderson, and Linn counties.

The Marais des Cygnes.River flows in an easterly and south-easterly direction and passes about 17 miles north of the site. The alluvial aquifer in the Verdigris River Valley.is in Lyon, Greenwood, Woodson, Elk, and Wilson counties.

Its closest point is 22.miles southwest of the site. The Osage River Valley alluvial aquifer is in Bourbon County adjoining the state of Missouri about 27 miles southeast of the site at the nearest point.The alluvial aquifers in the site region are composed of silt, sand, and gravel. Yields from wells in the alluvial aquifers are much greater than yields from the other regional sources, and commonly range as high as 100 gallons per minute (Reference 3).Recharge to the alluvial aquifers is derived from precipitation and from ground water in the weathered rock zone where the zone is hydraulically connected to the alluvium.

Periods of high river stage may also contribute some short-term recharge.

Ground-water discharge occurs where the ground-water table is above and adjacent to surface drainage, and where wells are being pumped. Within a 20-mile radius of the site, the towns of New Strawn, 3 miles west-northwest, and Hartford, 15 miles west-northwest of the plant site, obtain water from alluvial aquifers.The weathered bedrock is composed of weathered shales, silt-stones, sandstones, and limestones, and the soils derived from them. The process of chemical and physical weathering alters the near-surface bedrock and produces additional porosity in the bedrock materials.

The weathered bedrock, which is as deep as 40 feet in-places, is-sufficiently permeable to-yield water-to wells. Yields from wells in the weathered bedrock range up to 10 gallons per minute (Reference 3). This zone is developed mainly for domestic and livestock purposes.

Recharge to the weathered bedrock is from local precipitation, and discharge occurs into alluvial deposits, streams, and wells.In the. site region, the bedrock units below the weathered zone are composed of sandstones, siltstones, shales, and limestones with typically low water yields (Reference 37). Unweathered bedrock units range in age from Permian to Pennsylvanian and dip gently westward from 10 to 30 feet per mile. Recharge from precipitation occurs primarily at formational outcrops.

These bedrock units supply water for domestic and livestock purposes and yield from 1 to 10 gallons per minute to wells (Reference 3).2.4-47 Rev. 0

'V 4 WOLF CREEK 2.4.13.1.1.2 Local Ground-Water Systems The local ground-water systems have characteristics similar to the regional systems. Water levels in local wells indicate that the shallow ground-water table closely parallels the topographic surface within at least a 5-mile radial area of the plant site (Figure 2.4-50) .Wells in this area tap either or both the alluvium and weathered bedrock. Where these units are contiguous they are hydraulically connected.

Vertical recharge is derived from precipitation.

During periods of drought, the water levels drop significantly, especially in the weathered bedrock (Reference.4).

There are no published reports on the aquifer hydraulic characteristics in Coffey County. Listed below is a summary of hydrogeologic characteristics of local water-bearing units (Table 2.4-28 and Figure 2.4-51) based on the results of site as described in Section 2.5.4 and accompanying tables: a. The Spring Branch Limestone Member of the Lecompton Formation is a light gray, thin-bedded, fossiliferous limestone interbedded with thinly laminated shale. The Spring Branch Member is absent at the plant site due to erosion but crops out to, the north and west of the plant site with a thickness ranging up to 10 feet. It yields less than 1 gallon per minute to local wells;b. The Stull Shale Member of the Kanwaka Shale Formation is a dark gray, laminated, fossiliferous shale interbedded with light gray, calcareous sandstone and shaley siltstone.

It crops out north and west of the site.Its thickness in Boring B-20 is 51 feet. The Stull Shale Member is absent at the plant site, having been removed by erosion. It yields less. than 1 gallon per minute to local wells;c. The Clay Creek Limestone Member of the Kanwaka Shale Formation is a fine-grained, fossiliferous, gray limestone locally interbedded with sandy shale. Its thickness at the site ranges from 2 to 8 feet. Although it is exposed at the surface east of the site and is present both at the surface and in the subsurface in the western portion of the site area, it has been removed by erosion at the plant site. It yields less than 1 gallon per minute to wells;d. The Jackson Park Shale Member of the Kanwaka Shale Formation is a laminated, calcareous, gray shale 2.4-48 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK with a basal, fine-grained, silty sandstone which locally exceeds 10 feet in thickness.

The total thickness at the site ranges from 23 to 30 feet. At the plant site, only the lower portion of the Jackson Park Shale Member is present as the overlying portion has been removed by erosion. It yields less than 3 gallons per minute to wells;e. The Heumader Shale Member of the Oread Formation is a laminated, fossiliferous., dark gray, clayey shale with fine-grained, thin-bedded calcareous zones, and occasional gray limestone

lenses. Near the site this unit ranges from 0 to 25 feet in thickness.

It is moderately to highly weathered to depths .of as much as 20 feet. Yields to wells of less than 3 gallons per minute are obtained from this unit.None of the deep bedrock units near the site are capable of yielding large quantities of potable water to wells. Listed below are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the deep bedrock units that yield small quantities of water at the site (Table 2.4-28) and Figure 2.4-51), based on the results of site investigations (Section 2.5.4): al The Plattsmouth Limestone Member of the Oread Formation is a fine-grained, medium-bedded, fossiliferous, slightly fractured limestone with thin shale and silty clay layers. It has occasional vertical fractures near the surface. At the plant site, the top of the Plattsmouth Limestone is about 34 feet below the plant grade elevation of 1,099.5 feet. Its thickness at the site ranges from 11 to 14 feet. The Plattsmouth Limestone Member yields less than 1 gallon per minute to wells;b. The Toronto Limestone Member of the Oread Formation is a fine-grained, thin- to thick-bedded limestone with fossil fragment beds. Pinpoint vugs are present at some*horizons within the unit. At the plant site, the top of'the Toronto Limestone is about 64 feet below the plant grade elevation of 1,099.5 feet. Its thickness at the site ranges from 14 to 19 feet.. It generally yields less than 2 gallons per minute to wells;c. The Ireland Member of the Lawrence Formation is a fine-grained, calcareous sandstone with interbedded siltstone and laminated with clayey shale layers. It has some fractured zones and coal seams. At the plant site, the top of the Ireland Sandstone is about 111 feet below the 2.4-49 Rev..0 WOLF CREEK plant grade elevation of 1,099.5 feet., Its thickness at the site ranges from 40 to 117 feet, and it yields up to 0.5 gallons per minute to wells;d.. The Tonganoxie Sandstone Member of the Stranger Formation is a fine-grained, slightly calcareous, micaceous sandstone.

Interbedded with shale and siltstone, it has some vertical fractures.

At the plant site, the top of the Tonganoxie Sandstone is about 290 feet below the plant grade elevation of 1,099.5 feet. Its thickness in this area ranges from 42.to 142 feet, and it rarely yields over 3 gallons per minute to wells.During the boring and aquifer testing program (described in Section 2.5.4), none *of the deep bedrock formations yielded more than 2 gallons per minute in a 3-inch test hole; only slightly higher yields could be expected with larger diameter wells. The flow rate was measured by air lifting the water out of the hole. The rate of water-level recovery was timed and measured to determine the permeability.

Water-level readings in the piezometers show that leakyartesian conditions exist in the deeper. bedrock strata below the weathered bedrock. The Toronto Limestone Member and younger strata are recharged principally by local precipitation.

Much of the precipitation first recharges the overlying weathered bedrock aquifers which in turn provides some leakage to the deeper units including the Toronto Limestone Member. Pressure tests indicate that the permeability of the deeper bedrock shale units below the Toronto Limestone Member ranges from 10-7 to 10-8 centimeters per second (Section 2.5.4).Ground-water and rock samples from the weathered Jackson Park Shale and Heumader Shale members, and ground water from the Plattsmouth Limestone Member in the Category I area were tested for water-soluble sulfate. It was determined that sulfate concentrations exhibit considerable horizontal and vertical variation within the vicinity of the plant site. The sulfate concentrations in soil and rock samples ranged from 3.1 to 535.0 milligrams per kilogram.

Ground-water samples contained sulfate concentrations which ranged from 78.5 to 346.0 milligrams per liter.(mg/l).

At Well D-26, which was monitored by a water-level recorder during 1973 and 1974 and is located less than one mile northeast from the center of the plant site, sulfate concentrations range from 66 to 71 mg/l.. At Well C-2, located approximately 1.75 miles northwest of the plant site, sulfate concentrations have varied between 764 and 1,050 mg/i. For well location and inventory data refer .to Figure 2.4-52 and Table 2.4-29.2.4-50 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK The criterion used for well sealing was in accordance with Sargent & Lundy's Specifications A-3854, (Section 304.1). This specification is reproduced as.Table 2.4-29a.The status of well sealing is presented in Tables 2.4-29b and 2.4-29c.2.4.13.1.2 Onsite Use There is no anticipated use of ground water at or near the site during plant operation.

2.4.13.2 Sources Although most of the public water supplies in the vicinity of the site are derived from surface-water sources, ground water accounts for. a small amount of both municipal and private water needs. Information was obtained from public agency contact and a local water well inventory.

A discussion of regional and local ground-water flow regimes is also included in this section.2.4.13.2.1 Regional Public Ground-Water Use This discussion of regional public ground-water use applies to a 20-mile radius of the site (Figure 2.4-53). Table 2.4-30 summarizes the information available regardi~ng the municipal supplies in this region.2.4..13.2.1.1 Present Use The amount of ground water used for public supplies within a 20-mile radius of the plant site is small. The city of Waverly, Kansas, about 10 miles north-northeast of the site, has five wells (228 to 300 feet deep) (References 19 and 15) which obtain water from the Tonganoxie Sandstone (Figure 2.4-53). An average of 39,000 gallons per day (about 5 gallons per minute .per well) is pumped from this system (Reference 15). Bailer tests performed by the driller produced 10-25 gallons per minute, but a sustained yield of 5 gallons per minute is typical. A sanitary seal is installed in each well to prevent pollution from the surface from entering the well through the weathered rock zone.The municipalities of Williamsburg, 20 miles northeast, and Melvern, 18 miles north of the site, also obtain water supplies from deep wells in the Tonganoxie Sandstone Member (Table 2.4-30). Borehole tests in the Tonganoxie Sandstone near the site produced yields of less than 3 gallons per minute (Section 2.4.13.1.1.2).

2 .4-51 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK*The municipalities of New Strawn, located 3 miles west of the site, and Hartford in Lyons County, located 15 miles west-northwest of the site, obtain ground water from wells less than 40 feet deep in the Neosho River alluvium (Reference 21). At Hartford, thestatic water level is about. 32 feet below ground surface; it is about 12 feet below ground surface in the New Strawn well (Reference 20).The only known ground-water supply being used for industrial purposes within a 20-mile radius of the, site is from one well owned by the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway located about 15 miles northwest of the site (Well No. 39, Table 2.4-4 and Figure 2.4-8). The user has a water right for 10 gallons per minute.2.4.13.2.1.2 Future Use The use of ground water for public supplies in Coffey County is not expected to increase significantly as a result of population changes (Section 2.1.3)..Total projected use (as estimated in 1979) is presented in Table 2.4-31 and shows a decrease in ground-water pumpage between 1965 and 1980 followed by an increase to slightly above 1965 levels in 2020 (Reference 22). The current (February, 1984) projected use of water in Coffey County is shown in Table 2.4-31a. The total use of water for domestic and manufacturing purposes increased by 159 acre-feet between 1965 and,1980, largel' due to the increased domestic use of water by both the City of New Strawn, which obtains ground water from the alluvium along the Neosho River and the City of Burlington and the water districts around the site which used treated surface water, during the short term growth between 1970 and 1980. Although the projections shown in Table 2.4-31a for the year 2000 and after are preliminary and are subject to change, the 1984 projections of Table 2.4-31a for the year 2000 are consistent with the 1979 projections of Table 2.4-31, and show a gradual increase in the use of water for domestic and manufacturing purposes through the year 2035.2.4.13.2.2 Local Ground-Water Use A well inventory was made of 198 wells within 5 miles of the plant site. A summary of the well inventory is listed in Table 2.4-29.2.4.13.2.2.1 Present Use The local wells are used for domestic and livestock purposes.

The 198 wells are reported to produce a total of about 73,400 gallons per day or an average of 382 gallons per day per well. Table 2.4-29 lists the pertinent data collected on each well, and Figure 2.4-52 shows the locations of the property owners of the wells.2.4-52Rv.PPv -0 WOLF CREEK The wells supply small quantities of water (1/2. to 10 gallons per minute) from the weathered bedrock and larger quantities from the alluvium.

The shallow dug wells have diameters of 3 to 6 feet; the drilled wells have diameters of 6 to 8 inches. Most wells in the area intercept ground water in the weathered bedrock zone where the permeability has been increased by weathering.

There are three water districts within a 5-mile radius of the site. The City of New Strawn is the smallest district and serves the residents of the New Strawn area. This district obtains ground water from the alluvium along the Neosho River below the John Redmond Reservoir near New Strawn. Rural Water Districts No. 2 and 3 serve numerous residents around the site, encompass a larger geographical area than the City of New Strawn, and both obtain treated surface water from the City of Burlington.

2.4.13.2.2.2 Future Use Information obtained during the well inventory indicates a trend away from domestic ground-water usage and towards the use of treated surface water.Continued local use of ground water for domestic and livestock use is anticipated as shown in the long-term projections (1979 projections) of Table 2.4-31 (References 29 and 11)District No. 2 plans a gradual increase in participants as the general trend from ground water to treated surface water continues.

2.4.13.2.3 Ground-Water Flow Regimes This section describes the regional and local potentiometric surfaces and ground-water gradients.

Regional conditions within 20 miles of the site are based on a literature search, and a site investigation, detailed in Section 2.5.4, was performed to describe local conditions.

The weighted average permeability is given for each water-bearing soil and bedrock unit, and ground-water recharge is discussed.

The effects of local pumping on ground-water levels at the plant site are also discussed.

2.4.13.2.3.1 Regional Conditions Within 20 miles of the site, the shallow ground-water table basically conforms to the topography of the region.which has a gradient to the east and south in eastern Kansas. About 15 miles north of the site, shallow ground water in the weathered bedrock zone drains into the Marais des Cygnes River which flows eastward through Osage and Franklin counties, and into Miami County where the river assumes a southeastward course into Missouri (Figure 2.4-53).2 .4-53 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK To the west and south of the site, the shallow ground water drains into the Neosho River which flows southeastward at a gradienet of about 4 feet per mile through Morris, Lyon, Coffey, Woodson, and Allen counties, where it continues southward into Oklahoma (Figure 2.4-53).2.4.13.2.3.2 Local Conditions Surface drainage of the site area is generally to the south by way of Wolf and Long creeks. The, gradient of Wolf Creek is about 10 feet per mile, and the gradient of Long Creek is about 7 feet per mile.2.4.13.2.3.2.1 Potentiometric Surfaces The locations of the B-boring piezometers are shown on Figure 2.4-54. The P-, HS-, and ESW-series piezometers are shown on Figure 2.4-55. Graphs of water-level variations in the piezometers for the various rock units are shown on Figure 2.4-56. The piezometer water-level graphs generally show little change of water levels after the effects of drilling and permeability testing have dissipated, and it may be concluded that the ground-water level in the bedrock units is relatively stable.Water. levels in the inventoried wells (Table 2.4-29) show that the shallow ground-water table closely parallels the topography within at least a 5-mile radius pf the plant site. The gradient of the water table, as determined from the water-table contour map, Figure 2.4-50, ranges from 20 to 160 feet per mile, depending on the topography.

Direction of ground-water flow is perpendicular to the ground-water elevation contour lines (Figure 2.4-50).The potentiometric surface maps for the Plattsmouth Limestone, the Toronto Limestone, and the Ireland Sandstone members (Figures 2.4-57, 2.4-58, and 2.4-59, respectively) are based on piezometer readings for the individual rock units (Tables 2.4-32 and 2.4-33). The gradient of each of the potentiometric surfaces measured from these figures generally dip west and south away from the plant site at approximately 20 feet per mile. The average potentiometric surface gradient of these three units is about one half the average gradient of the ground-water table as measured in the weathered Jackson Park Shale and Heumader Shale members.The ground-water gradient in the shallow, unweathered bedrock generally reflects surface topography more than regional structural trends. Figure 2.4-57 illustrates the potentiometric surface of ground water in the Plattsmouth Limestone Member. This surface is related to the local topography which indicates that there is some hydraulic connection between the Plattsmouth

.2 .4-54 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK Limestone Member and the weathered bedrock zone. Recharge to the Plattsmouth occurs in the upland areas mainly through cross-bed leakage while discharge occurs in the lower areas.An analysis of the piezometer readings shows that water in the deeper, unweathered bedrock units is under semiconfined conditions.

The shale units between the deeper limestone and sandstone units (such as. the Ireland and Tonganoxie sandstones) retard vertical water movement.Potentiometric contours for ground water in the Toronto Limestone Member, determined from piezometer readings, are shown on Figure 2.4-58. The potentiometric surface also reflects the topographic surface, but the relationship is more subdued than for the Plattsmouth potentiometric surface.The potentiometric surface of the Ireland Sandstone is more dependent upon the westerly regional dip than are the potentiometric surfaces for the shallower units. The configuration of the potentiometric contours (Figure 2.4-59) bears little resemblance to the potentiometric contours of either the Plattsmouth or Toronto Limestone members.Figures 2.4-57, 2.4-58, and 2.4-59 show the potentiometric surface contours prior to filling the cooling lake. After the cooling lake was filled, the ground-water elevations adjacent to the cooling lake in the Plattsmouth, Toronto, and Ireland members gradually rose to the normal operating level of the cooling lake, elevation 1,087 feet. Ground water discharged into Wolf Creek and, after the cooling lake was filled, ground-water gradients in those units along the lake perimeter were reversed.

Ground water at elevations above 1,087 in other units were not affected.

Because of the low permeability of the inundated bedrock units, the ground-water gradients are steep between the cooling lake level and.the undisturbed ground-water levels in the hill slope opposite the lake to the east and west. The steepened gradients affect ground-water conditions only immediately adjacent to the cooling lake.2.4.13.2.3.2.2 Weighted Average Permeabilities The permeability in the weathered Jackson Park Shale Member ranges from about 5 x 10-7 to 5 x 10-5 centimeter per second (cm/sec) with a weighted average of about 4 x 10-5 cm/sec or 0.8 gallons per. day per foot 2 (gpd/ft 2) (Table 2.4-34). At depths greater than 20 feet, the permeability ranges from 9 x 10-7 to 1 x 10-5 cm/sec6(0.02 to 0.2 gpd/ft 2) and the weighted average is 4 x 10-6 cm/sec (0.08 gpd/ft 2).2.4-55 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK As listed on Table 2.4-34, the weighted average, permeability for the Plattsmouth Limestone Member (at 0 to 20 foot depths) is 2 x 10-5 cm/sec (0.4 gpd/ft 2) .Where the Plattsmouth is found at depths greater than 20 feet the weighted average permeability decreases to 2 x 10-6 cm/sec (0.04 gpd/ft 2). The two ranges (0-20 feet and greater than 20 feet) for the Toronto Limestone Member have weighted averages of 2 x 10-5 cm/sec (0.4 gpd/ft 2) and 1 x 10-6 cm/sec (0.02 gpd/ft 2), respectively.

The average permeability for the Ireland Sandstone Member is 4 x 10-6 cm/sec (0.08 gpd/ft 2) .Throughout the site area the Ireland Sandstone Member is found at depths greater than 20 feet.The weighted average permeabilities range from 6 x 10-7 cm/sec (0.01 gpd/ft 2)to 2 x 10-6 cm/sec (0.04 gpd/ft 2) for the following unweathered.shales found below the Plattsmouth Limestone Member: Heebner Shale, Snyderville Shale, Unnamed Lawrence Shale, and Robbins Shale members..

They serve as confining beds between more permeable limestone and sandstone beds..Within the site area and surrounding region there are impoundments of surface.water for watering stock. A field survey of ponds within Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 (T 21 S, R 16 E), indicates that in the area of the wolf Creek watershed.

All ponds in this area are associated with. natural drainage courses on side slopes of hills, and are not the result of seepage from lithologic contacts.Occasional seepage that collects near contacts is due to differential surface weathering at these contacts is due to differential surface weathering.

SlightlV higher permeabilities are developed by weathering at these contacts but probably extend only several feet into the interior of the hills.2.4 .13.2.3.2.3 Ground-water Recharge An automatic water-level recorder was placed in an unused, dug well (Well D-26)about 1/3-mile northeast of the site (Figure *2.4-52).

The well was sealed at the surface to prevent any runoff from entering around the top. The data obtained shows a rapid response between rainfall and the shallow water table (Figure 2.4-60). Based on a map showing the geology of the area (Figure 2.5-22), *the dug well extends into the sandstone unit of the Jackson Park Shale Member. The rapid rate of recharge is probably due to infiltration of water through outcrops of the sandstone unit rather than outcrops of.the shale and limestone members. The rate of vertical recharge from the surface is expected to be less than the vertical water movement at a greater depth in the sandstone unit of.the Jackson Park Shale Member. This is probably related to flow in shallow vertical desiccation cracks and fissures.

Following

a. moderate intense rainfall or during an extended period 2.4-56 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK of rainfall, it is anticipated that the clays in the weathered bedrock will swell, plugging most of the desiccation cracks: Well response to rainfall would be slower if the water percolated through the surface materials.

Recharge to the weathered bedrock is from precipitation.

Recharge tothe unweathered Plattsmouth and Toronto Limestone members is principally from vertical downward leakage from overlying units; the Plattsmouth may also receive recharge from precipitation where it outcrops in highland areas on the east ridge which borders the cooling lake. Recharge to the Ireland and Tonganoxie sandstones is from precipitation in their area of outcrop east of the site and from vertical seepage at any place where these formations are in hydraulic connection with the weathered bedrock zone.2.4.13.2.3.*2.4 Effects of Local Pumpage The nearest major pumpage from the bedrock (Tonganoxie Sandstone Member) is at Waverly which is located about 10 miles from the plant site. Because of the distance, and the fact that the pumpage at Waverly averages only about 25 gallons per minute total from 5 wells, the area of influence would not extend to the plant site. There are no significant cones of depression around the shallow dug wells in the weathered bedrock zone in the site area. These wells are used only intermittently for domestic and livestock purposes.2.4.13.3 Accident Effects 2.4.13.3.1 Introduction Radioactive liquids from the plant are postulated to enter the ground water as a result of the accidental rupture of specific tanks containing liquid radwaste.

The effects of this accidental contamination have been examined at the nearest ground-water discharge locations:

lakes, streams, or local wells.The three tanks postulated to rupture will contain the highest curie inventory of the radioisotopes of relatively long half-lives and of concern to human health (Table 11.1-6): Sr-90, Cs-137, Co-60, and H-3. These tanks are: a. The spent resin storage tank (Primary);

b. The boron recycle holdup tank (A or B); and c. The refueling water storage tank.2.4-57 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK The first two tanks are located in the radwaste.

building, while the refueling water storage tank is located outside, between the radwaste building and the.turbine-reactor complex. Highest curie contents for Sr-90, Cs-137, and Co-60 are expected in the spent resin storage tank (Primary)

.The highest concentration of H-3 is expected in the boron recycle holdup tank. (A or B), while the greatest curie content of H-3 is expected in the refueling .water storage tank. In this accident analysis, we have postulated the rupture of each of these three tanks, as separate isolated events. Rupture of the refueling water storage tank is unlikely because it is a Category I structure.

Details of the tanks and their curie content for important radionuclides are given in Table 2.4-35.Once, a tank ruptures, the liquid contents are conservatively assumed to merge immediately with the ground water. Ground water may move initially into the radwaste building and into the spent resin storage tank (primary) and the boron recycle holdup tank (A or B) through the cracks postulated to develop during the accident.

Such ground-water movement would occur until the water level in the radwaste building attains the ground-water level existing outside the building.

Significant ground-water movement away from the building will occur only after this hydraulic head equilibrium is achieved.

To be conservative, the water table at the plant is assumed to be at plant grade, elevation 1,099.5 feet,.which is about 5 feet above historical ground-water elevations (Table 2.4-33). The bases of the spent resin storage tank and the boron recycle holdup rank are approximately at elevation 1,071 feet, which is within the Heumader Shale Member. Thus, liquid contents of these tanks would flow down-gradient in the ground water within that unit. The base of the refueling water storage tank is approximately at elevation 1,095 feet. Thus, the liquid radwaste from that tank would seep directly into the adjacent overburden soil and weathered bedrock, as well as possibly into the upper portion of the underlying Heumader Shale Member, and flow down-gradient in these units.The nearest surface-water body that can be affected by accidental releases at the plant is the cooling lake. The normal operating water level of the lake is at elevation 1,087 feet. The nearest down-gradient location to the shoreline is toward the southeast, about 640 feet from the radwaste building and 770 feet from the refueling water storage tank. Water in the cooling lake enters Wolf Creek from blowdown discharge through the outlet works or by flowing over the service spillway of themain cooling lake dam, located approximately 3.1 miles south of the plant site. At the normal operating level, the cooling lake will contains approximately 111,280 acre-feet of water. The spillway crest has 2.4-58 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK been established one foot above the normal operating level, or at elevation 1,088 feet. Water-level determinations for the cooling lake are presented in USAR Sections 2.4.3.5 and 2.4.11.3.2.

This analysis shows that the average time of contaminant travel to the' cooling lake is at least, equal to half the expected life of the plant (Table 2.4-37).For this reason, an analysis has also been made for the case of an accidental release toward the end of the life of the plant. Although there are no plans to drain the cooling lake after decommissioning of WCGS, the conservative assumption is made that by the time the contaminants reach the shoreline after such an accident, the cooling lake may have been drained. Thus, consideration was given to contaminant transport down-gradient to the closest discharge point on the tributary to Wolf Creek, approximately 2,450 feet southwest of.the radwaste building.Wells C-20 and C50 (Table 2.4-29 and Figure 2.4-52) are the nearest wells in the down-gradient direction that were not purchased by the Licensees or inundated by the cooling lake. They are the nearest potable water supplies.These wells are located approximately 10,500 and 13,700 feet, respectively, from the radwaste building..

The shallow ground water that flows by these wells in the over-burden soils and the underlying Heumader Shale is physically separated from the plant site by the valleys of Wolf Creek and its tributaries, and by the cooling lake. Ground water coming from the direction of these two wells tends to flow toward the plant and discharge into the intervening.

streams. For this reason, analysis of ground-water transport from the radwaste tanks to the wells was not performed.

In the analysis which follows, it is shown that, with the exception of tritium concentrations, ground water contaminated at the plant site by accidental radioactive releases will have radionuclide concentrations below the maximum permissible concentrations of 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, for unrestricted areas by the time the contaminated ground water reaches the nearest surface water (the cooling lake or the Wolf Creek tributary).

However, it is noted that tritium is a very weak beta emitter (decay energy for total disintegration

= 0.0186 MeV) and also, the tritium-related offsite doses from this postulated accident will be a very small fraction of the 10 CFR Part 100 dose limits. The following analysis also shows that the tritium concentration in the cooling lake and the Wolf Creek tributary will be well below the 10 CFR 20 limits for unrestricted areas. The effects of hydrodynamic dispersion, fluid convection, cation exchange, and radionuclide decay were included in the analysis.

.'2.4-59 Rev. 14 WOLF CREEK 2.4.13.3.2 Description of Analytical Model The modelused in this analysis conservatively assumes an instantaneous release of effluent to the ground-water system. Effluent from the refueling water storage tank, because it is a seismic Category I structure, may be released at a slower rate, but the model conservatively assumes an instantaneous release from the tanks. In the case of a slug of solution containing radionuclides which is introduced instantaneously into the ground-water system in an.infinitesimally small volume, the following equation is applicable (Reference 2): 1 c n (x -u~t)2 (y -u;t)1 (z -U1t)2 m 4Dt3=exp <4' + + + Xt [2.4-4]m (4nD't)"'

4D't 4D't 4D't where: c = quantity of radionuclide cation per milliliter of interstitial solution, at any time, t, and at any point x, y, z;m = total quantity of radionuclide introduced with the slug (microcuries);

n = total porosity of the aquifer (dimensionless);

t = time since introduction of the slug (days);x = distance from point of injection in direction of ground-water flow (centimeters);

y = distance laterally, perpendicular to ground-water flow (centimeters);

z = distance vertically, from center of slug (centimeters);

X = decay coefficient

= 0.693/TI/2 where T 1/2 is the radionuclide half-life, in days;D' reduced dispersion coefficient

= DRf (Reference 33), where: 2.4-60 Rev. 1 WOLF CREEK D = the average dispersion coefficient

= (Dx Dy Dz)1/3 , and Dx, Dy, Dz = the dispersion coefficients valid for the x, y, and z directions, respectively.

ux ', uy',Uz.' = the average velocities of the radionuclide in the x, y, and z directions, respectively (centimeters per day);For example, ux' = ux Rf where: u= average velocity of water in the pores (cm/day)Rf = the reduction factor.due to cation exchange (Reference

.32):-1 Rf =1+ Pb Q E n Cca where: Pb = bulk density of the aquifer (grams per milliliter),-

Q = concentration of calcium adsorbed on the exchange complex of the aquifer material (milliequiv-alents per gram) (closely approximated by the cation exchange capacity, for cases where the radionuclide concentration is low relative to the cation concen-tration of the native ground water);CCa = total concentration of dissolved native cations in the ground water at equilibrium (milliequivalents per milliliter), assumed conservatively to consist entirely of calcium;2.4-61 Rev.1 WOLF CREEK E = equilibrium exchange constant for exchange process for the radionuclide displacing calcium on the exchange complex;integrating Equation 2.4-4 over the dimensions

x. , yo , and zo of a slug finite prismatic volume, we obtain Equation 2.4-5, the analytical model used this analysis: By of in l x + -uxtI 8 = m lerf X 2 --8 nxoyoz 0 4o x W-erf 2 .J jerf I~k'~4Dyt)~erf 4Dt-erf W4 erf ____exp (- Xt)[2.4-5]where:.xo, Yo, Zo the dimensions of the slug in the soil at time 0, along the respective axes, and Dx'=D=x Rf, Dy'=Dv Rf , and Dz'=Dz Rf. The Equation 2.4-5 parameters are as defined for Equation 2.4-4 above. Equation 2.4-5 was derived under the assumption that Uy =uz =0.The analyses performed used a computer program certified by Dames & Moore (SLUG3D), which solves Equation 2.4-5, with several different output options.2.4.13.3.3 Selection of Model Parameters A summary of the discharge points, flow paths, and parameter values selected for the model simulations is provided in Table 2.4-36.2.4-62 Rev. 1 WOLF CREEK Average Hydraulic Gradient (i) -To be conservative, the water-table level at the plant was assumed to be a maximum, at plant grade (elevation 1,099.5 feet).The ground-water elevation assumed at the cooling lake discharge point is the normal operating lake level (1,087 feet), and that at the Wolf Creek tributary to the southwest is 1,048 feet. Thus, for example, the average gradient (i)from the radwaste building to the cooling lake was computed to be: i = 1,099.5 -1,087 = 0.0195 [2.4-6]640 where 640 feet (approximately 19,500 cm) is the shortest distance from the radwaste building to the shoreline of the cooling lake. The average hydraulic gradients from the tanks to the Wolf Creek tributary and the cooling lake are listed in Table 2.4-36.Horizontal Permeability (Kh) -Of the shallow geologic units at the site, the Plattsmouth Limestone Member has the highest measured permeability (2 x 10-4 cm/sec). This is higher than the values for the overlying Heumader Shale Member as shown in Table 2.4-34. There is a possibility that.accidentally introduced liquid radwaste could migrate below the Heumader Shale into the Plattsmouth Limestone and flow laterally at least in part in the latter unit.For this reason, and to be conservative, the value of 2 x 10-4 cm/sec (17.3 cm/day) was used for the average 6oefficient of horizontal permeability.

Porosity -Total porosity was estimated on the basis of bulk density measurements on nine samples of Heumader Shale obtained at the site. The average density was found to be 2.29 g/cm 3.Then, total porosity (n) was computed from Equation 2.4-7.n = 1 -(Pb/ pS ) [2.4-7]where: Pb = the bulk density, and Ps = the specific gravity of the solids, assumed to be 2.7 g/cm 3.The result was a computed total porosity of 0.15.Effective porosity (ne) was estimated to be 80 percent of total porosity (Reference 41). Thus, ne was assumed to be 0.12. This is the value used to compute ux in Equation 2.4-5, in which: ux = -[2.4-8]2.4-63 Rev. I WOLF CREEK Dispersion Coefficients (D) -The dispersion coefficient in the direction of flow (Dx) was estimated using the approximate equation given by Reference 13: ( (~ ~1.2 'D = 0.67 + 0.5 u. ds. Dm [2.4-9]\Dm where: d 5 0 = the median grain size; and Dm =the molecular diffusion coefficient in water, 0.864 cm 2/day.Particle size analyses on test pit samples showed that the d 5 0 of the Heumader Shale and the overlying soil and weathered rock was about 0.0005 cm.For all the flow paths examined, Dx was computed to be equal to 0.58 cm 2/day.The dispersion coefficient (Dm) is slightly less than the molecular diffusion coefficient in water (Dx) because the median grain size (d 5 0) is very small.As ds 0 increases, D, also increases.

Based op Figure 7 of Reference 34, the ratio of Dx /Dy2 was estimated to be 1.0 in each case. Thus, Dy = 0.58 cm/day.The value for Dz was set arbitrarily low, 1.0 x 10.6 cm 2/day cm 2/day, to ensure that no dispersion would occur vertically beyond the upper or lower boundary of the water-table aquifer.Cation Concentration (CCa) -Water-quality data for the period 1976-1978

• were+available for five wells located within 3 miles of the center of the site. To be conservative, the highest cation concentration values were selected, because the value of Rf increases as CCa increases.

MAXIMUM VALUE IN 3-YEAR PERIOD CATION (mg/l) (meq/ml)Ca 320 0.016 Mg 68 0.0057 K 7.2 0.00018 Na 280 0.012 Total 0.03388 2 .4-64 Rev. 0

, A *WOLF CREEK It is a conservative simplification to assume that calcium is the only native cation in the soil exchange complex with which injected strontium, cesium, and cobalt cations would have to compete. The concentration term (Cca) in the reduction factor (Rf) refers to the equilibrium concentration.

of calcium in interstitial fluids. Thus, CCa was set equal to 0.034 meq/ml.Cation Exchange Capacity (Q) The approximate composition of the clay minerals of the Heumader Shale and other shale members at the site is 48.3 percent illite, 33.3 percent chlorite, and 18.3 percent kaolinite (Table 2.5-44).As the clay minerals make up about 70 percent of the mineral composition of the shales (Figure 2.5-90), the approximate bulk composition of the shales by clay mineral is 34 percent illite; 23 percent chlorite, and 13 percent kaolinite.

Reference 16 states that the range of cation-exchange capacities for the three clay minerals are: a. Illite, 10 to 40 milliequivalents per 100 grams;b. Chlorite, 10 to 40 milliequivalents per 100 grams; and.c. Kaolinite, 3 to 15 milliequivalents per 100 grams.To be conservative, the lowest exchange capacity for each mineral is assumed.Using the bulk percentage of each mineral results in cation-exchange capacities for illite, chlorite, and kaolinite of 0.034, 0.023, and 0.004 milliequivalents per gram, respectively.

The total cation-exchange capacity of the site shales is 0.061 milliequivalents per gram.Equilibrium Exchange Constants (E) -The equilibrium exchange constant for strontium (ESrCa) was estimated on the basis of experimental data for illite and kaolinite provided by Heald (Ref. 17), under the assumption that strontium exchange on chlorite will be close to that for kaolinite.

The weighted average value for ESrCa was 1.01.To estimate the exchange constants for cobalt and cesium, data on distribution coefficients (kd) for cobalt and cesium, as well as strontium, were analyzed and compared.

The data derived from experimental investigations reported by References 39, 43, and 74. The kd values were obtained for each clay mineral (kaolinite or illite) from data obtained under similar experimental conditions.

Then, weighted kd values for each 2.4-65 Rev. 0

$ .WOLF CREEK isotope were obtained on the basis of the proportion of the clay minerals in the shale; exchange reactions on chlorite were assumed to be the same as on kaolinite.

The resulting estimated kd values for Heumader Shale are: kd(Sr). = 2,235 kd(Cs) 14,087 kd(CO) = 4,684 Considering that the materials and conditions of the experiments from which these values were derived were essentially the same, it *is reasonable to estimate the exchange constants for Cs and Co using ESrCa *as the standard, on the assumption that E is linearly proportional to kd. Therefore:

ECs Ca 14,087 (1.01) = 6.30 [2.4-10]2,235 and 4,684 Eco ca -(1.01) = 2.10 [2.4-11]2,235 Dimensipns of Slug (Vo) -The volume (V,) occupied, by the slug in the soil at time t = 0 will be approximately:

V 0 = Volume of Liquid Contents (2.4-12]n For example, for the boron recycle holdup tank, the volume of liquid contents equals 1i696 x 108 ml. Thus: Vo = 1.696 x 108 = 1.131 x 10 9 ml [2.4-13]0.15 For a cuboid slug, x. = Yo = zo; hence: X= yo = zo= (1.131 x.10 9)1 3.= 1,042 cm [2.4-14]The dimensions of the slug for the other tanks are computed similarly.

Because of the large size of the refueling water storage tank, however, it was not reasonable to select a cuboid slug, as that would have resulted in a zo (vertical dimension of the slug in the soil) of 2,160 cm (71 feet), greater than the saturated thick-2.4-66 Rev. .19 WOLF CREEK ness of the water-table aquifer at the plant. Therefore, z o was taken as 1,219 cm (40 feet) the approximate saturated thickness of the water-table aquifer. This resulted in an xo (=Yo) of 2,878 cm (94 feet).2.4.13.3.4 Results of Analysis The results of the postulated rupture of each of the three tanks described in USAR Section 2.4.13.3.1 are presented in Table 2.4-35. Peak concentrations at the discharge points and the time to attain these concentrations are provided for some or all of the following important radionuclides, depending upon the composition of the radwastes in each tank: H-3, Mn-54, Co-58, Co-60, Sr-89, Sr-90, Nb-95, Zr-95, 1-131, Cs-134, Cs-137, Ba-140. Cation exchange (E greater than 0) was included in the simulations only for strontium, cesium, and cobalt.As shown in Table 2.4-35, only in the case of tritium did the computed concentrations at ground-water discharge points exceed the maximum permissible concentrations set forth in Appendix B of 10 CFR 20. A peak tritium concentration of 1.21 mCi/ml and 0.57 mCi/ml was computed for ground water discharging to the cooling lake as a result of the rupture of. the boron recycle holdup tank (A or B) and the refueling water storage tank, respectively.

The 10 CFR 20 limits for tritium are 0.010 and 0.001 pCi/ml for restricted and unrestricted areas, respectively.

The computed peak tritium concentrations for ground water discharging to the Wolf Creek tributary were 0.077 and 0.03.0 XCi/ml from the boron recycle holdup tank and the refueling water storage tank, respectively, which exceed the 10 CFR 20 limit for unrestricted areas.However, the tritium concentration in the cooling lake and the Wolf Creek tributary will be well below the limits for unrestricted areas (see discussion below). Since the nearest water users are downstream of both the cooling lake and the potential discharge point on the tributary to Wolf Creek, the tritium concentrations would be within the 10 CFR 20 limits at the nearest water supply. Details of dilution within the surface-water regime of the cooling lake are discussed in USAR Section 2.4.12. Details of dilution within the Wolf Creek tributary due to ground-water discharge are discussed below.Calculations show that the rate of addition of tritium to the cooling lake by means of ground-water discharge exceeds its radioactive decay rate. Hence, the maximum contribution to the concentration of tritium in the lake would occur when the entire tritium plume had discharged to the lake, assuming there was no significant discharge of lake 2.4-67 Rev. 14

.5'WOLF CREEK water downstream of Wolf Creek in the interim. The time for the entire plume to enter the lake is calculated to be.10,665 days. At the end of this period, the total number of curies (M) of tritium can be calculated by: M = Moext [2.4-15]where Mo is the initial number of curies of tritium. For this analysis, the refueling water storage tank provides the worst case, as it has a higher.Mo value than does the boron recycle holdup tank.M = (3.79 x 10 9) exp 0.693 (10,665)4,478 [2.4-16]= 7.275 x 108 PCi At the normal operating level, the lake will hold 111, 280 acre-feet of water, or 1.3726 x 1014 ml. Assuming complete mixing, the average contribution to the tritium concentration in the lake at peak ground-water discharge concentration levels would be 7.275 x 108 1.3726 x 1014 = 5.30 x 10-6 pCi/mi [2.4-17]which is about 200 times smaller than the 10 CFR 20 limit for unrestricted areas. This is less than the equilibrium tritium concentration in. the cooling lake to normal releases and is well below the limits of 10 CFR 20.Significant dilution would also occur in the tributary to Wolf Creek, thus reducing the peak tritium concentration there to a figure well below the limit for unrestricted areas. A model run (Program SLUG3D) showed that at the time of the peak point concentration, resulting from the rupture of the refueling water storage tank, the average tritium concentration of ground water entering the stream would be approximately 1.62 x 10-2 gCi/ml over a reach of about 175 feet, the computed width of the plume. By straight-line measurement, the tributary is approximately 5,500 feet long, from a northerly point (north of which the stream is ephemeral) southward to the tributary's confluence with Wolf Creek. Dilution would occur as a result of the ground-water discharge into the stream arising from the 5,500-175, or 5,325 feet of uncontaminated reach on the east side, plus 5,500 feet.of uncontaminated reach on the west side. However, allowance was made for the fact that the average ground-water discharge coming from the west side could be approximately five times less than that from the east side, because of the much smaller catchment size on the west side; The ground-water discharge rate per lineal foot of stream was assumed to be constant; thus, the dilution 2.4-68 Rev. 14

.) b WOLF CREEK factor was based solely on the ratio of the length of stream receiving uncontaminated ground water to the length of stream affected by the plume. The resulting computed dilution factor was 37.3. Therefore, the expected peak concentration of tritium at the confluence of the tributary with Wolf Creek is 4.3-x 10-4 pCi/ml, compared to the 10 CFR 20 limit of 1.0 x 10-3 pCi/ml for unrestricted areas.2.4.13.4 Monitoring or Safeguard Requirements Construction of the plant required dewatering of the excavations which extend below the water table (USAR Section 2.5.4.6).

It is demonstrated in USAR Section 2.4.13.5.1 that dewatering of plant site excavations during construction did not affect offsite ground-water users.It is demonstrated in USAR Section 2.4.13.3 that the travel time (including the effects of ion-exchange capacity) and dilution effects for an accidental release of radioactive effluent to move from the plant along potential ground-water flow paths to existing or potential future users is sufficiently long to preclude contamination of ground- and surface-water supplies.

.Radioactive effluent reaching these supplies would have insignificant concentrations of radionuclides.

Therefore, ground-water monitoring and safeguards are not required to protect ground-water users, and no monitoring programs or special safeguards are planned.Piezometers and wells located in the area inundated by the cooling lake were sealed prior to filling of the lake except as described below. The piezometers in the cooling lake area which were sealed are listed in Table. 2.4-38 and their locations are shown on Figures 2.4-54, 2.,4-55, and 2.4-61. Private operating and abandoned wells in the cooling lake area which were sealed are listed in Tables 2.4-29b and 2.4-29c, and the well locations are shown on Figure 2.4-52.Well D38B was not plugged due to flooding by the water storage pond at the wash plant during construction of the lake, and Wells D-58B, X-D39-1 and X-D18 which were in waste areas and could not be located. This includes all piezometers and wells within the drainage boundaries of the cooling lake below elevation 1097.5 feet (USGS) (cooling lake level under the condition of probable maximum flood and superimposed wind-wave effect) with the exception of the piezometers at Borings B-17, P-14, and LK-10. The piezometers at Borings B-17 and LK-10 have been maintained to monitor local ground-water levels during the operational phase of the plant; although these borings are above the normal pool elevation of the cooling lake, the piezometer installations are 2 .4 -69 Rev. 14 1 U WOLF CREEK adequately protected to prevent contamination and damage from the cooling lake during flood and wave runup. Piezometer P-14 was damaged during construction and could not be located. Piezometer P-14 is currently located under a parking lot consisting of granular subbase with a 4' asphalt surface course -which should protect the groundwater from contamination.

All test borings made at the site, except for those in which piezometers were installed, have previously been backfilled and sealed with cement.The following procedures were used for sealing wells: a. All drilled wells are sealed with a grout mix.b. Dug wells greater than 10 feet deep are sealed with a concrete mix.c. Dug wells or cisterns less than 10 feet deep are plugged by excavating the well or cistern and filling in the resulting hole with compacted cohesive material.

During excavation, if it is found that the well or cistern is into bedrock, the hole is sealed with a concrete mix.2.4.13.5 Design Bases for Subsurface Hydrostatic Loadings 2.4.13.5.1 Plant Site Water. levels measured in piezometers installed in the residual soil, Jackson Park Shale Member, and Heumader Shale Member were generally about 5 feet below the present ground surface; however, some seasonal variations are noted (Figure 2.4-56 and Tables 2.4- 32 and 2.4-33). Data obtained from plant site piezometers measuring the composite water levels of all rock units from the Jackson Park' Shale Member to the Plattsmouth Limestone Member (Table 2.4-33)show that the potentiometric water levels are near the ground surface following periods of high precipitation and snow-melt.

The shallow water table in the residual soil and weathered bedrock, depending on the amount and frequency of precipitation, is partly perched on the underlying bedrock. After periods of intense precipitation, the water table in the residual soil and weathered bedrock rises at a faster rate than in the unweathered rock units. This is due to greater vertical permeability in the residual soil and weathered bedrock.Because ground-water levels occasionally rise to near the ground surface, the design water level for ground water-induced hydrostatic loading is conservatively established at plant site grade elevation, 1,099.5 feet.2.4-70 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK The normal water table at the plant site is 5 feet below grade and all the safety-related structures are designed for full hydrostatic loading to El.1099.5 ft. MSL which is the plant grade. No permanent underdrains or ground water dewatering systems are installed or planned at the site..2.4.13.5.2 Uplift Pressures The water contained in the weathered Heumader Shale Member is under water-table conditions, while the water contained in the Plattsmouth Limestone Member is under semi-confined to water-table conditions.

However, uplift pressures in the Heumader Shale Member due to excess hydrostatic pressure and lack of drainage in the Plattsmouth Limestone Member will not be significant.

The head in the Plattsmouth Limestone Member will equilibrate as excavation progresses.

The piezometer water-level response to surface infiltration indicates that these units have sufficient vertical permeability to allow relief of excess pressure.

The hydrostatic pressure in the Toronto Limestone Member is not high enough to affect excavation stability.

The drop in head from the Heumader Shale Member to the Plattsmouth Limestone Member (Figure 2.4-57) indicates a downward gradient from the ground surface to the Plattsmouth.

Water levels in piezometers installed in the Toronto Limestone Member are lower than those observed in the Plattsmouth Limestone Member (Figures 2.4-57 and 2.4-58')..

Both natural and recompacted cohesive soils in the site area tend to produce shrinkage or desiccation cracks upon drying. Thus,. vertical downward movement of water from precipitation can be expected, even in areas where engineered cohesive fill has been properly placed. In addition, controlled rock blasting of excavations is expected to increase vertical hydraulic connection in the adjacent bedrock and allow an increased hydraulic connection between the bedrock and recompacted soils.2.4.13.5.3 Dewatering of Excavations Excavations extend to variable depths to attain foundation grades (USAR Section 2.5.4, Figure 2.5-45) with maximum depths of about 41 feet or to elevation 1,058.5 feet.Dewatering of excavations within the Category I area has been accomplished by pumping from sumps in the excavation.

With permeabilities averaging 4 x 10-5 cm/sec (0.8 gpd/ft 2) in the Jackson Park Shale Member, 6 x 10-6 cm/sec (0.1 gpd/ ft 2) in the Heumader Shale Member, and 2 x 10-6 cm/sec (0.04 gpd/ft 2) in the Plattsmouth Limestone Member, normal dewatering by pumping from sumps has been used to maintain dry excavations.

2.4-71 Rev.- 0 WOLF CREEK Where benches are established (USAR Section 2.5.4), surface-water runoff and ground-water seepage has been intercepted by ditches and directed to sumps.water levels in weathered and unweathered shale and limestone units equilibrate during excavation.

The low permeabilities of these units (Table 2.4-34) have precluded an appreciable amount of seepage into the excavations.

Water from precipitation and ground-water seepage has been removed from excavations prior to placing concrete.

The method of dewatering by pumping from sumps has been chosen because (1) the volume of ground-water seepage is small, (2) uplift pressures will not be significant, and (3) it is necessary to remove water from precipitation.

At the plant site, the Jackson Park Shale Member was dewatered during excavation.

During construction dewatering, the potentiometric level within the Heumader Shale Member is locally lowered to the bottom of that unit at about elevation 1,064 feet, a depth of 35.5 feet belowplant grade. The potentiometric level of the Plattsmouth Limestone Member is lowered from about 1,068 *to 1,.057 feet, or about 11 feet.The lateral extent of dewatering during construction was evaluated by use of an equation cited by Reference 9 as follows:.x s soý 2 [Tt /S u2d s = s l 1- Jo e~'U~" where: u2= x 2 S/(4Tt)so= water-level decline in the excavation, in feet;s= net decline in ground-water levels, in feet;x = distance from the excavation to a hypothetical observation well, in feet;.t =time lapsed, in days;S = storage coefficient of strata, dimensionless; T = transmissivity of the strata (permeability times saturated thickness in feet -assumed to be constant away from the excavation), gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft).2 .4-72 Rev. 1 WOLF CREEK Assuming an average thickness of 26 feet, a storage coefficient (S) of 0.05, a permeability (k) of 6 x 10-6 cm/sec (0.1 gpd/ft 2), a transmissivity (T) of 3.3 gpd/ft and using the Ferris equation above the following water-level changes are calculated to occur in the Heumader Shale Member after 2 years of dewatering:

.Distance From Excavation (feet)Decline in Water Level (feet)50 100 200 500 23.5 13.5 2.9< 0.03 The above tabulation indicates that beyond a distance of about 500 feet from the excavation, construction dewatering has a negligible effect on the water table.A similar analysis was performed for the Plattsmouth Limestone Member. Because of low permeability and semi-confined conditions, the storage coefficient (S)of the Plattsmouth Limestone Member is conservatively taken as 0.0001. The permeability (k) is taken as 2 x',10-6 cm/sec (0.04 gpd/ft 2) (Table 2.4-34).Thus, assuming a 12-foot thickness of this unit, the transmissivity is 0.51 gpd/ft. Water-level changes in the Plattsmouth Limestone Member after 2 years of dewatering are calculated with the Ferris equation and the above input data as: Distance From Excavation (feet)o5 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Decline in Water Level (feet)10.6 10.1 9.2 6.6 3.5 0.44< 0.01 The above tabulation indicates that beyond a distance of about 2,000 feet from the excavation, construction dewatering will have a negligible effect on the water levels in the Plattsmouth Limestone Member. Ground-water level readings in the Plattsmouth from piezometer P-14 about 800 feet from the excavations show that the dewatering calculations are accurate (Table 2.4-33). Present and future ground-water users were not affected by dewatering 2 .4-73 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK excavations at the plant site. The nearest wells outside the site boundary are more than 6,000 feet east of the excavations.

Completion of construction has allowed the local water table to recover to its original level.2.4.13.5.4 Essential Service Water System (ESWS) Pumphouse Borings ESW-28 and ESW-29 were drilled at the location of the essential service water system (ESWS) pumphouse (Figure 2.5-25). Logs of borings ESW-28 and ESW-'29 are presented .in USAR Section 2.5, and a cross section through those borings is shown on Figure 2.5-50.Ground-water conditions in the ESWS pumphouse area were monitored by piezometers installed in Borings ESW-10, ESW-23, HS-29, and HS- 10. The piezometer in ESW-10 measures the potentiometric surface in the Plattsmouth Limestone Member. The ground-water level was at about. elevation 1,075 under artesian conditions.

The piezometer installed in Boring ESW-23 was isolated in the Plattsmouth Limestone Member, but the water level had not stabilized before it was destroyed in 1975 (Table 2.4-33). Two piezometers have been installed in Boring HS-29. The lower piezometer measures the potentiometric level of the Toronto Limestone Member, while the upper piezometer measures the composite potentiometric level of the overburden through the Plattsmouth Limestone Member. The upper piezometer in Boring HS-29 indicates a stabilized water-level elevation at about 1,050 feet (Figure 2.4-56). About 1,000 feet to the east of the ESWS pumphouse location, at Boring HS-10, a piezometer is isolated in the Plattsmouth Limestone Member. Its hydrograph (Figure 2.4-56) suggests that the Plattsmouth Limestone Member at and near the ESWS pumphouse is under semi-confined conditions with the potentiometric level near the top of the Plattsmouth Limestone Member.The excavation for the ESWS pumphouse extends to about elevation 1,053 feet which is near the base of the Plattsmouth Limestone Member. However, the low permeability of the Plattsmouth Limestone Member and the overlying Heumader Shale Member [2 x i0-6 and 8 x 10-7 cm/sec (0.04 and 0.02 gpd/ft 2), respectively]

indicates that only minor amounts of ground-water seepage entered the excavation.

Dewatering during construction was accomplished by pumping from sumps. As demonstrated in USAR Section 2.4.13.5.3, the area of influence of dewatering was small.The design water level for the ESWS pumphouse is conservatively established at the ground-surface grade or the Probable Maximum Flood level in the lake (elevation 1,095.0) whichever is greater.2.4-74 Rev. 0

,- j WOLF CREEK 2.4.13.5.5 Category I Pipelines Data obtained from piezometers (Tables 2.4-32 and. 24-33 and Figure 2.4-56).measuring the composite water levels of all units from the overburden to the Plattsmouth Limestone Member show that the potentiometric water levels are near the ground surface (generally within 5 feet) following periods of high precipitation.

Piezometers tapping only the Plattsmouth Limestone Member indicate a water level near the top of the unit., Therefore, the design water level along the ESWS pipelines has been established conservatively at the ground surface or at the maximum cooling lake elevation of 1,095.0 feet, whichever is greatest at any point along the pipeline routes.The cross sections of the ESWS pipeline alignments (Figures 2.5-47 and 2.5-51)indicate that the pipeline excavations only partially penetrate the Plattsmouth Limestone Member. The low permeability of the near-surface rock units [8 x 10-7 to 4 x 10-5 cm/sec (0.02 to 0.8 gpd/ft 2)] indicated that the amount of seepage into the ESWS pipeline excavations during construction was very low.When the excavations were first opened, ground-water inflows originate from the weathered sandstone unit of the Jackson Park Shale Member. These inflows locally dewatered the Jackson Park Shale Member as the excavation proceeded.

Ground water in the Heumader Shale and Plattsmouth Limestone members which seeped into excavations were removed by a system of ditches and sump pumps. As demonstrated in USAR Section 2.4.i3.5.3, the area of influence of dewatering during Fonstruction was small.2.4.13.5.6 ESWS Discharge Structure, Boring ESW-17 was drilled at the location of the ESWS discharge structure..

Two piezometers were installed in Boring HS-8, about 600 feet west of Boring ESW-17, which monitor ground-water conditions near the location of the ESWS Discharge Structure.

The lower piezometer measures the potentiometric level of the. Toronto Limestone Member while the upper piezometer measures the composite potentiometric level of the overburden and Plattsmouth Limestone Member. .The hydrograph (Figure 2.4-56) for the upper piezometer indicates that the water levels near the discharge structure are near the existing ground surface.Marshy conditions at the ground surface near the discharge structure suggest a water-table, condition.

The ground-water level in the Toronto Limestone Member is at about elevation 1,057 under artesian conditions.

The final adjacent ground surface elevation is at the base of the ultimate heat sink (UHS) pond, elevation 1,065 feet. The founda-2.4-75 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK tion grade is at about elevation 1,059 feet within the Heebner Shale Member (Figure 2.5-51). The low permeability of the Plattsmouth Limestone and Heebner Shale members (averaging about 2 x 10-5 and 4 X 10-6 cm/sec (0.4 and 0.08 gpd/ft 2), respectively; see Table, 2.4-34 indicates that the rate of ground-water seepage into the excavation during construction was slow and could be removed by pumping from sumps. As demonstrated in Section 2.4.13.5.3, the area of influence of dewatering during construction was small.The design water level for the ESWS discharge structure is conservatively.

established at the maximum cooling lake elevation of 1,095.0. feet.2.4.14 REFERENCES

1. ASCE Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 1973, Sediment control methods: D. Reservoirs:

By the Task Committee for preparation of. Manual on Sedimentation of the Committee on Sedimentation of the Hydraulics Division, April 1973.2. Baetsle, L.H., and Souffriau, J., 1967, Installation of chemical barriers in aquifers and their significance in accidental contamination, in Disposal of radioactive wastes into the ground: Proceedingd of a Symposium, 29 May -2 June, 1967, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.3. Bayne, C.K., and Ward, J.R., 1967, General availability of ground-water in Kansas: -Kansas Geol. Survey, map.4. Broeker, M. E., and Fishel, V. C., 1961, Groundwater levels in observation wells in Kansas, 1960: Kansas Geol.Survey, Bull., no. 153.5. Burns, C. V., 1967, Kansas streamflow characteristics, part 7, Annual streamflow summary tables: Kansas Water Resources Board, Topeka, Kansas, Tech. rept. no. 7 (June).6. Chow, V. T., 1959, Open-channel hydraulics:

McGraw-Hill BookCompany, Inc., New York, p. 115.7. Chow, ed., 1964, Handbook of applied hydrology:

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, Sections 14-6, 21-37, 25-5.8. Defant, A., 1960, Physical oceanography:

Pergamon Press, Inc., v. II.2.4-76 Rev. 11

'SE.ST4 CIRC WATE ATEGORYG zA LAKJ IYO'(TEI.

ULIMTE11c'~~~~~~ to E- ' 't~ R~CP N L)V, Q A.,)PA N, I P&MY, ly *OA I.MAI d N DA[-A:Rtjix-.--15 Rev. 0 A.I I~1K7 r .... ..-~_o UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT-Figure 2.4-1 General Arrangement I L f -1. -ý- f-.-- , -

j F)7) -r I/I *I..(.t~4.~':~'4~ 1' i~ ID t-.1. ~, ILl 4 A..I 1 II..w'~~~~1 i Ail,~--l , r t I I l.--\\"l\llllllltlF" A~Th+/- e~~- ~I I ý -I)I,, ES.'S I I.-Sf ~ L'..AfJI.,k

.'~,u 1~.'.- /m KZ) ~7~~S /~~>j 1(1 jii~~K~i j;'I-I, I T Ki. -~~WRKSEVEL A.42K.EL VIORev.0 WOLF CREEK UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS RRPoVYI Figure 2.4-2 Main Dam and Appurtenant

-Structures

• U 0I.*,v.4. U* K ~ i k; ;It i i .i ~Tj-LEGEND A USG SSSt -AH T in* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T I~~uuoUG TRA-10IAS* UIS *CCAUW ..lp.SIai i5CýRev. 0 WOLF CREEK UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 2.4-5-Neosho River Basin in Kansas

• • fl.OflI~~'fi U.WOLF CREEK UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 2.4-6 Wolf Creek Watershed Rev. 0 0

48. Documentation of any environment releases, including any evaluations of the incident with respect to the nature, extent, and impact of the release.

Water Use/Water Quality Page 1 of 2-Site-specific hydrogeological information, including:

groundwater depth(s) at site;aquifer(s) present at site; location, elevation, construction, and historical analyses on current and past monitoring wells (including B-12, C-10, C-49, J-1, J-2, G-2, and F-I);details of the current monitoring and analytical program; flow direction information (direction, rate, fate); and comprehensive local production information (locations, construction information, history of analysis, pump rates, use).* Documentation of any environment releases, including any evaluations of the incident with respect to the nature, extent, and impact of the release.-Locations, volumes, and existing chemical and radiological analytical data on drinking water intakes for Burlington, Neosho Falls, Iola, and any other intakes on the Neosho River between JRR and Iola.-Correspondence, reports, and any other information related to any past restrictions on water withdrawal, if any have occurred.

If none have occurred, a statement that these restrictions have never been implemented.

-More detailed data regarding the groundwater quality study performed from 1973-87.Provide the locations of the wells included in the study, their depths, production rates, and water uses. Discuss any regulatory involvement, including the regulatory program of which the study was a part, which agency(ies) reviewed and approved workplans and conclusions, the chemical and radiological parameters that were measured, the periodicity of the sampling, and the standards to which results were compared.

Provide the rationale for ceasing the program only two years into operations, including any regulatory concurrence in this action.-A map showing the locations of all groundwater monitoring or production wells in the local area, including their depths, rates of production, and use of water, if known.Section 2.9.1 states that 80% of water use in the basin is from surface sources -describe the source, location, and use of the other 20%.* More detailed meteorological data, including historic rainfall data, to provide additional information for the evaluation of water use conflicts in Section 2.10 of the ER (WCGS, 1980). Include average rainfall, seasonal variations, and information on extreme conditions.

Please provide the average peak and low-flow values for the Neosho River.Also provide information on seasonal variability, if it exists.-Clarification of the relationship between the WCNOC contract with the Kansas Water Resources Board, versus the "Certificate of Appropriation" discussed in ER Section 4.1.It appears that the contract has controls based on available supply within the reservoir, while certificate has controls based on the flow rate in the river. Please verify if this is correct. Also identify if a different agency implements the controls in either case, or if this is a single agency.

Water Use/Water Quality 77 .If at any time a release to the environment has been documented, then any evaluations of this information with respect to the nature, extent, and impact of the release.Reportable Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances

• 5/22/1985

-approx. 50 gal. water soluble oil; to lake* 1/2/1987 -approx. 35 gal. oil past weir below site oil/water separator* 8/13/1987

-approx. 3 gal. oil from bucket falling off truck; to public road* 10/1988 -unknown quantity diesel fuel from underground piping;subsequent remediation project completed* 10/3/1990

-discovered leaking underground piping from diesel fuel storage tank; local groundwater contamination; remediation process recovered approx. 175 gal. of diesel fuel; remediation considered complete in 1998 (per 11/5/98 KDHE letter)* 3/15/1991

-approx. 1125 gal. acidic wastewater (RCRA D002) released to storm drain system; pH of water where this system drained to lake (NPDES outfall) was 8.0* 12/20/1991

-approx. 1 qt. oil past weir below site oil/water separator* 1/10/1992

-approx. 1 qt. oil past weir below site oil/water separator* 7/6/1992 -oil sheen past weir below site oil/water separator* 7/25/1992

-< 1 qt. oil to MUSH pump bay from screenwash drive chain sump* 3/17/1993

-approx. 1 pt. oil past weir below site oil/water separator* 3/29/1993

-approx. 1 pt. oil past weir below site oil/water separator* 4/13/1993

-approx. 1 qt. oil past weir beow site oil/water separator* 4/21/1993

-approx. 30 gal. diesel fuel; overflow from storage tank; to soil* 5/10/1993

-oil sheen past weir below site oil/water separator* 5/17/1993

-approx. 1 qt. oil past weir below site oi/water separator* 12/14/1994

-approx. 15 gal. hydraulic oil from truck; to soil* 7/22/1995

-oil sheen on lake at intake from leaking lube oil reservoir* 11/5/1995

-approx. 3 pts. gear oil to lake from intake chain drive sump* 5/27/1997

-oil sheen (< 4 oz.) past weir below site oil/water separator; to lake* 11/11/1997

-approx. 1 gal. oil past weir below site oil/water separator* 7/1/1998 -oil sheen past weir below site oil/water separator* 7/7/1998 -oil sheen past weir below site oil/water separator* 12/25/1998

-approx. 300-500 gal. kerosene from tank to earthen berm (contained within berm); soil was remediated S6/4/11999-1694 lbs. sodium hypochlorite (15% or less) solution released to lake* 7/16/2000

-approx. 15 gal. sodium bromide (40% sol.) released to soil* 8/26/2001

-approx. 2 oz. oil; from grease on dredge equipment; to lake 0 1/31/2002

-oil sheen reached lake past weir below site oil/water separator* 3/15/2002

-approx. 10 gal. diesel fuel from offloading; some may have reached lake via storm drain e 4/16/2004

-approx. 20 gal. hydraulic oil from compressor transfer line; to soil* 7/26/2004

-approx. 2 gal. diesel fuel from offloading; to soil* 10/15/2005

-approx. 2 gal. diesel fuel from filling generator fuel tank; to soil* 1/26/2006

-approx. 3 gal. hydraulic oil from truck; to soil* 4/3/2006 -approx. 2.5 gal. hydraulic oil from truck; to soil

49. Locations, volumes, and existing chemical and radiological analytical data on drinking water intakes for Burlington, Neosho Falls, Iola, and any other intakes on the Neosho River between JRR and Iola.

Water Use/Water Quality Page 1 of 2-Site-specific hydrogeological information, including:

groundwater depth(s) at site;aquifer(s) present at site; location, elevation, construction, and historical analyses on current and past monitoring wells (including B-12, C-10, C-49, J-1, J-2, G-2, and F-I);details of the current monitoring and analytical program; flow direction information (direction, rate, fate); and comprehensive local production information (locations, construction information, history of analysis, pump rates, use).* Documentation of any environment releases, including any evaluations of the incident with respect to the nature, extent, and impact of the release.-Locations, volumes, and existing chemical and radiological analytical data on drinking water intakes for Burlington, Neosho Falls, Iola, and any other intakes on the Neosho River between JRR and Iola.-Correspondence, reports, and any other information related to any past restrictions on water withdrawal, if any have occurred.

If none have occurred, a statement that these restrictions have never been implemented.

• More detailed data regarding the groundwater quality study performed from 1973-87.Provide the locations of the wells included in the study, their depths, production rates, and water uses. Discuss any regulatory involvement, including the regulatory program of which the study was a part, which agency(ies) reviewed and approved workplans and conclusions, the chemical and radiological parameters that were measured, the periodicity of the sampling, and the standards to which results were compared.

Provide the rationale for ceasing the program only two years into operations, including any regulatory concurrence in this action.-A map showing the locations of all groundwater monitoring or production wells in the local area, including their depths, rates of production, and use of water, if known.Section 2.9.1 states that 80% of water use in the basin is from surface sources -describe the source, location, and use of the other 20%.-More detailed meteorological data, including historic rainfall data, to provide additional information for the evaluation of water use conflicts in Section 2.10 of the ER (WCGS, 1980). Include average rainfall, seasonal variations, and information on extreme conditions.

Please provide the average peak and low-flow values for the Neosho River.Also provide information on seasonal variability, if it exists.-Clarification of the relationship between the WCNOC contract with the Kansas Water Resources Board, versus the "Certificate of Appropriation" discussed in ER Section 4.1.It appears that the contract has controls based on available supply within the reservoir, while certificate has controls based on the flow rate in the river. Please verify if this is correct. Also identify if a different agency implements the controls in either case, or if this is a single agency.

Personal Communication Date: April 21, 2005 Source -Person's name, title, and phone number: Kelly Kelsey (man), 785-296-6340.

Title of place contacted:

Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

Enforcement and Regulation Development.

Public Water Supply Section.Subject discussed:

Water Supply Data for the Cities of Emporia and Burlington.

Personal communication with E. N. Hill, TtNUS.Detailed description of the information sought: I contacted Mr. Kelsey to obtain the current water supply data for the Cities of Emporia and Burlington.

He gave me the water data for the City of Emporia (see below), but did not have information for the City of Burlington.

He suggested that I contact Jack Sowder, Water Superintendent, for the City of Burlington data.Mr. Kelsey reported the following:

City of Emporia: Maximum Capacity = 12.5 MGD Average Daily Production

= 9.4 MGD Total Design Capacity = 15 MGD Personal Communication Date: May 5, 2005 Source -Person's name, title, and phone number: Jack Sowder, Water Superintendent for City of Burlington, wk -620-364-8332 or cell -620-364-6432.

Title of place contacted:

City of Burlington water supply facility.Subject discussed:

Water Supply Data for the City of Burlington.

Personal communication with E. N. Hill, TtNUS.Detailed description of the information sought: I contacted Mr. Sowder to obtain the current water supply data for the City of Burlington.

Mr. Sowder reported the following:

City of Burlington:

Maximum Capacity = 1.8 MGD Average Daily Production

= 0.6 to 0.7 MGD Total Design Capacity = 2.0 MGD (however, if you subtract process water, TDC = 1.8 MGD.

Ii M A G E D 0 4///2 0 0 6 W!'LF CREEK'NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION April 27, 2006 Kevin J. Moles Manager Regulatory Affairs RA 06-0066 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Technical Specification 5.6.2. This report covers radiological environmental monitoring around WCGS for the period of January 1, 2005.through December 31, 2005.No commitments are identified in this correspondence.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (620) 364-4126, or Ms. Diane Hooper at (620) 364-4041.Sincerely, KJM/rIt

Enclosure:

2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report cc: J. N. Donohew (NRC), wle W. B. Jones (NRC), wle B. S. Mallett (NRC), w/e Senior Resident Inspector (NRC), wle P.O. Box 411 1 Burling:on, KS 66839/ Phone: (620) 364-8631 An Equal Opportuni:y Employer MIFIHCNET I A G E WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION 0 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 4/ 2005 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL 2/ ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 2 0 0 6 ii April 15, 2006 I A G E TABLE OF CONTENTS D List of Tables ii 0 4 List of Figures ii/2 List of Charts ii 8/ Executive Summary 1 O Introduction 1 6 I. Program Description 1 II. Discussion of Results 4 Ill. Program Revisions/Changes 9 IV. Program Deviations 9 V. Interlaboratory Comparison Program Results 10 VI. Comparison to the Radioactive Effluents Release Program 10 Tables 11 Figures 19 Charts 24 Appendix A -Interlaboratory Comparison Program Results A-1 Appendix B -Summary Tables B-1 Appendix C -2005 Individual Sample Results C-1 Air Particulate and Charcoal Filters C-1 Quarterly Air Particulate

-Gamma C-13 Surface Water C-19 Ground Water C-27 Drinking Water C-40 Quarterly Drinking Water -Tritium C-52 Shoreline Sediment C-55 Fish C-57 Food/Garden C-62 Feed and Forage C-71 Bottom Sediment C-74 Aquatic Vegetation C-78 Terrestrial Vegetation C-80 Soil C-81 Appendix D -2005 Land Use Census Report D-1 i H A LIST OF TABLES D 1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Description 11 2 Sample Location Identifiers, Distances (Miles) and Directions (Sectors) 16 3 TLD Results. 18/2LIST OF FIGURES 0 1 1 Airborne Pathway Sampling Locations 19 6 2 Direct Radiation Pathway Sampling Locations 20 3 Waterbome Pathway Sampling Locations 21 4 Ingestion Pathway Sampling Locations 22 5 Distant Sampling Locations 23 LIST OF CHARTS 1 Airborne Gross Beta Weekly Results 24 2 Historical Airborne Smoothed Indicator and Control Gross Beta 25 3 TLD Nearsite Locations and Control Locations 26 4 Coffey County Lake Surface Water Tritium Data 27 5 Drinking Water Gross Beta (5 years) 28 6 Detected Co-60 Activity in Coffey County Lake Discharge Cove Bottom Sediment 29 7 Detected Cs-137 Activity in Bottom Sediment 30 ii M A G E EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Plant-related activation, corrosion or fission products were not detected during 2005 in airborne 0 particulate and radioiodine filters, ground water, drinking water, shoreline sediment, broadleaf 4 vegetation, crops, terrestrial vegetation, aquatic vegetation, or soil samples. Activation, corrosion or fission products attributable to plant operation were detected during 2005 in 2 surface water, fish, and bottom sediment samples.8 Nuclides detected in REMP samples were below applicable NRC reporting levels, and program 2 lower limits of detection were met.0 O Based upon the radiological environmental monitoring results, it was concluded that station 6operations has had no significant radiological impact on the health and safety of the public or the environment.

INTRODUCTION The 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) covers the period from January 1 through December 31, 2005. WCGS is located in Coffey County, Kansas, approximately five miles northeast of Burlington, Kansas.Fuel loading commenced at WCGS on March 12, 1985. The operational phase of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) began with initial criticality on May 22, 1985, and the first detectable quantities of radioactivity were reported in plant effluents In June 1985.This report contains a description of the REMP conducted by Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC), results of sample analyses, a discussion of monitoring program results, a description of revisions to and deviations from the program, and the results of Interlaboratory Comparison Programs.

Individual sample results and a summary of results in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Branch Technical Position specified format are included as appendices.

I. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Radiological environmental samples were collected according to the schedule in WCGS procedure AP 07B-004, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program).

Environmental samples were collected by the WCGS Environmental Management group and were analyzed by Environmental, Inc. Detroit Edison processed environmental thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) at the Enrico Fermi 2 plant. Table 1 lists sampling pathways and frequencies of sampling and analysis.

Table 2 lists each sample location's distance and direction from the plant. Samples in addition to those required by the WCGS Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) were also obtained and analyzed.The following is a description of the sampling and analysis program by individual pathways.2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 1 of 30 M A G A. Airborne Pathway V Low volume air sampling pumps collected particulate and radioiodine samples on 47 mm glass fiber filters and charcoal canisters, respectively.

The filters and charcoal canisters were 4 changed out weekly, labeled, and shipped to Environmental, Inc. for analysis.

The volume of/ air sampled was calculated from the average of initial and final flow rates and the total time of 2 collection.

Each pump was equipped with a time totalizer that was checked weekly against the 8/ elapsed time to identify electrical power outages.£ Gross beta analysis of the air particulate samples was performed after a nominal 72-hour 0 period to allow the radon and thoron daughter products to decay.Weekly air particulate filters were combined into quarterly composites for each location and analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes.Charcoal canisters were routinely counted in groups of five to determine the presence or absence of 1-131. Positive indication of 1-131 would have resulted in analysis of each individual charcoal canister.Air samples were collected from six locations.

Indicator locations.

2, 37 and 49 are located in the three sectors with the highest ground level deposition

'constants (D/Q). Air sampling stations are also located in the community of New Strawn (indicator location 32) and a control location at Harris (location 48). Supplemental indicator location (location

18) was also sampled during the year. Distances and directions to sampling locations from the plant are listed in Table 2, indicator locations are shown in Figure 1, and the control location is shown in Figure 5.B. Direct Radiation Pathway Panasonic UD-814-AQ TLDs were used at 47 locations during the sample year. The TLDs consist of one lithium-borate element and three calcium sulfate elements in a plastic case.TLDs were typically positioned roughly 3 to 4 feet above the ground in plastic thermostat boxes.The thermostat boxes protect the TLDs from the elements and tampering.

Two TLDs were placed at each designated location.

The TLDs were changed out quarterly.

Indicator TLD sample locations are illustrated in Figure 2 and control locations are shown in Figure 5. Table 2 provides the distance and direction of each location from the plant. Control locations were 39 (Beto Junction) and 48 (Harris).C. Waterborne Pathway All water samples were analyzed to determine whether gamma emitters were present. In addition to gamma isotopic analysis, radiochemical analysis for 1-131 was performed on drinking water and ground water samples. Gross beta analysis was also performed on drinking water samples. Tritium analysis was performed monthly by liquid scintillation for surface water and quarterly for drinking water. Tritium analysis was also performed on ground water samples. Water sampling locations are listed in Table 2 and are shown in Figures 3 and 5.Monthly grab samples of surface water were collected from John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) as a control location and from the "SP" location, which is located near the spillway of Coffey County Lake, formally known as Wolf Creek Lake, as an indicator location.2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 2 of 30 I M A G E D Quarterly grab samples of ground water were collected from four wells. Location B-12 is hydrologically up gradient from the site and was used as a control location.

Three locations OJ (C-10, C-49, and J-1) are hydrologically down gradient from the site and were used as indicator 4 sample locations.

/Drinking water was sampled at the water treatment facilities for the towns of Burlington (control B location BW-15) and Neosho Falls (indicator location NF-DW). The Burlington facility is located 2 upstream and the Neosho Falls facility is located downstream of the confluence of the discharge from Coffey County Lake and the Neosho River. Composite samples were obtained monthly from automatic samplers at each location that collected approximately 27 ml of drinking water every two hours.Shoreline sediments were sampled semiannually.

Gamma isotopic analysis was performed on the shoreline sediment samples. Shoreline sediment sample locations were the Coffey County Lake discharge cove (DC) indicator location and at the control location (JRR).D. Ingestion Pathway Because no sampling locations that produce milk for human consumption were identified within five miles of the plant, milk was not collected during the sample year.Fish were sampled semiannually from the tail waters of JRR (control, Figure 4) and from Coffey County Lake (indicator, Figure 4). Gamma isotopic analysis was performed on the boneless meat portions of the fish. Several species of game fish and rough fish were sampled. Fish were also analyzed for tritium.Broadleaf vegetation samples were collected monthly when available during the growing season from five gardens. Three indicator (G-1, N-1 and Q-6) gardens (Figure 4) and two control (D-1 and D-2) gardens (Figure 5) were sampled. Gamma isotopic analyses were performed on all samples.Crop samples were obtained from two indicator locations (NR-D1 and NR-D2) downstream of the confluence of Wolf Creek and the Neosho River. One crop sample was obtained from control location NR-U1. Gamma isotopic analysis was performed on each sample. Crop sample locations are identified on Figure 5.E. Additional Samples Collected (not required by ODCM)Drinking water indicator location 10-DW (Iola) was sampled during the year. The drinking water sample was analyzed for gross beta, gamma emitters, 1-131 and tritium. This sample location was added due to the anticipated closure of the Neosho Falls drinking water treatment facility and is identified on Figure 5.Quarterly, duplicate ground water grab samples were obtained from indicator location C-49 and were labeled L-49. These duplicate samples served as laboratory quality checks. Three indicator ground water sample locations were also sampled during the fourth quarter of 2005 (F-1, G-2 and J-2). The ground water samples were analyzed for gamma emitters, 1-131 and tritium.2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 3 of 30 I.A , .G E Bottom sediment samples were collected at the Environmental Education Area (EEA) and from D the Make-Up Discharge Structure (MUDS). Gamma isotopic analysis was performed on the bottom sediment samples. These indicator samples were collected as part of a cooperative 0 sampling effort with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). The sample 4 locations are identified on Figure 3./2 Bottom sediment samples were collected semiannually at the Coffey County Lake discharge 6 cove (DC) indicator location and the control location (JRR). Gamma isotopic analysis was/ performed on the bottom sediment samples. These samples were collected as part of a 2cooperative sampling effort with the KDHE. The sample locations are identified on Figure 3.0 O Aquatic vegetation was collected from indicator locations EEA and MUDS. Gamma isotopic analysis was performed on the aquatic vegetation samples. These samples were collected as part of a cooperative sampling effort with the KDHE. The sample locations are identified on Figure 3.Terrestrial vegetation was sampled from indicator location EEA. Gamma isotopic analysis was performed on the terrestrial vegetation sample. This sample was collected as part of a cooperative sampling effort with the KDHE. The sample location is identified on Figure 4.Soil was sampled from indicator locations MUDS and EEA. Gamma isotopic analysis was performed on the soil samples. These samples were collected as part of a cooperative sampling effort with the KDHE. The sample locations are identified on Figure 4.Distance and direction information for the sampling locations listed in this section are outlined in Table 2.I1. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Analysis results for all pathways are summarized in Appendix B using the format described in Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, Revision 1, November 1979 (NRC Generic Letter 79-065). Results for individual samples are listed in Appendix C.In this section, results are discussed by pathway and analysis type. Monitoring results are compared with control data, preoperational values, sources of radioactivity, and effluent releases when applicable.

Trends or seasonal effects are discussed.

A. Airborne Pathway Chart 1 graphically illustrates weekly gross beta results for the sample year. Chart 2 represents the historical smoothed averages of indicator and control gross beta data.Charts I and 2 demonstrate how closely the indicator and control locations tracked together.Chart 2 reveals a seasonal cyclic trend in which gross beta values peak in the winter months (December or January) and decrease to a low point in the spring months (May or June). This trend is expected and is attributed to seasonal meteorological changes, i.e., changes in prevailing winds and precipitation.

2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 4 of 30 I M A G E The gross beta results of 2005 were compared to pre-operational monitoring results of 1983 D and 1984. The weekly gross beta analyses range for 1983 and 1984 was 0.0064 to 0.084 pCi/m 3.The 2005 weekly gross beta analyses range for indicator locations was 0.014 to o 0.055 pCi/m 3 , which was within the 1983 and 1984 pre-operational range. Additionally, the/ annual mean for indicator locations for 2005 (0.030 pCi/m 3) was lower than the annual mean for 1983 (0.032 pCi/m 3).8The gross beta results for the indicator locations were also compared to the control location.The annual mean for indicator locations for 2005 (0.030 pCi/m 3) was similar to the annual mean of the control location (0.029 pCi/m 3).Naturally occurring Be-7 activity was detected, as was the case during pre-operational monitoring.

In 1984, the range for Be-7 detected activity was 0.024 to 0.211 pCi/m 3 for indicator locations, and the annual mean for indicator locations was 0.069 pCi/m 3.In 2005, the range for Be-7 detected activity was 0.057 to 0.107 pCi/m 3 for indicator locations, and the annual mean for indicator locations was 0.080 pCi/m 3.The control location annual mean for Be-7 detected activity (0.076 pCi/m 3) was similar to the indicator locations annual mean (0.080 pCi/m 3).Required lower limits of detection were met and 1-131 activity was not detected in the weekly analysis of charcoal filters at any location.No effects of plant operation were seen via the airborne pathway for the year, and no unusual trends were noted.B. Direct Radiation Pathway Quarterly gamma exposures measured at each location are shown in Table 3. Measured values have been converted to a standard 90-day quarter.The annual mean of all indicator locations in 2005 was 0.271 mR/day and the annual mean for the control locations was 0.265 mR/day. The exposure measurements for the control locations and the indicator locations were elevated due to the unusually long period of time between the ship dates of the TLDs from the vendor lab and the read times by the vendor lab. This condition has been documented in the corrective action process (PIR 2006-0831).

For pre-operational comparison, in 1981, the annual mean of all indicator locations was 0.21 mR/day and annual mean for the control locations was 0.19 mR/day.Results from TLDs located near the plant (less than three miles), which would be most affected by changes in plant operation, were combined into quarterly averages.

These nearsite averages, using locations 1, 2, 7-14, 18, 26-30, 37 and 38, are compared to control location results (locations 39 and 48) in Chart 3. Chart 3 also includes preoperational data for comparison.

The nearsite TLD locations have historically trended higher than the control locations both prior to and after WCGS became operational.

Chart 3 also displays the elevated results for the control locations and the indicator locations.

2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 5 of 30 I A G E C. Waterborne Pathway (1) Surface Water 4 Tritium, attributable to WCGS operation, was detected in all surface water samples collected/ from Coffey County Lake during 2005. Chart 4 illustrates the yearly averages of surface water* tritium data for the spillway location.

It can be seen in Chart 4 that surface water tritium 8 concentrations have trended upward since plant startup. This is expected until the average/ tritium concentration of the lake reaches equilibrium.

O Tritium activity (219 +/- 95 pCi/L), not attributable to WCGS operation, was also detected in one o surface water sample obtained from the control location (JRR) on October 20. Statistically, the 6 tritium level observed is at the lower end of the vendor laboratory's counting system capability.

Required lower limits of detection were met.During pre-operational environmental radiological monitoring, measured radiological activity was not detected in surface water samples.Tritium was the only activity detected in surface water samples and no unusual trends were noted.(2) Ground Water Low levels of tritium, not attributable to WCGS operation, were the only activity detected in ground water samples. Two indicator locations C-10 and C-49 collected on August 11 had tritium detected at levels of 204 +/- 94 pCi/L and 217 +/- 95 pCi/L, respectively.

These analysis results were verified by a laboratory re-analysis.

Statistically, the tritium levels observed were at the lower end of the vendor laboratory's counting system capability.

Additionally, a split sample had been obtained from location C-49 and was labeled L-49. The tritium result for the sample collected on August 11 and labeled location L-49 was <173 pCi/L.Required lower limits of detection were met.During pre-operational environmental radiological monitoring, measured radiological activity was not typically detected in ground water samples.Low levels of tritium were the only activity detected in ground water samples and no unusual trends were noted.(3) Drinking Water Chart 5 illustrates the drinking water gross beta results for the last five years and how closely the gross beta results compared for the indicator and control locations.

2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 6 of 30 I M A G E Gross beta activity was detected in all drinking water samples. The annual mean of the control D location gross beta activity (3.9 pCi/L) was higher when compared to the annual mean of the indicator locations (3.6 pCi/L). The 2005 annual means of gross beta activity for both the o control and indicator locations were lower than those of the pre-operational monitoring year of 4 1984. In 1984, the annual mean of the control location gross beta activity was 6.4 pCi/L, and the annual mean of the indicator location gross beta activity was 7.5 pCi/L.S During the third quarter of 2005, low levels of tritium activity were detected in the two indicator/ location samples (Iola: 207 +/- 83 pCi/L; Neosho Falls: 243 +/- 85 pCi/L) as well as the control location sample (Burlington:

245 +/- 85 pCi/L). The analysis results were verified by a 0 o laboratory re-analysis.

Statistically, the tritium levels observed were at the lower end of the 6 vendor laboratory's counting system capability.

Required lower limits of detection were met. Additionally, radionuclides were not detected by the 1-131 or gamma isotopic analyses.Activity due to plant operation was not evident in drinking water samples during 2005 and no unusual trends were noted.(4) Shoreline Sediment Naturally occurring K-40 (10,382-10,953 pCi/kg, dry) was detected in samples obtained from the indicator location (DC) and in samples obtained from the control location (8,643-11,846 pCi/kg, dry). K-40 was also detected during pre-operational shoreline sediment monitoring.

Cs-137 activity was detected in the samples obtained from the control location (JRR). The indicator location (DC) samples did not have Cs-137 activity detected.Required lower limits of detection were met. Activity due to plant operation was not evident in shoreline sediment samples during 2005 and no unusual trends were noted.D. Ingestion Pathway (1) Milk Milk was not collected during the sample year since no indicator locations within five miles of the plant were identified during the Land Use Census.(2) Fish Naturally occurring K-40 activity was detected in all fish samples. K-40 activity was also detected during pre-operational fish monitoring.

During 2005, fish were also analyzed for tritium. All fish samples taken from Coffey County Lake had tritium activity detected (7,699.7 pCi/kg annual mean). The detected tritium activity was attributable to plant operation.

An adult consuming 21 kilograms of fish, at the maximum measured tritium concentration for 2005 (9,479 pCi/kg), would receive a committed effective dose equivalent of 0.013 mRem.Tritium activity was not detected in the control samples collected from JRR.2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 7 of 30 M A E D No other radionuclides were detected in fish during the year. The ODCM required lower limits of detection were met and no unusual trends were noted.0 4 (3) Broadleaf Vegetation

/2 Gamma analyses of broadleaf vegetation samples obtained from indicator and control locations 8 detected naturally occurring gamma emitters Be-7 and K-40. Be-7 and K-40 activity were also/ detected pre-operationally.

2 0 The ODCM required lower limits of detection were met and no unusual trends were noted.0 6 Activity attributable to plant operation was not detected.(4) Crop Samples Gamma analysis detected naturally occurring K-40 to be present in all of the samples. K-40 activity was also detected during pre-operational crop monitoring.

K-40 was the only activity detected in crop samples. The ODCM required lower limits of detection were met and no unusual trends were noted.E. Additional Samples Collected (not required by ODCM)(1) Bottom Sediment Naturally occurring K-40 was detected in all of the bottom sediment samples. K-40 activity was also detected during pre-operational bottom sediment monitoring.

Co-60 activity (159.7 and 182.8 pCi/kg)-was detected in the samples obtained from the Coffey County Lake discharge cove. Co-60 activity was attributable to plant operation and has been identified in plant effluents.

Co-60 activity was not detected in pre-operational environmental monitoring and was not detected in samples collected from control location JRR during 2005.Chart 6 plots the Co-60 detected activity from the discharge cove and reflects a decreasing trend.Cs-137 activity (208.9 and 234.4 pCi/kg) was detected in the indicator samples obtained from the Coffey County Lake discharge cove. A portion of this activity is due to fallout and a portion of this activity is likely plant-related since Cs-134 activity has been detected in the past. Cs-137 activity was detected in pre-operational samples, and the results for 2005 indicator bottom sediment samples were within the pre-operational range. (Cs-137 activity detected in 1981 and 1982 was in the range of 79 to 953 pCi/kg. The decay corrected range of pre-operational Cs-137 activity detected is approximately 45 to 542 pCi/kg.) Cs-.137 activity has been identified in plant effluents.

Cs-137 activity (154.5 and 127.6 pCi/kg) was also detected in the control location samples and in the samples obtained from the indicator location EEA (83.7 and 77.3 pCi/kg).Chart 7 plots the Cs-137 detected activity from the discharge cove indicator location and JRR control location bottom sediment samples. The detected Cs-137 activity measured from the discharge cove location reflects a decreasing trend. The Chart 7 trend line indicates that as expected, Cs-137 activity detected at the JRR control location has been decreasing.

2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 8 of 30 I M A G.E D No other radionuclides were detected in bottom sediment samples and no unusual trends were noted.0 4 (2) Aquatic Vegetation

/: Naturally occurring Be-7 and K-40 activity were detected in samples collected in 2005. Be-7 o and K-40 activity were also detected during pre-operational monitoring.

,/No other radionuclides were detected in aquatic vegetation samples and no unusual trends O were noted.0 6 (3) Terrestrial Vegetation Naturally occurring Be-7 and K-40 activity were detected in samples collected in 2005. No other radionuclides were detected.

No unusual trends were identified.

(4) Soil Naturally occurring K-40 activity was detected in both of the soil samples. K-40 activity was also detected during pre-operational soil monitoring.

Cs-137 (557.5 pCi/kg) activity was detected in one soil sample obtained from the indicator location EEA. The pre-operational Cs-137 results (255 to 2,160 pCi/kg) for soil samples were decay corrected.

The decay corrected pre-operational range is approximately 160 to 1355 pCi/kg. The measured Cs-137 activity of the soil samples obtained during 2005 are within the decay corrected pre-operational range. Cs-137 activity was not detected in air samples collected during 2005. The measured Cs-137 activity in the soil sample was likely due to previous fallout and not to a recently produced fission product associated with plant operation.

No unusual trends were identified.

Ill. PROGRAM REVISIONS/CHANGES No sample locations were changed during the 2005 monitoring period.IV. PROGRAM DEVIATIONS Air Samples The air sample locations listed below failed to meet the requirement for "continuous sampler operation." As described in footnote (1) of AP 078-004, Table 5-1, deviations are permitted from the required sampling schedule due to malfunction of sampling equipment and other legitimate reasons. Discrepancies greater than five percent between Total Military Time and Total Meter Time, which resulted in a loss of air sample collected, are listed in the following table.2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 9 of 30 I M A G E D 0/8/4.0 09 6 Location Sample Period Percent Explanation of Deviation Discrepancy/

Hours Unavailable 48 01/04/05 -01/12/05 11.80/23.3 Electrical Power Outage 37 06/28/05 -07/06/05 11.06/21.0 Electrical Power Outage During 2005, no other deviations from the AP 07B-004, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program) sampling schedule occurred.V. INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS During 2005, Environmental, Inc., Midwest Laboratory was contracted to perform radiological analysis of environmental samples for WCNOC. The lab participated in the intercomparison studies administered by Environmental Resources Associates.

Appendix A is the Interlaboratory Comparison Program Results for Environmental, Inc., Midwest Laboratory.

Intercomparison results, in-house spikes, blanks, duplicates and mixed analyte performance evaluation program results are also contained in Appendix A.VI. COMPARISON TO THE RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS RELEASE PROGRAM As described in the section discussing radioisotopes found in fish from Coffey County Lake, dose that may be received as a result of tritium released from WCGS is comparable with the theoretical doses calculated by the Radioactive Effluent Release Program.The theoretical doses calculated by the Radioactive Effluent Release Program assume that a person drinks the water from Coffey County Lake and eats the fish from Coffey County Lake.Based upon these assumptions the dose to man from both pathways was calculated to be 0.286 mRem for 2005.Using sample data obtained from the REMP, an adult drinking 2 liters per day of surface water from Coffey County Lake, using the average tritium activity (12,855 pCi/L), would receive a committed effective dose equivalent of 0.587 mRem per year. For an adult eating 21 kg of fish per year from Coffey County Lake, using the average tritium activity (7,699 pCi/kg), would receive a committed effective dose equivalent of 0.010 mRem per year. Based upon the REMP results, the dose from both pathways was calculated to be 0.597 mRem per year.It should be noted that the Coffey County Lake is not a drinking water source. Calculating the dose to man for tritium detected in the Coffey County Lake surface water is for comparison purposes only.The tritium dose values are being compared on a qualitative basis. It is not expected that the annual doses, as calculated in the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, would compare directly to those calculated from the REMP. The Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report provides a 'snap shot' of potential dose resulting from the year's releases.

The REMP data indicates the accumulated result of releasing tritium into the lake since the start of plant operation.

2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 10 of 30 I M A G E D 0 4//0 6 TABLE I 2005 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION (SAMPLE COLLECTION SPECIFIED BY ODCM)EXPOSURE PATHWAY/SAMPLE TYPE AIRBORNE Radioiodine and Particulates NUMBER OF SAMPLES AND SAMPLE LOCATIONS (See Figures 1 & 5)SAMPLE COLLECTION FREQUENCY TYPE AND FREQUENCY OF ANALYSIS Samples from six locations Continuous sampler operation with sample collection weekly, or more frequently if required, by dust loading.Samples from locations near the site boundary in three sectors having the highest calculated annual average D/Q (Locations 2, 37, 49 and supplemental location 18 on Figure 1)Analyze radioiodine canister weekly for 1-131 Analyze particulate filter weekly for gross beta activity;perform quarterly gamma isotopic analysis composite (by location)Sample from the vicinity of a community having the highest calculated annual average D/Q (Location 32 on Figure 1, New Strawn)Sample from a control location 9.5 to 18.5 miles distant in a low ranked D/Q sector (Location 48 on Figure 5)2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 11 of 30 I ii A G E D 0 4/2 8/0 6 TABLE I (Cont.)EXPOSURE PATHWAY/SAMPLE TYPE DIRECT RADIATION NUMBER OF SAMPLES AND SAMPLE LOCATIONS (See Figures 2 & 5)42 routine monitoring stations with two or more dosimeters.measuring dose continuously, placed as follows: SAMPLE COLLECTION FREQUENCY TYPE AND FREQUENCY OF ANALYSIS Quarterly Gamma dose quarterly An inner ring of stations, one in each meteorological sector 0-3 mile range from the site (Locations 1, 7-9, 11-13, 18, 26, 27, 29-31, 37, 38 and 47 on Figure 2).An outer ring of stations, one in each meteorological sector in the 3-5 mile range from the site (Locations 4-6, 15-17, 19-25, and 33-36 on Figure 2). Six sectors [A, B, C, D, G, and L] contain an additional station (Locations 2, 3, 10, 14, 28 and 49).The balance of the stations to be placed in special interest areas such as population centers (Locations 23 and 32), nearby residences 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 12 of 30 I M A t3 E D 03 4/2 8/2 0 TABLE 1 (Cont.)EXPOSURE PATHWAY/SAMPLE TYPE DIRECT RADIATION (cont.)(r s a s s d 0 WATERBORNE

(: NUMBER OF SAMPLES AND SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE COLLECTION FREQUENCY TYPE AND FREQUENCY OF ANALYSIS many locations are iear a residence), chools (Location 23), nd in two areas to erve as control tations 10-20 miles istant from the site Locations 39 and 48 n Figure 5).See Figure 3)Surface One sample upstream (Location JRR on Figure 3) and one sample downstream (Location SP on Figure 3).Samples from one or two sources only if likely to be affected.Monthly grab sample Quarterly grab sample Monthly gamma isotopic analysis and composite for tritium analysis quarterly Quarterly gamma isotopic and tritium analysis Ground Indicator samples at locations hydrologically down gradient of the site (Locations C-10, C-49 and J-1 on Figure 3); control sample at a location hydrologically up gradient of the site (Location B-12 on Figure 3).2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 13 of 30 I 11 A G E D/2/0 0 6 TABLE I (Cont.)EXPOSURE PATHWAY/SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER OF SAMPLES AND SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE COLLECTION FREQUENCY TYPE AND FREQUENCY OF ANALYSIS WATERBORNE (cont.)Drinking Shoreline Sediment Sample of municipal water supply at an indicator location downstream of the site (Location NF-DW on Figure 5); control sample from location upstream of the site (Location BW-15 on Figure 3).One sample from the vicinity of Coffey County Lake discharge cove (Location DC on Figure 3); control sample from John Redmond Reservoir (Location JRR on Figure 3).(See Figures 4 & 5)Samples from milking animals at three indicator locations within 5 miles of the site having the highest dose potential (currently there are no locations producing milk for human consumption within 5 miles of the site); one sample from a control location greater than 10 miles from the site if indicator locations are sampled.Monthly Composite Semiannually Monthly gamma isotopic analysis and gross beta analysis of composite sample. Quarterly tritium analysis of composites.

Semiannual gamma isotopic analysis INGESTION Milk Semimonthly April to November; monthly December-March Gamma isotopic analysis and 1-131 analysis of each sample 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 14 of 30 I M A G E D TABLE I (Cont.)0 4/2/2 0 6 EXPOSURE PATHWAY/SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER OF SAMPLES AND SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE COLLECTION FREQUENCY TYPE AND FREQUENCY OF*ANALYSIS INGESTION (cont.)Fish Broadleaf Vegetation Indicator samples of 1 to 3 recreationally important species from Coffey County Lake;control samples of similar species from John Redmond Reservoir spillway (Figure 4).Samples of available broadleaf vegetation from two indicator locations (using the criteria from the 'Land Use Census" section)with highest calculated annual average D/Q (Locations G-1 and Q-6 and alternate location N-1 on Figure 4);sample of similar broadleaf vegetation from a control location 9.5 to 18.5 miles distant in a low ranked D/Q sector (Location D-I or alternate location D-2 on Figure 5).Sample of crops irrigated with water from the Neosho River downstream of the Neosho River -Wolf Creek confluence (Location NR-D1 and NR-D2 on Figure 5).Semiannually Monthly when available Gamma isotopic analysis on edible portions Gamma isotopic analysis on edible portions Irrigated Crops At time of harvest Gamma isotopic analysis on edible portions 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 15 of 30 E D'0 4/8/0 6 TABLE 2 SAMPLE LOCATION IDENTIFIERS, DISTANCES (Miles) AND DIRECTIONS (Sectors)Sample Type Location Distance from Direction Sector Identifier Reactor Air Particulates and Radioiodine 2 2.7 N A 18 3.0 SSE H 32 3.1 WNW P 37 2.0 NNW R 48 14.7 ENE D 49 0.8 NNE B TLDs 1 1.4 N A 2 2.7 N A 3 3.1 NE C 4 4.1 NNE B 5 4.1 NE C 6 4.6 ENE D 7 .2.1 NE C 8 1.7 NNE B 9 2.0 ENE D 10 2.4 ENE D 11 1.7 E E 12 1.9 ESE F 13 1.6 SE G 14 2.5 SE G 15 4.6 ESE F 16 4.3 E E_ _ _ _17 3.7 SE G 18 3.0 SSE H 19 3.9 SSE H 20 3.3 S J 21 3.8 S J 22 3.9 SSW K 23 4.3 SW L 24 4.1 WSW M 25 3.4 W N 26 2.4 WSW M 27 2.2 SW L 28 2.6 SW L 29 2.7 SSW K 30 2.5 W N 31 3.0 WNW P 32 3.1 WNW P 33 3.6 WNW P 34 4.4 NW Q 35 4.6 NNW R 36 4.2 N A 37 2.0 NNW R 38 1.2 NW Q 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 16 of 30 I A G E D 0 4/8/0 6 TABLE 2 (Cont.)SAMPLE LOCATION IDENTIFIERS, DISTANCES (Miles) AND DIRECTIONS (Sectors)Sample Type Location Distance from Direction Sector Identifier Reactor TLDs 39 13.1 N A 41 0.8 NNW R 42 0.8 SSE H 43 0.7 WNW P 44 3.0 NNW R 46 1.6 WNW P 47 0.16 S J 48 14.7 ENE D 49 0.8 NNE B Surface Water JRR 3.7 W N SP 3.2 SSE H Ground Water B-12 1.9 NNE B C-10 2.7 W N C-49/L-49 2.8 SW L F-1 2.5 ESE F G-2 3.6 SE G J-1 3.8 S J J-2 4.3 S J Drinking Water BW-15 3.9 SW L lO-DW 26.1 SSE H NF-DW 17.5 SSE H Shoreline Sediment DC 0.8 WNW P JRR 3.6 W N Fish WCL 0.6 WNW P JRR 3.7 W N Food/Garden D-1 14.7 ENE D D-2 14.8 ENE D G-1 1.6 SE G N-1 2.4 W N Q-6 2.4 NW Q Crops NR-D1 8.9 S J NR-D2 11.5 S J NR-U1 4.0 SSW K Bottom Sediment DC 0.9 WNW P EEA 3.0 NNW R JRR 3.7 W N MUDS 1.5 WNW P Aquatic Vegetation EEA 3.0 NNW R MUDS 1.5 WNW P Terrestrial Vegetation EEA 3.0 NNW R Soil EEA 3.0 NNW R MUDS 1.5 WNW P 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 17 of 30 I M A G E D 0 4/2 8/2 0 0 6 TABLE 3 TLD Results (mR/90-day qtr.)Location Qtr. 1 Qtr. 12- Qtr. 2 Qtr. 2 2- Qtr. 3 Qtr. 3 2- Qtr. 4 Qtr. 4 2- Total 90-Day std. 90-Day std. 90-Day std. 90-Day std. Annual Avg. dev. Avg. dev. Avg. dev. Avg. dev. Exposure (mR)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 19.6 17.6 18.3 19.3 18.1 19.6 20.4 19.7 18.1 20.2 21.0 19.3 19.8 19.9 19.9 18.8 19.4 18.6 20.8 19.3 17.1 21.5 21.0 19.4 17.8 17.4 19.0 17.0 16.3 20.0 18.5 18.8 19.9 20.3 19.4 18.6 18.3 19.7 18.3 20.6 13.7 14.8 19.0 19.0 18.3 18.1 18.7 0.9 0.4 1.4 1.3 0.9 4.5 7.8 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.2 1.5 1.3 2.5 2.3 0.7 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 3.2 3.5 0.9 1.9 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.6 0.7 1.0 0.6 1.2 1.5 0.9 1.2 2.5 0.9 3.7 1.0 0.9 1.3 0.6 0.6 25.1 19.4 21.2 21.5 19.4 19.5 19.8 21.2 20.2 20.9 22.9 21.0 22.6 20.4 20.6 19.9 20.2 20.3 21.9 21.4 19.3 21.7 20.9 20.4 20.0 19.2 20.8 17.8 17.0 21.0 19.3 19.1 21.4 21.2 21.0 21.1 20.1 23.7 19.8 21.2 17.3 14.7 19.8 19.8 20.8 21.8 20.8 2.8 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4 0.9 1.1 0.7 1.2 1.1 3.2 2.0 2.0 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.8 0.6 0.8 2.7 1.0 2.4 1.3 1.2 4.1 2.2 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.0 1.2 0.9 2.2 0.6 3.3 1.1 1.9 2.9 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.3 35.0 31.0 32.4 32.3 31.6 32.4 32.5 33.4 31.9 33.1 33.9 32.2 32.9 34.1 34.3 32.5 31.8 33.4 35.9 32.8 30.0 34.2 32.4 32.2 30.0 30.0 32.5 28.7 28.8 32.0 31.3 31.1 33.8 32.9 32.2 30.9 30.7 33.6 31.0 33.2 25.5 24.9 32.4 31.4 31.2 31.0 33.1 3.7 2.5 1.8 2.1 2.0 3.8 2.1 1.7 4.1 2.3 2.4 1.7 1.4 3.6 1.3 2.4 1.8 6.2 7.4 1.1 2.1 2.0 1.1 2.2 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.4 2.1 2.3 1.2 3.7 2.1 1.3 1.0 3.3 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.5 1.5 2.1 1.4 1.8 1.1 2.7 28.6 27.1 26.8 27.0 25.9 25.8 25.2 27.2 24.5 26.9 27.5 27.2 27.6 28.4 27.1 25.9 27.1 25.6 26.3 25.4 25.1 29.0 26.2 26.6 23.9 25.4 27.0 26.1 22.8 26.8 25.8 25.5 28.7 28.2 27.4 27.2 27.0 27.7 24.7 27.4 20.1 19.5 26.2 26.1 25.0 26.4 25.5 1.9 1.9 2.2 1.8 0.8 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.4 3.1 1.6 2.6 2.4 1.8 2.1 1.2 1.5 2.3 1.4 0.4 1.7 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.7 3.3 1.4 2.1 2.1 2.7 1.4 1.0 1.7 2.9 3.6 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.7 1.8 1.1 1.2 2.2 1.7 108.3 95.1 98.7 100.1 95.0 97.3 97.8 101.6 94.7 101.1 105.3 99.7 102.9 102.9 101.97.1 98.6 97.8 104.9 98.8 91.5 106.4 100.4 98.6 91.6 91.9 99.2 89.6 84.8 99.8 95.0 94.5 103.7 102.6 100.0 97.8 96.1 104.7 93.8 102.4 76.6 73.9 97.4 96.2 95.4 97.2 98.2 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 18 of 30 I M A G E D 0 4/2 8/2 0 0 6 FIGURE 1 AIRBORNE PATHWAY SAMPLING LOCATIONS 0 = AIRBORNE PARTICULATE AND RADIOIODINE 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 19 of 30

'I A 6 0 4/2/0 0 FIGURE 2 DIRECT RADIATION PATHWAY SAMPLING LOCATIONS 0 , TLD LOCATIONS 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 20 of 30 IA G E D 0 4/8/2 0 0 6 FIGURE 3 WATERBORNE PATHWAY SAMPLING LOCATIONS* = DRINKING WATER A = SURFACE WATER-= GROUND WATER -= SHORELINE SEDIMENT* = BOTTOM SEDIMENT V = AQUATIC VEGETATION

/ ALGAE 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 21 of 30 I M A G E FIGURE 4 D*4I -_____.___.

_\ ,__-'//1 01 INGESTION PATHWAY SAMPLING LOCATIONS A = FISH (JRR) = BROADLEAF VEGETATION

= FISH (WCL)S=SOIL V. DEER S= TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 2 2 of 30 I M A G FIGURE5 A 0 4 R 2 " DISTANT SAMPLING LOCATI ,NS -' .Tl.O M-.DRINING-WA-AIRBORNE PARTICULATE

& RAOIOIOOINE BROA LEAF VEGETATIONI IRR GATED CROPS 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 23 of 30 CHART I 2005 Airborne Gross Beta Weekly Results 0.070 0.060 (D0.050 (D E-6 0.040 0.030 a)W0.020 0.010 0.000 ' I ' '0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 Week Number 36 40 44 48 52 a Location 2 e Location 18 + Location 32 A Location 37 --Location 48 (Control)

• Location 49 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report -Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 24 of 30 CHART 2 Historical Airborne Smoothed (Avg of 20) Indicator and Control Gross Beta 0.060-0.9 m 0.040.0.020 003 E 0.010 i 43 N ro 1; 40% COO 0 e\ AP b\q 0' 1 04 41,11 11P N\T 4N Nýý 41 N\ý NNý NNý N\ý 4ý N\IZI NO N\11j N\Q 41,10 rz lizo rj CS 4z, CS llzý 4zý CIS Cj* Vi lzý qzý 1:ý 14 lzý 4z, 4z)...Smoothed Avg. Indicator Locations

-Smoothed Avg. Control Location (40)Smoothed.Avg.

Control Location (48)2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report -Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 25 of 30 CHART 3 TLD Nearsite Locations and Control Locations 32.0 30.0 28.0 26.0 24.0 E 22.0 20.0 -A 18.0 * *16.0 A AdA 14.0 *12.0~ 1 i i I I I I I i i i i i i 19801981 19821983198419851986198719881989 1990 1991 19921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005 e Avg. of Nearsite Locations A Avg. of Control Locations-Moving Avg. of Nearsite Locations (2 period) ---Moving Avg. of Control Locations (2 period)2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report -Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 26 of 30 a CD zn-.-' N. o"'.-' N. -i~ CD 'z2 rn C)> ~'-~CHART 4 Coffey County Lake Surface Water Tritium Data 16000-14000 12000 10000-R= 0.9236 8000 6000 4000, 2000 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 17- Yearly Average of Spillway Location -Polynomial Trendline 15 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report -Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 27 of 30 20C CHART 5 Drinking Water Gross Beta (5 years)o,.CL c 0D (.9 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0t I-- BW15 (Control)

-LW40 (Indicator)

---NFDW (Indicator)

--IODW (Indicator)J 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report -Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 28 of 30 CHART 6 Detected Co-60 Activity in Coffey County Lake Discharge Cove Bottom Sediment 2500 2000 L)a 1500 1000 500 0 r- CO 0) 0) -M -* U I) to I-- wD 0M 4n -; " M~ -e CO Cf to 0) M) 4M C 0) 0) M) 0) 0M a) 3 0> 0D 0C0 a) 0M 0M 0) 0M 0M 0) 0) 0M 0) 0) 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 r4 N (4 CD D D C ( ( (0 to toC C D 0 ( CO CO o 0 0 0 0 0 0Q 0 0 0000 0 0-- Co-60 -Polynomial Trendline I 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report -Wolf Creek Generating Station.Page 29 of 30 CHART 7 Detected Cs-I 37 Activity in Bottom Sediment 1000 900-800 700-600 500 400-300-200-100 0~- N CNI ttO I,- c 0 C NI c) It LO r-- co 0) 0 N 04 M ~It to co co R2 00 co co 0) 0) 0) M) 0 ) 0 0) 0D 0 0 0. 0 0 Lo co a C) 0) (D CC) to Go.~- CD 0~ z--0 04 N 04 N~ C- 0 M ~ 04 a C) 0C3 0 ' 0 U) in toI) 0 0 (0 a) (a- I U' CD 0Wt ) 0 ~ ) ' -o~~~ ~ ~ ~ V o7 0 'DCCs-137.

0 JRRCS-137-Polyn omial Trendline (DC) -----------

Polynomial Trendline (JRR).2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report -Wolf Creek Generating Station Page 30 of 30 50., Correspondence, reports, and any other information related to any past restrictions on water withdrawal, if any have occurred.

If none have occurred, a statement that these restrictions have never been implemented.

Water Use/Water Quality Page 1 of 2-Site-specific hydrogeological information, including:

groundwater depth(s) at site;aquifer(s) present at site; location, elevation, construction, and historical analyses on current and past monitoring wells (including B-12, C-10, C-49, J-l, J-2, G-2, and F-1);details of the current monitoring and analytical program; flow direction information (direction, rate, fate); and comprehensive local production information (locations, construction information, history of analysis, pump rates, use).-Documentation of any environment releases, including any evaluations of the incident with respect to the nature, extent, and impact of the release.-Locations, volumes, and existing chemical and radiological analytical data on drinking water intakes for Burlington, Neosho Falls, Iola, and any other intakes on the Neosho River between JRR and Iola.-Correspondence, reports, and any other information related to any past restrictions on water withdrawal, if any have occurred.

If none have occurred, a statement that these restrictions have never been implemented.

-More detailed data regarding the groundwater quality study performed from 1973-87.Provide the locations of the wells included in the study, their depths, production rates, and water uses. Discuss any regulatory involvement, including the regulatory program of which the study was a part, which agency(ies) reviewed and approved workplans and conclusions, the chemical and radiological parameters that were measured, the periodicity of the sampling, and the standards to which results were compared.

Provide the rationale for ceasing the program only two years into operations, including any regulatory concurrence in this action.-A map showing the locations of all groundwater monitoring or production wells in the local area, including their depths, rates of production, and use of water, if known.Section 2.9.1 states that 80% of water use in the basin is from surface sources -describe the source, location, and use of the other 20%.* More detailed meteorological data, including historic rainfall data, to provide additional information for the evaluation of water use conflicts in Section 2.10 of the ER (WCGS, 1980). Include average rainfall, seasonal variations, and information on extreme conditions.

Please provide the average peak and low-flow values for the Neosho River.Also provide information on seasonal variability, if it exists.-Clarification of the relationship between the WCNOC contract with the Kansas Water Resources Board, versus the "Certificate of Appropriation" discussed in ER Section 4.1.It appears that the contract has controls based on available supply within the reservoir, while certificate has controls based on the flow rate in the river. Please verify if this is correct. Also identify if a different agency implements the controls in either case, or if this is a single agency.

TIMIT E STATE OF KANSAS*STATE: BOARD OF ACIUCULTURE DIVISION OF WATIER RESOURCES Iharla.si Ei. t'ridlt-.

Sr'rrhnV Gny E. Gibson, Chief Engincc'r-Diwr¢la CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATION FOR BENEFICIAL USE OF WATER WATER RiGCIT, File No. 19,882 1fltiliiTT DATo December 19, 1972 w\lrmi,&s, It has been dlterinincd by the undersigned that construction of the appropriation diversion works has been cnnipletcd, that water has been nsed for bencflcial purposes and that the appropriatinn right hn, }leen perfected.

all in conformity with the conditions of approval of the application pursuant to the water right relerrcd to aho%'e and in conformity with the laws of the State of Kansas, Now, Be It Known that CUY E. CIBSON, the duly appointed, qualificd and acting Chief Engineer-Director of the Division of Water Resources of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture., by authority of (ie laws of the Slate of Kansas, and particularly K.S.A. 82a-714, does hereby certify that, subject to vested rights and prior appropriation rights, the appropriator is entitled to make use of natural flows in the Neosho River to be diverted at a point located near the center of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (Eh NW-S NW-) of Section 10, more particularly described as being near a point 4,450 feet North and 4,485 feet West of the South-east Corner of said Section, in Township 21 South, Range 15. East, Coffey County, Kansas, ata diversion rate not in excess of 76,300 gallons per minute (170.0 c.f.s.)and in a quantity not to exceed 35,120.24 acre-feet per calendar year which may be transported by means of a pipeline and stored in a reservoir identified as Wolf Creek Generating Station Cooling Lake, created by a dam located on Wolf Creek at a point in the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SW14 .SWUs NEQt)of Section 30, Township 21 South, Range 16 East, Coffey County, Kansas, and subse-quently withdrawn or released as needed for industrial use at the Wolf Creek Steam Electric Generating Station located in the Northeast Quarter (NEMJ) of Section 7, Township 21 South, Range 16 East, Coffey County, Kansas.This appropriation right is further limited to a diversion rate which.when combined with the water right set forth in the Certificate of Appropriation issued pursuant to File No. 14,626, will provide a diversion rate not in excess of 76,300 gallons per minute (170.0 c.f.s.) for industrial use at the location described herein.This appropriationis further limited to the diversion of natural flows of the Neosho River at such times and under such conditions that a minimum flow of 250 cubic t)Wtll I..ItoI OVER)

M., ".Uu 'vet Inrl llUlV bltlY uuwnstrealn frromII tne p)olnt of' diversion authorized for the diversion of water for industrial use at the location" des.:-wibed herein. When the natural flows in the Neosho River are 250 cubic feet per second or less at the intake structure, the appropriator may request. permission of the Chief Engineer-Director to withdraw the natural flows not needed to satisfy vested rights, prior appropriations, and prior applications for permit to appropriate water for beneficial use.. The Chief Engineer-Director may permit the requested withdrawal of such natural flows to the extent it is found to be in the public interest.The appropriator shall furnish the Chief Engineer-Director a copy of the notice or schedule of releases (withdrawal) of water from John Redmond Reservoir any time said information is provided to the Director, Kansas Water Office, pursuant to Article 10 of Water Purchase Contract No. 76-2, executed March 13, 1976.The appropriator shall maintain records from which the quantity of water actually diverted during each calendar year may be readily determined.

Such records shall be furnished to the Chief Engineer-Director by March I of each year following the previous calendar year of usage."The appropriation right as perfected is appurtenant to and severable from. the land heirpin described.

The appropriation right shall be deemed abandoned and siall terminate when without due and sufficient cause no lawful beneficial use is made of water unrder this appropriation for three (3) successive years.Thi .right of the appropriator shall relate toa specific quantity of water and such right must allow -for a reasonable raising or lowering of the static watcr level and for the reasonable increase or dcecrease of thc stream flow at the appropriator's point of diversion.

IN WVrrNus NVitutor, I have hereunto set my hand at my office at Topeka, Kansas, this 31st day of August .1982. Zr--1 WAJLI Chic Engrneer-Dirccor ClU:rr. V-7 Division of Water Resources c;Arcrolt

' Kansas Stale Board of Agriculture Y ( .STATE OF KANSAS. Shawnee Be IT i1F.et aErw'), TI'hat on this 31st day of August A.D. 19 82, before nic, the. rirdtersigned, a notar0y public in and for said County and State, came Ciuy E. Gibson, Chief Eningheer-Director.

Division of %Vater liesources of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, who is pers.onally knowi to me to be such duly appointed, qualified and acting official, and who is personally known to mc to be the same person who executed the within instrument of writing as such official and such pcrson ditly acknowledged the execution of the same as such Chief Engineer-Director.

IN TESTIMONY WVIIEREOF.

I have hereunto set my hand and afixed my official seal, the day and ),car last above wrilten. -,,r SIr"t,,s ,,". J- .,, Si =gnatur -enis .-L-a er'W s S Denise J. Waters Notary Public M y commi5R 4L , V4&r ..1986".Z~ DO",,,0 u * ..."..* '".-' 0 Z~- C-4 i."I"'I: ..P C ., ,, 0.Go U W.'0 L) Z ,,

THE STATE " OF KANSAS STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Harland E. Priddle, Secretarip Guy E. Gibson. CAhW EnSnaer.Dridor CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATION FOR BENEFICIAL USE OF WATER WATER RICHT, File No. 14,626DATE February 21, 1968 WHEREAS, It has been determined by the undersigned that construction of the appropriation diversion works has been completed, that water has been used for beneficial purposes and that the appropriation right has been ,perfected, all in conformity with the conditions of approval of the application pursuant to the water right referred to above and in conformity with the laws of the State of Kansas, Now, THEREFORE, Be It Known that GUY E. GIBSON, the duly appointed, qualified and acting Chief Engineer-Director of the Division of Water Resources of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, by authority of the laws of the State of Kansas, and particularly K.S.A. 82a-714, does hereby certify that, subject to vested rights and prior.appropriation rights, the appropriator is entitled to make use of natural flows in the Neosho River to be diverted at a point located near the center of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (El NW1/4 NW14) of Section 10, more particularly described as being near.a point 4,450 feet North and 4,485 feet West of the South-east Corner of said Section, in Township 21 South, Range 15 East, Coffey County, Kansas, at a diversion rate not in excess of 24,685 gallons per minute (55.0"c.fs.)

and in a quantity not to exceed 18,796.4 acre-feet per calendar year which may be.ransported oy means of a pipeline and stored in a reservoir identified as Wolf Creek Generating Station Cooling Lake, created by a dam located on Wolf Creek at a point in the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SWk SW4 NE'*)of Section 30, Township 21 South, Range 16 East, Coffey County, Kansas, and subse-quently withdrawn or released as needed for industrial useat the Wolf Creek Steam Electric Generating Station located *in the Northeast Quarter (NEQ) of Section 7, Tovmnship21 South, Range 16 East, Coffey County, Kansas.This appropriation is further limited to the diversion of natural flows of the Neosho River at such times and under such conditions that a minimum flow of 250 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.) remains in said river inmediately downstream from the point of diversioi:

authorized for the diversion of water for industrial use at the location described herein. When the. natural flows in the Neosho River are 250 cubic feet per second br less ait the intake structure, the appropriator may request permission of the Chief Engineer-Director to withdraw the natural flows not needed to satisfy vested R 4/280.12 DWR 1-41)0 OVER) rits, prior appropriations, and prior applications for permit to appropriate water--for beneficial use. The Chief Engineer-Director may permit the requested withdrawal of such natural flows to the extent it is found to be in the public interest.The appropriator shall furnish the Chief Engineer-Director a copy ofthe notice jr schedule of releases (withdrawal) of water from John Redmond Reservoir any time.said information is provided to the Director, Kansas Water Office, pursuant to Article 10 of Water Purchase Contract No. 76-2, executed March 13, 1976.The appropriator shall maintain records from which the quantity of water actually diverted during each calendar year may be readily determined.

Such records shall be furnished to the Chief Engineer-Director by March 1 of each year following the previous calendar year of usage.The appropriation right as perfected is appurtenant to and severable from the land herein described.

The appropriation right shall be deemed abandoned and shall terminate when without due and sufficient cause no lawful beneficial use is made of water under this appropriation for three (3) successive years.The right of the appropriator shall relate to a specLilc quantity of water and such right must allow for a reasonable raising or.lowering of the static water level and for the reasonable increase or decrease of the stresim flow at the appropriator's point of diversion.

IN Wrrnwss Wintsor, I have hereunto set my hand at my office at Topeka. Kansas, this 31st day of August .19 82.AfE: G GU' E. r,:8SON~~C Cu~E ilson, P.L.(H::ctNEsa

-.EE Chief Engineer-Director

• i~ltDivision of Water FResources

...." Kansas State Board of Agiculture STATE OF KANSAS. Shawnee COU * " BE IT RrMEMBEREO, That on this 31st day of .August .A.D. 1982. before me. the undersigned, a notary public in and for-said County and State, came Guy E. Gibson. Chief Engineer-Director, Division of Water Resources of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, who is personally known to me to be such duly appointed, qualified and acting official, and who is personally known tome to be the same person who executed the within instrument of writing as such official and such person duly.acknowledged the.execution of the sane.as such Chief Engineer-Director.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year last above written. o, 5tif.,,* .. -_._.4_Signat* A.. .-STArEW1og

• cF -"C Denise J. Watel Notary Publ i c* My commiss,"Xii, 84 r 1986>k-'" .... ." -.. :%.00 a~. %*V* * .* Jto -.*C o...-' t 0 S -1 *.i i.* -! ,- we -'" 4., ., 0 c i' 8'0000~, a .0, .-.-.ti's VX .8 a STATE OF KANSAS r Joan Finney, Governor KANSAS WATER OFFICE Suite 300 Stephen A. Hurst .109 SW Ninih Director Topeka, Kansas 66612-1249 March 26, 1992 913-296-3185 Mr. Earl Creel Manager, Nuclear Affairs Kansas Gas and Electric Co.120 E. First, PO Box 208 Wichita, KS 67201

Dear Mr. Creel:

The current dispute over Kansas Gas and Electric's (KG&E) billing for water use for 1991 under contract 76-2 has brought to light certain problems relating to the measurement of water released from John Redmond Reservoir for use by KG&E.Under Article 9 of the contract, KG&E is the party responsible for measuring waterfreleased from storage. Neither the Kansas Water Office nor the Corps of Engineers are responsible for measurement of releases (except in the case of a malfunction of KG&E's measuring device or devices--see Article 9, lines 4-7, page 8).Currently, whenever KG&E needs water from storage in the reservoir, you call Mrs. Duvall noting the rate at which KG&E wishes to have water released.

Mrs. Duvall notifies the Tulsa District Corps of Engineers of KG&E's call for water from storage. Tulsa notifies personnel at the John Redmond project office of KG&E's request Since the valve at the Corps' end of the release pipe is left open, they merely wait for a call from KG&E personnel who report the date and time they (KG&E) opened the valve controlled by KG&E further down the release pipe.Since, as per your claim, KG&E has assumed it was to be billed only for water passing through its pumps and meters, there apparently has been little concern for the amount of water actually being released from John Redmond storage through the pipe. It should be noted, however, evacuation of stored water lowers the amount of water available to satisfy future needs of KG&E.During extreme drought conditions, or other critical water need situations, water which might be needed by KG&E for cooling at its nuclear power plant would not be available.

Mr. Earl Creel Page 2 March 26, 1992 Kansas Gas and Electric argues that the amount released through the pipe could be less than 120 cfs. The state can argue that an amount more than 120 cfs could be exiting the pipe. If 120 cfs or more is discharging from the pipe and KG&E is not pumping 120 cfs, the remainder of the discharge in essence, is being wasted. The current arrangements for releasing water from storage are, therefore, unacceptable to the state.Therefore, under the provisions of Article 9 of contract 76-2, I am requiring that KG&E immediately and at its own expense, furnish, install, operate and maintain a mutually agreeable measuring device or devices in the 42 inch pipe which KG&E has connected to the 30 inch pipe located in the left non overflow section of John Redmond dam. I believe this requirement is necessary to protect the state's interest in ensuring that no water is wasted and that the water supply in storage for KG&E is available should a critical need arise.Please inform me regarding the type of measuring device which KG&E will install and the expected installation date. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me.Sincerely, Stephen A. Hurst Director SAH:dk cc: John Campbell, Attorney General's Office.Jim Holliman, Tulsa Corps of Engineers Dale Mahan, Division of Water Resources Kent Weatherby, Kansas Power and Light Co.Janet Payne, Tulsa Corps of Engineers Tenry Duvall Margaret Fast Western m Resources 828 Karnsa Avenue P.O. Box 889 SPhone (913) 575-1 Roger K. Weatherby Fax (913) 575-8136 Associate General Couxisel, Administration Law Division April 18, 1994 Mr. Stephen A. Hurst, Director Kansas Water Office 109 S.W. Ninth, Suite 300 Topeka, KS 66612-1249

Dear Mr. Hurst,

This letter confirms agreements in principal reached during our meeting on March 14, 1994, concerning Water Purchase Contract 76-2. The content of this letter goes beyond those elements of agreement in an effort to finalize the issues raised by our correspondence and conversations.

Water flow meter. While Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KGE). believes it is in full compliance with the requirements of Water Purchase Contract 76-2 as a result of the meter installed on the downstream side of the intake works pipeline, we share the concern of the Kansas Water Office (KWO) relating to the accurate metering of contract water releases.

For that reason a second meter will be installed at the 42 inch outlet pipe owned by KGE which is connected to the Corps' 30 inch outlet pipe. It is agreed by KGE and KWO that the work done by KGE to investigate and document the as-built outlet works coupled with the existing meter and meter contemplated by this agreement, and the flow curve calculations made consistent with the as-built works, constitute a funl and final settlement of all past, present and future issues relating to the need for installation of meters pursuant to Water Purchase Contract 76-2.Flow curve calculation.

We have attached the flow curve calculations made by Bechtel Corporation for the as built outlet works for Water Purchase Contract 76-2. These calculations will constitute a secondary means of determining the amount of water released pursuant to the contract.KPL

• Gas Service -KGE Annual water delivery calculation.

The meter installed pursuant to the second paragraph of this letter agreement shall be conclusive of the amount of water released from storage pursuant to Water Purchase Contract 76-2. In the event the meter so installed shall be inoperable for any reason at the time releases from storage under the contract, are made then the flow curve calculation provided pursuant to the third paragraph of this letter shall be conclusive of the amount of such releases.Maintenance of outlet works. The KWO shall undertake to coordinate with the Corps of Engineers to maintain the lake side of the outlet works for the removal of debris from the screens which will affect the flow curve calculation mentioned above. In the event the Corps is unable to maintain the lake side outlet works leading to obstruction of the works then the existing meter located on the discharge side of the intake pumps shall be conclusive as to water released from storage if the primary meter is inoperable at the time of release.I look forward to hearing from you concerning these ideas. Once we have reached final agreements I will formalize them by a document we can both execute. I had in mind something in the nature of a memorandum of understanding.

Sincerely, I Attachment 2 to WO 93-0170 I eEEE P e -- ---- --zz -----L -----------

---

._-

I!-. ------__ 'I.......... ......2' .,~/-, arm -..g ::z- .--- --- -------.A STATE OF KANSAS Bill Graves, Governor KANSAS WATER OFFICE Suite 300 AlLeDoux 109 SW Ninth Director Topeka, Kansas 66612-1249 June 28, 1996 913-296-3185 FAX 913-296-0878 TTY 913-296-6604 Mr. Fred Rogge Manager, Power Contract Administration Western Resources 818 Kansas Avenue, P.O. Box 889 Topeka, KS 66601

Dear Mr. Rogge:

The following information represents our understanding of conditions relating to water use by Western Resources and discussions and agreements reached on June 27, 1996.Western Resources, by virtue of contract 76-2 with the State of Kansas, is authorized to withdraw from storage in John Redmond Lake up to 9,672,000,000 gallons of water per year. Under contract 76-2, Western Resources is required to make a minimum annual payment for 4,836,000,000 gallons of water per year whether or not any water is actually withdrawn from storage. Further, Western Resources is required to pay for water taken from the Niosho River under its water appropriation right as though the water were taken under contract 76-2, because their water right is junior to the State's water reservation right to store water from the Neosho River behind John Redmond Dam.In addition, Western Resources holds a water appropriation right which allows for the withdrawal of water from stream flow in the Neosho River. However, the water right is conditioned such that when the downstream flow is below 250 cfs, Western Resources is not permitted to withdraw water under this appropriation right.Western Resources installed a 42 inch tube along the eastern side of the outlet channel at John Redmond which was to be used for release of water from storage under contract 76-2. Recently a measuring device was installed in this tube. Western Resources conducted test releases beginning April 26, 1996, and ending May 10, 1996, to determine the accuracy of the measuring device installed in the tube. The results of this test are documented in your letter to us dated May 31, 1996.

I-Mr. Fred Rogge June 28, 1996 Page Two From the information obtained through the test, it is evident that releases from storage through the 42 inch tube range from 60 to 65 million gallons per day or from approximately 93 to 101 cfs.Whenever the two large make-up pumps are running, 77 million gallons per day (approximately 119 cfs) is being withdrawn from the stream.For the purposes of accounting for Western Resources' water use during the April 26 to May 10, 1996, period, the Kansas Water Office will count only the metered water through the 42 inch tube against storage available during this year to Western Resources (CR, contract release).

The balance of water pumped will be counted as "C" (contract) use when the- downstream flow is below 250 efs as required by the Division of Water Resources.

It is our understanding that in the future Western Resources intends to use only one make-up pump throttled to nratch the release rate of the bypass line (42 inch tube). Should Western Resources need a larger volume of release than the tube can supply, they will contact the Kansas Water Office to request that the Corps make additional releases from storage through other means at their disposal through the dam.If I have misunderstood or missed some point that should be documented in this letter, please let me know as soon as possible.I appreciate your cooperation in installing the measuring device, running the test of its accuracy and meeting to discuss the issues raised by the test. As we move toward operation of the Assurance District in the Cottonwood and Neosho Basin, it is important that we agree upon appropriate record.keeping procedures.

Sincerely, Terry Duvall Public Service Executive TD :ROGGE628.LTR/dl cc: Thomas Stiles, Kansas Water Office Dale Mahan, Division of Water Resources, Topeka Field Office Bill Graves, Governor KANSAS WATER OFFICE Suite 300 Al LeDoux 109 SW Ninth Dir 5 ctof Topeka, Kansas 66612-1249 Apnf1, 1998 785-296-3185 Fred Rogge, Manager Power Contracts FAX 785-296-0878 Western Resources iTY 785-296-6604 P.O. Box 889 Topeka, KS 66601-0889 RE: Raw Water Meter Certification Contracts 76-2 and 80-2

Dear Mr. Rogge:

In August of 1997, in accordance with express provisions of the referenced contracts, I requested certification of the raw water meters used by Western Resources.

A second notice letter was sent on January 26, 1998.Although we have discussed this issue by telephone a couple of times, and you submitted the maintenance records for the meter used under contract 89-2, neither meter has been certified as to its accuracy.

Your contracts require that raw water meters be certified for accuracy.In addition, releases made through the outlet tube at John Redmond under contract 76-2 during the last quarter of 1997 were not reported using the meter in the tube. I have asked for this information on a couple of occasions.

I realize there may be a problem with the measuring device; however, it is important that any such problem be addressed and corrected by Western Resources in accordance with your contract provisions.

Meter certification is an important issue, in that water use and billings for water use are based upon meter readings as provided in your contracts.

The two meters should be certified within the next 30 days in accordance with your contracts.

Until the meters are certified as accurate, no further releases will be made under these two contracts.

I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.Sincerely, Terry Duvall Public Service Executive Water Contracts

• estern Resources-April 25, 1998 Ms. Terry Duvall Kansas Water Office Suite '300 109 S.W. 9th Street Topeka, Kansas 66612-1249 Re: Meter Certification Dear Ms. Duvall.Enclosed is a calibration certificate for the by-pass water meter used to measure releases from John Redmond Reservoir for Wolf Creek Generating Station. As you know, we had problems with the water meter last fall while the latest release was in progress.

The meter was removed and sent to Marsh-McBirney, Inc., the original equipment manufacturer, for repair and calibration.

The accuracy of this meter depends on two variables, water velocity and level measurement in the pipe. The velocity accuracy is m 2% of reading and the level accuracy is-0.5% of reading.We would like to test this meter under actual conditions and I will talk with you at a later date about releasing some water through the by-pass.You had earlier requested the accuracy of the meter at Jeffrey Energy Center. The accuracy of the annubar flow element is -1% and the accuracy of the transmitter is -0.2%.I'm sorry for the delay in sending this meter information.

If you need more information please call me at 575-6590.Sincerely, Fred Rogge Manager, Power Contract Administration 18 South Kansas Avenue /PO. Box 889 /Topeka, Kansas 66601 Telephone:

(913) 575-6300 Kathleen Sebelius, Govemor K A N SA S Roderick L. Bremby, Secretary DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT www.kdheks.gov March 8, 2007 Mr. Kevin J. Moles Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation

/)/7-6269/3/

P.O. Box 411 Burlington, KS 66839 RE: Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) 316(b) Entrainment Study Requirements NPDES Permit No. I-NE07-PO02

Dear Mr. Moles:

KDHE has reviewed the letter transmitted by e-mail from Ralph Logsdon on January 24, 2007, regarding performance standard requirements for existing cooling water intake structures at the referenced facility.KDHE concurs with WCGS's finding that entrainment study requirements as described in the 316(b)Final Rule do not apply to the intake on Wolf Creek Reservoir (a.k.a. Coffey County Reservoir).

Wolf Creek Reservoir is a Lake or Reservoir type water body and as such Exhibit V- I indicates the performance standard for this intake is impingementonly.

As previously discussed, the entrainment data being gathered by WCNOC for this intake is voluntary and has been requested to be included in the study documentation for information only.In light of the Court remands which essentially "gut" the 316(b) regulations, KDHE will require the permittee to finish out the sampling work already started and await EPA's response to the remand and directions from the Court. Once you have the sampling work completed we believe a meeting would be appropriate to present the information and hopefully by then we will be able to provide additional direction.

If you have any questions in regard to this issue, please feel free to call me at (785) 296-4347.Sincerely,/./A rs Eric C. Staab, P.E.Industrial Programs Section Bureau of Water ECS:es pc: Northeast District Office Ralph Logsdon, WCGS John Dunn, EPA Region VII KDHE, BOW, IPS CURTIS STATE OFFICE BUILDING, 1000 SW JACKSON ST., STE. 420, TOPEKA, KS 66612-1367 Voice 785-296-5545 Fax 785-296-5509 KANSAS Kathleen Sebelius, Governor Roderick L. Bremby, Secretary DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT www.kdheks.gov January 23, 2007 Mr. Kevin J. Moles Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation P.O. Box 411 Burlington, KS 66839 RE: Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) 316(b) Water Transfer Information NPDES Permit No. I-NE07-PO02

Dear Mr. Moles:

KDHE has reviewed the letter dated January 17,2007 regarding the referenced facility.

KDHE concurs with WCGS's finding that the intake on John Redmond Reservoir constitutes a water transfer and not a direct use of water by the power plant. As such, the John Redmond Reservoir intakes are not cooling water intakes subject to 316(b).If you have any questions in regard to this issue, please feel free to call me at (785) 296-4347.Sincerely, , Eric C. Staab, P.E.Industrial Programs Section Bureau of Water ECS:es pc: Northeast District Office Ralph Logsdon, WCGS John Dunn, EPA Region VII KDHE, BOW, IPS CURTIS STATE OFFICE BUILDING, 1000 SW JACKSON ST., STE. 420, TOPEKA, KS 66612-1367 Voice 785-296-5545 Fax 785-296-5509 A G E W'NLF CREEK 0 1NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION 3Kevin J. Moles 1 Manager Regulatory Affairs JAX 2 42017 0 0 RA 07-0010 7 Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Water -Industrial Programs 1000 SW Jackson St., Suite 420 Topeka, Kansas 66612-1367 Attention:

Mr. Eric Staab

Reference:

69FR41576

'Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; dated July 9, 2004 Subject Entrainment Study Exemption Request.-

Dear Mr. Staab:

,, Based on a conversation with Ralph Logsdon on January 23, 2007, Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) requests a letter confirming Kansas Department of: Health and Environment's (KDHE). position on exempting Wplf Creek Generating Station cooling water'intake structure from an entrainment study. .Under the final rule, Environmental Protection Agency has established performance standards for the reduction of impingement mortality and, when appropriate, entrainment.

The type of performance standard to a particular facility is based on several factors, Including the facility's location (i.e., source waterbody).

Exhibit V-I, Performance Standards Requirement, summarizes the performance standards based on waterbody type. For lakes and reservoirs Exhibit V-1 only requires an impingement mortality study to be performed.

WCNOC understands that Environmental Protection Agency final rule referenced above does not require an entrainment study on lake and reservoirs and, therefore exempt from that portion of 316(b) performance standards.

WCNOC is requesting written confirmation of this position stated in the reference.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Mr.Ralph Logsdon at (620) 364-8831, extension 4730.Sincerely, Kevin J. e KJM/rII P.O. Box 411 /Burlington.

KS 66839/ Phone: (620) 384-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/HCNVET

51. More detailed data regarding the groundwater quality study performed from 1973-87. Provide the locations of the wells included in the study, their depths, production rates, and water uses. Discuss any regulatory involvement, including the regulatory program of which the study was a part, which agency(ies) reviewed and approved workplans and conclusions, the chemical and radiological parameters that were measured, the periodicity of the sampling, and the standards to which results were compared.Provide the rationale for ceasing the program only two years into operations, including any regulatory concurrence in this action.

Water Use/Water Quality Page 1. of 2-Site-specific hydrogeological information, including:

groundwater depth(s) at site;aquifer(s) present at site; location, elevation, construction, and historical analyses on current and past monitoring wells (including B-12, C-10, C-49, J-1, J-2, G-2, and F-I);details of the current monitoring and analytical program; flow direction information (direction, rate, fate); and comprehensive local production information (locations, construction information, history of analysis, pump rates, use).* Documentation of any environment releases, including any evaluations of the incident with respect to the nature, extent, and impact of the release.* Locations, volumes, and existing chemical and radiological analytical data on drinking water intakes for Burlington, Neosho Falls, Iola, and any other intakes on the Neosho River between JRR and Iola.* Correspondence, reports, and any other information related to any past restrictions on water withdrawal, if any have occurred.

If none have occurred, a statement that these restrictions have never been implemented.

• More detailed data regarding the groundwater quality study performed from 1973-87.Provide the locations of the wells included in the study, their depths, production rates, and water uses. Discuss any regulatory involvement, including the regulatory program of which the study was a part, which agency(ies) reviewed and approved workplans and conclusions, the chemical and radiological parameters that were measured, the periodicity of the sampling, and the standards to which results were compared.

Provide the rationale for ceasing the program only two years into operations, including any regulatory concurrence in this action.* A map showing the locations of all groundwater monitoring or production wells in the local area, including their depths, rates of production, and use of water, if known.Section 2.9.1 states that 80% of water use in the basin is from surface sources -describe the source, location, and use of the other 20%.-More detailed meteorological data, including historic rainfall data, to provide additional information for the evaluation of water use conflicts in Section 2.10 of the ER (WCGS, 1980). Include average rainfall, seasonal variations, and information on extreme conditions.

Please provide the average peak and low-flow values for the Neosho River.Also provide information on seasonal variability, if it exists.* Clarification of the relationship between the WCNOC contract with the Kansas Water Resources Board, versus the "Certificate of Appropriation" discussed in ER Section 4.1.It appears that the contract has controls based on available supply within the reservoir, while certificate has controls based on the flow rate in the river. Please verify if this is correct. Also identify if a different agency implements the controls in either case, or if this is a single agency.

Request # 105 Please provide more detailed data regarding the groundwater quality study performed from 1973-87. Provide the locations of the wells studies, their depths, production rates, and water uses. Discuss any regulatory involvement, including the regulatory program of which the study was a part, which agency(ies) reviewed and approved workplans and conclusions, the chemical and radiological parameters that were measured, the periodicity of the sampling, and the standards to which results were compared.

Provide the rationale for ceasing the program only two years into operations, including any regulatory concurrence in this action.Provide the locations of the wells studies, their depths, production rates, and water uses.Request # 2 reference EA, 1988, Operational Phase Environmental Monitoring Program Final Report Figure 1.1 "Aquatic Sampling Locations in the vicinity of WCGS", provides sample locations.

Section 2.3.3 "Ground water Quality" provides a discussion of results.Table 2-6 "Mean Concentration of Water Quality Parameters", provides sample results.Depths, production rates, and water uses, could not be determined Discuss any regulatory involvement, including the regulatory program of which the study was a part, which agency(ies) reviewed and approved workplans and conclusions, the chemical and radiological parameters that were measured, the periodicity of the sampling, and the standards to which results were compared.EA 1988 2.4.3, study was conducted from 1973 to 1987, two years of plant operation; conclusion was no changes in water quality since dam closure for CCL (WCCL) or after WGS operation.

Chemical parameters are listed in Table 2-6 of EA 1988.Environmental Radiological monitoring Program (REMP)Ref. 1982 Annual Report for REMP Quarterly sample frequency, monitored for 1-131 LLD 0.5 pCi/L, Gamma and tritium H-3, LLD 1000 pCi/L. All results less than LLD. Annual REMP reports are available through 2005.Provide the rationale for ceasing the program only two years into operations, including any regulatory concurrence in this action.To continue the groundwater quality study for two years after plant operation comes from ER OLS, in FES-OLS the NRC agreed with the commitment.

Essentially the two years of the ground water quality study was proposed, with caveats for modifications as we determined.

From the 1996 Environmental Operating Report:

The original monitoring program's objectives since plant construction were to satisfy licensing requirements and assess plant impacts. This monitoring begin in 1973 and was initiated in CCL (WCL) after impoundment to fulfill regulatory commitments (KG&E ER OLS 1981, NRC 1982 FES-OLS).

The monitoring was to continue through at least two years of plant operation, which was satisfied in 1987. Since 1987 the scope was greatly reduced to target key water quality indicators chosen to either, add to baseline data or to reflect long-term operational impacts beyond monitoring commitments.

With these objectives met in 1993, monitoring frequency and scope were further reduced.Frequency was changed to a biennial schedule beginning in1995 with the program scope focusing on long-term trends associated with plant operation.

After analyses of 1995 data, it was determined that further water quality monitoring was not necessary and was discontinued.

There was no agency concurrence to discontinue the study.

A E 0 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc./2 0 0 S VOLF CREE GENERATINM STATION OPERATIONAL PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM, FINAL REPORT.Prepared for Volf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.Great Plains Regional Office September/1988 VOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION OPERATIONAL PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM, FINAL REPORT Prepared for Volf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Prepared by HA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.Great Plains Regional Office Ronald J. (Bck .mn Project Manager Darery ofVice President Director of Operations Date Date September1198S I G D CONTENTS ( 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1-( 1.1 Objectives and Scope 1-1/ 1.2 Station Description 1-3 1.3 Status of Wolf Creek Generation Station 1-4 1.4 Description of Study Area 1-5 1.4.1 Neosho River 1-5 1.4.2 Cooling Lake 1-6 1.5 References 1-9 2. WATER QUALITY 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Methods 2-1 2.3 Results and Discussion 2-4 2.3.1 Neosho River Surface Water 2-4 2.3.2 Cooling Lake Water Quality 2-8 2.3.3 Groundvater Quality 2-13 2.4 Summary and Conclusions 2-14 2.4.1 Neosho River Water Quality Studies 2-14 2.4.2 WCCL Water Quality Studies 2-15 2.4.3 Groundvater Studies 2-15 2.5 References 2-17 3. PLANKTON PRODUCTIVITY 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Methods 3-2 3.3 Results and Discussion 3-4 3.3.1 Neosho River Phytoplankton

.3-4 3.3.2 Cooling Lake Phytoplankton 3-6 3.3.3 Cooling Lake Zooplankton 3-9 3.4 Neosho River Phytoplankton Studies 3-12 3.4.1 Neosho River Phytoplankton Studies 3-12 3.4.2 WCCL Plankton Studies 3-12 3.5 References 3-15 CONTENTS (Cont.)4. MACROINVERTEBRATES 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Methods 4-2 4.3 Results and Discussions 4-5 4.3.1 Neosho River Macroinvertebrates 4-5 4.3.2 Cooling Lake Macroinvertebrates 4-9 4.3.3 Corbicula Distribution and Abundance 4-14 4.4 Summary and Conclusions 4-16 4.4.1 Neosho River Macroinvertebrate Studies 4-16 4.4.2 WCCL Macroinvertebrate Studies 4-17 4.4.3 Asiatic Clam Corbicula 4-18 4.5 References 4-19 5. FISHERIES 5-1 5.1 Introduction.

5-1 5.2 Field and Analytical Procedures 5-2 5.3 Results and Discussion 5-4 5.3.1 Overview 5-4 5.3.2 Electrofishing 5-6 5.3.3 Seining 5-9 5.4 Summary and Conclusions 5-11 5.5 References 5-13 APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTAL WATER QUALITY FIGURES APPENDIX B: 1987 DATA TABLES r LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page 1-1 Summary of average flows (cfs) in theNeosho River at 1-11 ," Burlington, Kansas, 1961-1987 1-2 Weekly Wolf Creek Cooling Lake elevations, 1982-1987 1-12 2-1 Summary of locations sampled at Wolf Creek Generating 2-37 Station, 1974-1987 L1 2-2 Wells sampled as part of groundwater program near Wolf 2-38 r. +Creek Generating Station, 1974-1987 2-3 Summary of parameters analyzed in groundvater samples 2-39 from veils near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1974-1987 2-4 Number of analyses conducted on surface water quality 2-40 samples collected near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1974-1987 2-5 Annual mean concentrations of selected water quality 2-41 parameters for the Neosho River and Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (VCCL) near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1974-1987 2-6 Mean concentrations of vater quality parameters for wells 2-42 sampled near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1977-1987 3-1 Phytoplankton standing crop and productivity at Locations 3-25 1, 10, and 4 in the Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas, 1973-1979 3-2 Phytoplankton standing crop and productivity at Locations 3-26 1, 10, and 4 in the Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station Burlington, Kansas, 1980-1987 3-3 Phytoplankton standing crop and productivity at Locations 3-27 2, 6, and 8 in the cooling lake.of Wolf Creek Generating Station Burlington, Kansas, 1981-1987 3-4 Plankton standing crops for selected thermally influenced 3-28 lakes in midvestern and great plains states 3-5 Zooplankton biomass standing crop at Locations 2, 6, and 8 3-29 in the cooling lake of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas 1981-1987 4-1 Occurrence of macroinvertebrates at sampling locations in 4-24 the Neosho River and cooling lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)Number Title Page 4-2 Annual number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected from 4-30 Locations 1, 10, and 4 in the Neosho River and Locations 2, 6, and 8 in the cooling lake of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas 1973-1987 4-3 Macroinvertebrate density and diversity in ponar collec- 4-31 tions from Locations 10 and 4 in the Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas, 1973-1987 4-4. Select macroinvertebrate taxa densities in ponar collec- 4-33 tions from Locations 10 and 4 in the Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas, 1973-1987.

4-5 Select macroinvertebrate taxa densities in ponar collec- 4-35 tions from Locations 2, 6, and 8 in the cooling lake of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas, 1981-1987 4-6 Macroinvertebrate densi~ty and diversity in ponar collec- 4-36 tions from Locations 2, 6, and 8 in the cooling lake of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas, 1981-1987 4-7 Summary of asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) abundance in 4-37 ponar grabs from tvo locations on the Neosho River, Burlington Kansas 4-8 Summary of samples collected during survey for asiatic 4-38 clams in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Generating Station, 30 September

-1 October 1987 5-1 Summary of sampling schedule for surveys of the Neosho 5-14 River near Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-2 Checklist of fishes collected from the Neosho River near 5-15 Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas 5-3 Relative abundance of thirteen predominant fishes in com- 5-17 bined electrofishing and seining catches from the Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas 5-4 Number and relative abundance of fish collected by electro- 5-18 fishing in the Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas, 1977-1982 and 1985-1987 5-5 Summary of preoperational (1977-82) and operational (1985- 5-19 87) catch data for predominant fishes collected by electro-fishing in the Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas 5-6 Average electrofishing CPE for predominant fishes in the 5-20 Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas, 1977-1982 and 1985-1987 LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)LI Number Title Page 5-7 Number of selected fishes collected by seining in the 5-21.Neosho River near the Wolf Creek Generating Station,.Burlington, Kansas, 1973 through 1981 and 1985 through 1987 5-8 Summary of preoperational and operational catch data for 5-22 predominant fishes collected by seining in the Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas 5-9 Number of predominant fishes collected by seining at three 5-23 i. locations on the Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1976-82, and 1985-87 LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 1-1 Aquatic sampling locations in the vicinity of Wolf Creek 1-10 Generating Station 2-1 Total suspended solids in the Neosho River and VCGS 2-18.Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-2 Calcium concentrations in the Neosho River and VCGS 2-19 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-3 Magnesium concentrations in the Neosho River and WCGS 2-20 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-4 Soluble orthosphosphate concentrations in the Neosho 2-21 River and WCGS Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-5 Total iron concentrations in the Neosho River and WCGS 2-22 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-6 Total alkalinity concentrations in the Neosho River and 2-23 WCGS Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-7 Nitrate concentrations in the Neosho River and WCGS 2-24 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-8 Total dissolved solids in the Neosho River and VCGS 2-25 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-9 Sulfate concentrations in the Neosho River and WCGS 2-26 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-10 Total organic nitrogen concentrations in the Neosho 2-27 River and WCGS Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-11 Nickel concentrations in the Neosho River and VCGS 2-28 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-12 Ammonia concentrations in the Neosho River and WCGS 2-29 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-13 Chemical oxygen demand and in the Neosho River and WCGS 2-30 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-14 Biochemical oxygen demand in the Neosho River and WCGS 2-31 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station I..LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)Number Title Page 2-15 Copper' concentrations in the Neosho River and WCGS 2-32 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station.2-16 Chromium concentrations in the Neosho River and VCGS 2-33 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-17 Surface water temperatures in VCGS Cooling Lake near Wolf 2-34 Creek Generating Station 2-18 Depth profiles of water temperature at Location 6 in VCGS 2-35 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1985-1987 2-19 Depth profiles of dissolved oxygen at Location 6 in WCGS 2-36 Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1985-1987 3-1 Phytoplankton standing crop trends in the Neosho River 3-18 near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1973-1987 3-2 Phytoplankton productivity trends in the Neosho River 3-19 near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1973-1987 3-3 Phytoplankton standing crop trends in the cooling lake 3-20 near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1981-1987 3-4 Phytoplankton productivity trends in the cooling lake near 3-21 Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1981-1987 3-5 Zooplankton dry weight standing crop trends in the cooling 3-22 lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1981-1987 3-6 Zooplankton ash free dry weight trends in the cooling lake 3-23 near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1981-1987 3-7 Relationship between phytoplankton and zooplankton standing 3-24 crop in the cooling lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station 4-1 Macroinvertebrate density and diversity in the Neosho River 4-20 near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1973-1987 4-2 Spatial and temporal trends for major benthic groups in 4-21 the Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1973-1987 4-3 Spatial and temporal trends in total taxa and major benthic 4-22 groups in the Cooling Lake at Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1981-1987 4-4 Macroinvertebrate density and diversity in the cooling lake 4-23 at Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1981-1987

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE Annual environmental monitoring studies associated with Wolf Creek Generating Station (YCGS) have been conducted since 1973 when baseline information necessary for an Environmental Report was collected.

Subsequent studies of the aquatic and terrestrial biota near WCGS fulfilled commitments made to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prior to issuance of a construction permit. Studies from 1974 through 1980 provided additional baseline information and monitored areas that could be impacted by construction activities (Kansas Gas and Electric 1981; Hazleton Environmental Sciences 1980; Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1981). Completion of the main dan for the WCGS cooling lake (WCCL) initiated a four-year preoperational study (1981-1984) that provided baseline water quality and biological data from the WCCL (Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1982, 1983, 1984; EA 1985). Operational studies began in 1985 and represented continuation of the 1984 VCCL study and reinstatement of the monitoring program on the Neosho River which was curtailed after 1981. This report summarizes preoperational (i.e. 1973-1984) and operational (1985 -1987) data associated with the VCGS environmental monitoring program. Two previous annual reports (EA 1986, 1987) summarized operational data collected from August 1985 through 1986. This summary report includes additional operational data collected from February through August 1987 that met a commitment by Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation to conduct an environmental monitoring program for two years after commercial 1-1 operation of VCGS commenced.

The major objective of the Operational Environmental Monitoring Program for WCGS vas to document potential environmental changes in the UCCL and Neosho River vhich could result from operation of VCGS. Specific objectives of the study vere to: 1. document concentrations of general water quality parameterst aquatic nutrients, organically-derived materials and certain trace metals in the Neosho River and VCCL 2. monitor bottom to surface dissolved oxygen profiles on WCCL 3. determine general groundvater quality in the vicinity of WCGS 4. characterize the benthic community vithin the Neosho River and VCCL 5. determine phytoplankton productivity of the Neosho River and VCCL 6. determine zooplankton biomass in the VCCL 7. assess fish populations in the Neosho River In addition to the above specific objectivesp the studies documented naturally occurring variations in the aquatic community of the Neosho River and VCCL.1-2 1.2 STATION DESCRIPTION Wolf Creek Generating Station is located in Coffey County approximately 5.6 kilometers northeast of Burlington, Kansas. Upon completion in 1985, the station employed a pressurized water reactor to produce 1,150 megawatts (net output) of electrical power. The site encompasses 9,818 acres of range, cropland, and woodland typical of southeastern Kansas. Within this, the plant site occupies 135 acres and the WCCL approximately 5,090 acres.. A once-through cooling system, utilizing water from the WCCL is used by the WCGS. The cooling lake was formed by impounding Wolf Creek approximately 8.8 kilometers upstream from its confluence with the Neosho River. A surface elevation of 1,087 feet above sea level is maintained in the cooling lake by precipitation and runoff in the Wolf Creek watershed and makeup water from the Neosho River. A makeup water pump house (MUSH) on the Neosho River in the tailvaters of John Redmond Reservoir provides water to the cooling lake via an underground pipeline (Figure 1-1)0 The auxiliary raw water pumps have withdrawn 1 to 2 cfs from the JRR tailwaters since WCGS became operational except from 17-24 September and 15-22 October 1985; 24-26 January, 26-27 July, and 15-20 October 1986; and 14-15 January 1987. Except for testing, the make up water pumps ran only on 4-11 August 1987, when pumping rates averaged 100 cfs.1-3 a'!1.3 STATUS OF WOLF CREEK GENERATION STATION Wolf Creek Generating Station was considered 99 percent complete by the end of 1984. The circulating water system operated extensively during start-up testing and extended into the 1984-1985 vinter. "Hot Functional" testing was completed during the start-up activities.

Construction activities that could affect the Neosho River were completed in 1980 and work on the plant site was limited primarily to site cleanup, much of which was completed in 1984.The following milestones highlight activities during 1985, the year WCGS began operation:

UCGS received its low power license on 11 March 1985 and immediately began fuel loading.Initial criticality was reached 22 May 1985 and the full power license was granted 4 June 1985." Power was first generated on 12 June 1985 with 100 percent power achieved on 8 August 1985." Commercial operation of VCGS was declared on 3 September 1985.Start up/testing and operational activities during 1985 involved use of VCCL for cooling water and dissipation of waste heat. Heat rejection rates were 1-4 greatest from August 1985, when 100 percent power was achieved, through December.

WCGS operated throughout 1986 and most of 1987 except for maintenance and refueling outages. Outages in 1986 occurred in April (16.6 days) and from 16 October through 21 December (66.3 days) when refueling activities were completed.

In 1987 outages occurred in January (4 days), April (1 day), June (1 day), July (5 days), early September (1 day), and from 28September through 31 December (95 days).

1.4 DESCRIPTION

OF STUDY AREA 1.4.1 Neosho River The Neosho River is a relatively slow meandering stream that rarely exceeds a gradient of 1 m/km (Prophet 1966). The river was significantly altered in 1964 with the completion of John Redmond Dam. River flov in the study area is dependent upon discharge from John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) vhich is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Substrates in the tailvaters of the JRR are layered limestone, shale, and sandstone bedrock. Flow is variable (Table 1-1) and entirely dependent upon reservoir releases.

Pools, gravel bars, and riffles characterize the lover river near the confluence with Wolf Creek.Substrates in the riffle habitats are rock, rubble, and gravel, whereas the pools are characterized by bedrock overlaid by silt.Four locations in the Neosho River were sampled (Figure 1-1). Location 1 was in the tailvaters of John Redmond Dam near the MUSH. The bottom substrate was 1-5 bedrock, with rock riprap along the banks. Pools and riffles characterized Location 10 which was 0.7 kilometers upstream of the confluence vith Wolf Creek. The riffles had substrates of rock, rubble, and gravel, whereas the pools were characterized by bedrock overlaid with silt. A riffle located approximately 0.5 kilometer below the confluence with Wolf Creek constituted Location 11. The riffle consisted of small rubble, gravel, sand- and silt.Location 4, 1.3 kilometers downstream of the confluence with Volf Creek, was comprised of a deep pool and a shallov gravel bar. The substrate of the pool was silt and sand, whereas the gravel bar consisted of sand and gravel.1.4.2 Cooling Lake The VCCL was formed by one main earth-rolled dam across Volf Creek and five perimeter saddle dams (Figure 1-1). The top of the main dam is at elevation 1,100 feet above mean sea level (msl) and each dam has a 3 to 1 slope on both the upstream and downstream faces. The upstream slope of each dam is riprapped for protection against wind-generated wave erosion while the downstream slope is seeded. Descriptions of the service and auxiliary spillways, low-level outlet works, and operation of the cooling lake are described in the operating license stage environmental report for VCGS (Kansas Cas and Electric 1981).Filling of the WCCL began in October 1980 and continued through November 1981.Approximately 23 billion gallons of water were pumped through the makeup water screenhouse in 1981 with monthly pumping rates varying from nearly 49 million 1-6 gallons in April to 3.4 billion gallons in October. Storage water was purchased from John Redmond Reservoir at the rate of 26.5 MGD (41 cfs) through a contract with the Kansas Water Resources Board. The cooling lake elevation rose from 1,050 to 1,079.5 msl during 1981 resulting in a surface area increase from 890 to 3,900 acres. Pumping continued in January, February, and March 1982 aided by surface water runoff which filled the cooling lake to normal operating level (1,087 msl) by June 1982. Storage elevations from 1983 through 1987 have been stable varying from 0.8 feet below to 2.0 feet above the normal water elevation of 1,087.0 msl (Table 1-2). Storage elevations were generally lowest during the winter (December-January) with peak elevations in May and June following spring runoff. Storage elevations during 1987 were generally above normal through summer and then declined to the annual minimum in late November.

Makeup water from John Redmond Reservoir has only been required once (October 1987) since Initial lake filling, but as discussed in Section 1.2, the auxiliary water pump(s) were used all but 16, 10, and 2 days in 1985, 1986, and 1987 respectively.

Stabilization of lake storage elevations has favored the development of submergent and emergent aquatic macrophytes.

The small drainage area associated with the WCCL limits runoff into the VCCL which results in good water clarity, expanding the zone of submerged macrophyte colonization to depths up to 12 feet. Areas afforded wind protection by the baffle dikes and saddle dams, and along other protected shorelines have stands of Potamogeton and to a limited extent, Chara. Stands of cattails, Typha spp., also are continuing to develop. Establishment of aquatic macrophytes should benefit 1-7 the cooling lake fishery by providing cover and shelter and could encourage production in the littoral zooplankton and macroinvertebrate communities.(I" Aquatic sampling locations were established upstream (Location

2) and dovn-stream near the main dam (Location 6). Location 2, the location expected to be most affected by station discharges, was moved in 1982 from the old Volf (4 Creek channel near the makeup water discharge structure to an area adjacent to the creek channel, approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the 1981 location.This change was made to accommodate continued filling of the lake.Differences between these locations were typical of upstream and downstream reaches of reservoirs regarding depth and turbidity.

Location 8p located east of Baffle Dike A (Figure 1-1) adjacent to the Ultimate Heat Sink, yas added as an intake location for the 1984 study.1-8

1.5 REFERENCES

Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1981. Wolf Creek Generating Station Construction Environmental Monitoring Program, April 1980 -January 1981. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita.Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1982. Wolf Creek Generating Station Construction Environmental Monitoring Program, February 1981 -January 1982.: Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita.Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1983. Wolf Creek Generating Station Environmental Monitoring Program, February 1982-December 1982. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita.Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1984. Wolf Creek Generating Station Preoperational Phase Environmental Monitoring Program, March 1983 -December 1983. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita.EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1985. Wolf Creek Generating Station Operational Phase Environmental Monitoring Program, February 1984 -December 1984. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita.EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1986. Wolf Creek Generating Station Operational Phase Environmental Monitoring Program, March 1985 -December 1986. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita.EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. 1987. Wolf Creek Generating Station Operational Phase Environmental Monitoring Program, January 1986 -December 1986. Report to Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating.

Corporation, Burlington, Kansas.Hazleton Environmental Sciences.

1980. Final Report of Construction Environmental Monitoring Program, March 1979 -February 1980. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita.Kansas Gas and Electric.

1981. Wolf Creek Generating Station Environmental Report (operating license stage). Wichita, Kansas. 2 vols.Prophet, C.9. 1966. Limnology of John Redmond Reservoir, Kansas. Emporia Stat. Res. Stud. 15(2):5-27.

1-9 j~.at (i b.I-;Li"MILEIi" 0 a.3 4 0 Groundwater Sampling Location S8-12 d Dike B Heat Sink LAKE Figure 1-1. Aquatic sampling locations in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Generating Station.1-10 TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY

OF AVERAGE FLOWS {CPs) IN THE NEOSHO RIVER AT BURLINGTON, KANSAS, 1961-1967 Year JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Mean 1961 ------2243 475 3627 1065 245 538 -1962 2306 3521 2021 766 1414 4746 998 407 6599 1526 597 461 2090 1963 586 376 1154 378 316 664 686 69 31 50 87 82 374 1964 79 79 75 604 778 1639 135 99 32 32 1173 531 452 1965 316 360 1676 .1321 324 9986 4211 151 4163 1065 245 538 2023 1966 493 547 418 1114 460 771 66 192 43 31 33 25 346 1967 21 23 25 514 65 2827 6944 557 1499 4583 966 635 1569 1968 544 340 211 1715 1162 2086 817 1917 115 1704 1741 997 1113 1969 1024 1231 2200 2603 6864 4066 .7332 847 1189 1845 1085 1259 2645 1970 514 335 248 4402 2077 5156 424 75 724 1558 301 823 1381 1971 , 968 990 1771 235 1957 6449 4817 1263 42 78 1709 1428 1977 1972 487 332 103 454 4215 181 1604 108 154 45 235 941 753 1973 3576 5363 7637 7772 6203 3397 596 232 1342 11544 7543 3802 4913 1974 3039 1245 2368 2763 2759 3089 209 152 1330 413 2762 1390 1790 1975 1102 2444 2242 2723 771 6605 2342 186 345 124 93 653 1637 1976 220 60 50 359 3260 1363 1508 45 46 49 45 43 592 1977. 45 46 47 46 1491 4862 6626 1114 1999 605 1923 464 1614 1978 300 812 2960 3484 1004 852 952 58 39 24 19 17 882 1979 18 437. 3090 1493 558 2875 4085 587 129 68 983 575 1247 1960 355 904 1360 6308 499 171 150 53 58 36 16 26 819 1961 19 24 14 21 271 1786 3376 666 1032 537 4393 1801 1181 1962 513 4323 1330 610 4879 7365 1750 204 70 39 32 124 1746 1983 383 1092 736 6750 7741 5325 1344 70 39 31 268 735 2039 1984 436 847 3972 8191 4093 .2813 1050 60 32 24 150 616 1652 1985 1105 695 5119 1191 3175 1187 1919 2537 3371 8510 6344 2807 3711 196 765 2023 549 2083 2745. 598 3343 1123 740 7931 2071 1631 2144 1987 860 2152 7581 3725 979 2294 1826 691 760 163 479 1965 1971 Note: Data from USGS gaging station except AUG-DEC 1967 data from WCOS water reports (Ju3 outflow).1-11 TABLE 1-2 WEEKL! WOLF CESZK COOLING LAKE rLrVATIONS.

1982-1987 month JAN Week 1982 1983 1984 1 9 8 5 (a) 1986 W 1987 1 2 3 4 FED I 2 3 4 NAR 1 2 3 4 S APR 1 2 3 4 S NAY 1 2 3 4 JUn 1 2 3 4 S 1,079.5 1,079.5 1,079.5 1,079.5 1,080.3 1,080.3 1,080.4 1,079.5 1,080.4 1,080.6 1,080.8 1,080.9 1,081.0 1,081.3 1,082.0 1,082.4 1,082.7 1,083.6 1,084.8 1,086.5 1,087.5 1,087.6 1,087.6 1,087.4 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.3 1,087.5 1,087.8 1,087.8 1,087.1 1,087.5 1,087.8 1,087.8 1,088.5 1,088.4 1,088.1 1,088.3 1,088.6 1,088.2 1,088.0 1,088.4 1,088.5 1,088.5 1,088.5 1,088.5 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.6 1,087.0 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.4 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,018.0 1,088.6 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,086.6 1,086.9 1,087.0 1,087.8 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.3 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.1 1,088.2 1,088.2 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.1 1,088.2 1,088.6 1,088.7 1,088.5 1,088.2 1,088.2 1,088.0 1,087.8 1,087.8 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,087.9 1,087.S 1,087.5 1,087.6 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,087.4 1,087.4 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,087.6 1,087.6 1,087.7 1,087.5 1,087.2 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.1,087.1,087.1,087.1,087.1,087.1,087.1,087.1,088.1,088.1,088.1,088.1,088.1,087.1,088.1,088.1,088.1,088.1,087.1,087.1,086.1,089.1,088.1,088.1,088.1,087.(Wmonth Week 6 JUL 1 S2 6 3 54 S 5 AUG 1 52*3 4 0 5 0 5 2 03 85 0 0 OCT 1 0 2 3 4 0 5 Nov 1 1 0 3 4 0 5 0 0 DEC 1 0 2 5. 3 1982 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,088.0 1,087.9 1,087.8 1,087.8 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,087.2 1,087.2 1,087.0 1,087.3 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.1 1,087.1 1,087.0 1,086.8 1,087.0 1,086.8 1,086.7 1,087.0 1,087.0 1983 1,088.2 1,088.1 1,087.4 1,087.4 1,087.4 1,087.1 1,087.3 1,087.1 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,086.6 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,086.5 1,086.6 1,086.6 1,086.7 1,086.8 1,086.6 1,086.8 1,087.0 1,086.1 1,087.0 1,086.5 1,086.7 1984 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,087.7 1,087.7 1,087.5 1,087.4 1,087.3 1,087.1 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,086.5 1,086.5 1,086.5 1,086.5 1,086.5 1,086.5 1,086.5 1,086.5 1,086.5 1,086.5 1,086.3 1,086.4 1,086.4 1,086.5 1,088.1 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,087.9 1,087.6 1,087.6 1,087.5 1,087.2 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,087.8 1,087.7 1,087.5 1,087.6 1,088.4 1,088.2 1,088.0 1,088.1 1,088.0 1,087.9 1,088.0 2,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,088.0 1,087.0 1,087.4 1,087.5 1,087.2 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,086.9 1,086.6 1,086.5 1,086.5 1,086.5 1,087.1 1,087.9 1,087.4 1,087.6 1,086.9 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,087.5 1,087.3 1,087.4 1,087.4 1,087.6 1,087.6* 1,087.5 1,087.5 lI087.5 1,087.0 1,087.1 1,087.4 1,087.3 1,087.5 1,087.4 1,087.2 1,087.0 1,087.0 1,087.5 1,086.5+1,086.5 1,086.4 1,086.5 1,086.9"1,086.5 1,086.4 1,086.2 1,086.5 1,086.6 1,086.6 1,087.2 1,087.2 1 9 8 5 (a) 1 9 8 6 (a) 1987(a)I.4 4 ffle: Readinga taken once per wek.Weekly mean elevation.

2. WATER QUALITY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Water quality studies have been conducted on the surface water and groundwater in the area of the WCGS since 1974. These studies were designed to provide a database reflecting existing water quality conditions which could be used as a comparison for conditions observed during construction and ultimately operation of the WCGS. Water quality parameters selected for analysis throughout the various study phases were chosen based on state water quality standards,.

drinking water standards and parameters predicted to change or be added to the system during operation as described in the operating license stage environmental report (ER-OLS) for this project.2.2 METHODS The selection of sampling locations for the study was modified over time as the scope of the study dictated (Table 2-1). Early years included sample collection in John Redmond Reservoir, the Neosho River and Wolf Creek. After January 1976 the John Redmond Reservoir location was dropped and samples were collected immediately below the dam in the tailwaters and at selected points downstream in the Neosho River. Samples were collected from the Wolf Creek watershed until 1981. Following closure of the cooling lake dam, Wolf Creek locations were changed to selected locations in the cooling lake. Two locations were sampled from 1981 through 1983 and three locations have been sampled from 1984 through 1987.2-1 I °Groundwater samples for this study program have been collected from as many as 8 wells in a given study year. A total of twelve different wells have been used in the program. All wells sampled were existing, shallov aquifer wells that varied from hand dug and brick lined construction to drilled wells with steel or plastic casing. A list of the wells sampled each year is provided in Table 2-2. Starting in 1980 four wells were selected from the original group as the final set of groundwater monitoring wells for the project. These four wells B-12, C-20, C-49 and D-65 have been sampled each year since 1979. The parameters analyzed from groundwater samples were fairly consistent over the study period (Table 2-3).Over the fourteen year period of this study as many as 41 individual analytical parameters have been determined for surface waters at one time or another.Table 2-4 provides a summary of the parameters and the number of samples of surface water analyzed each year of the study. In excess of 18,000 individual analyses were conducted on water samples, excluding quality control replicates and multiple dissolved oxygen and temperature data from surface to bottom profiles conducted in the cooling lake. Analytical methods used by laboratories conducting chemical analysis of water samples for these studies were generally the same throughout the study period. Methods used prior to 1979 were based primarily on Standard Methods for Water and Vastevater (APHA et al. 1971 and 1975). Beginning in 1979 methods also followed protocols established by the U.S. EPA (1979) in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Vastes.Starting with the 1980 study, bacteriological analyses were conducted using the delayed Incubation method (APHA 1980). Water samples were filtered in an 2-2 onsite laboratory, placed on holding media, and returned to EA's lab for Incubation.

During this same period the oil and grease solvent used for extraction was changed from hexane to freon to comply with U.S. EPA 1979 methods.Selection of parameters for presentation in this summary report was first limited to those included in the ongoing studies at the WCGS. Next, parameters that were generally at or below analytical detection limits (e.g. oil and grease) were excluded.

There were also a few parameters that exhibited a relatively narrow range of values (e.g. pH) or whose variability mimicked that of other parameters (e.g. specific conductance).

Table 2-5 presents annual values for those parameters.

not selected for more detailed analysis.

Graphical presentation of the remaining parameters consists of histograms and line drawings depicting annual mean concentrations of the river and lake and annual means by location.

These data were evaluated for long term trends as well as comparisons of pre- and post-construction and preoperational and operation effects. In addition, data comparisons to state and federal water quality standards or criteria were conducted.

Mean concentrations on each date for the combined location data from a given water body (Neosho River or Wolf Creek Cooling Lake) were plotted and are provided in Appendix A. These graphical representations provided a good understanding of the variability in analytic concentration over time and the expected seasonal changes in concentrations of parameters.

2-3 2.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2.3.1 Neosho River Surface Water-I Throughout WCGS water quality studies, the general water quality in the Neosho River has been considered good. The major influences on solute concentrations-as discussed in the past annual reports has been rainfall or snovmelt conditions and the volume of water released from the John Redmond Dam.Suspended matter in the water column as determined by total suspended solids often showed a direct relationship with levels of related solutes such as trace metals and nutrients.

Annual mean concentrations of general water quality parameters such as color, manganese, chloride, potassium, pO, soluble silica, sodium, turbidity, soluble iron and specific conductance have shown very little variability throughout the study period (Table 2-5).Water temperatures in the Neosho River shoved expected seasonal variability (Appendix Table A-1). However, annual mean water temperatures varied little throughout the study and often reflected flow conditions (e.g. warmer temperatures were often observed during summer months with lover flow conditions than during summer months when flows were high).Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Neosho River varied seasonally as ex-pected. Annual mean concentrations from 1974-1987 ranged from 9.1 to 11.2 mg/l. These concentrations are yell above the minimum considered necessary to support aqua.tic life and meet applicable state and federal water quality cri-teria.2-4 The data from the Neosho River do not reflect any direct construction or operational effects on water quality based on concentrations observed during these studies. A number of parameters exhibited a change in annual mean concentration after 1981. Although some of that change may be due to water system conditions, the changes more probably reflect the change in laboratories conducting the analysis.

Interlaboratory difference is a known variable in all analytical situations and must be considered when evaluating the reported results.Based on annual mean concentrations, total suspended solids (TSS), total alka-linity, calcium (Ca), magnesium (Hg), soluble orthophosphate (O-P0 4), total iron (Fe) and nitrate showed no consistent long term trend. TSS values were similar all years with the exception of 1981 and 1984 when annual mean concentrations were 2-3 fold higher than normal (Figure 2-1)o The 1981 peak was the result of high values in April and October data at all river locations, while the 1984 peak appears to be the result of high values in February, particularly at Location 4. Spatially, there has been no indication of increased TSS values at Location 4 below Wolf Creek since VCGS operation began.Concentrations of Cap Mg and O-P0 4 were lower in general after 1982 than earlier years (Figures 2-2, 2-3, 2-4). However, the concentrations do not show a distinct trend overall, and the lower values are probably related to the change in laboratories conducting the analysis following the 1981 study period.The actual differences in parameter concentrations before and after 1982 are generally not significant from a chemical standpoint.

Orthophosphate levels generally rose from 1975 to 1981 in the river samples. However, the overall concentration levels of O-PO 4 in the river are low and the mean values presented in the figure represent values reported at or below the detection 2-5 limit. The solute concentrations observed in the river are for the most part a reflection of the quality of water leaving the John Redmond Reservoir.

Total iron levels were slightly higher in recent years in contrast to the solutes previously discussed (Figure 2-5). Total alkalinity (Figure 2-6) was higher than normal in 1987, but nitrate concentrations (Figure 2-7) have remained within the previously observed range of annual values. There have been no spatial differences in these parameters that suggest WCGS operation may be affecting water quality in the Neosho River.Annual mean concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS)# sulfates, total or-ganic nitrogen (TON), and total nickel (Ni) showed overall dovnvard trends during the study period (Figures 2-8 to 2-11). TDS and 4ulfates concentration curves were most similar (Figures 2-8 and 2-9). Peak sulfate levels observed in 1976 and 1978 appeared to be due primarily to higher values in April and primarily February, respectively.

Location 1 values were slightly higher than downstream locations.

However, little spatial variability of sulfate has been noted overall during the study period (Figure 2-9). Total organic nitrogen (TON) levels peaked in 1984 and 1986 to levels about twice that normally observed in the river. The 1984 peak appeared to be caused by higher levels observed in April and August samples, while in 1986 higher than normal values were observed all year. During 1984, TON values were higher at Location 1 than downstream locations, while the levels observed at Locations 10 and 4 were higher in 1986 (Figure 2-10). For the most part, little or no spatial difference has been observed between Locations 10 and 4 for any of these parameters, indicating the construction and operation of VCGS has not altered water quality in the Neosho River.2-6 Total nickel data is available only for the period 1983-1987.

Concentrations rose from 1983 to 1985, then dropped dramatically in 1986, and 1987 levels were slightly below the 1986 values (Figure 2-11). The high 1985 values may reflect the higher than normal flow conditions observed during much of the 1985 study period. As was observed for most parameters, releases from JRR (Location 1)appeared to control nickel concentrations in this segment of the river, and there were no major spatial differences between Locations 10 and 4, above and below Wolf Creek respectively.

Annual mean concentrations of ammonia have varied throughout the study period in a somewhatcyclic manner (Figure 2-12). Overall there was a slight upward trend in the data; however, the ammonia concentrations observed were loy. Peak levels were observed in 1979 and reflect higher values at all locationst particularly in February of that year when discharge from John Redmond Dam was less than 1 cfs, Chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels followed the same trend of generally increasing values through 1984 then dropped off to near pre-1980 levels in 1985 (Figures 2-13t 2-14).Both parameters shoved less variability in annual mean values in the 1974-1979 period. Both parameters peaked in 1984, and this peak appeared to be due primarily to higher values at Location 1 (particularly for COD) during February of that year. Overall the levels of BOD and COD observed in the Neosho River are low and are not indicative of heavy organic loading. The oxygen demand values observed after 1981 may also partially reflect the change in the laboratory conducting the analysis.Copper (Cu) data is available from 1974 through 1987, while chromium (Cr) data is available for the 1983-1987 period only (Figures 2-15, 2-16). Both of 2-7 these parameters were analyzed as total metals and therefore reflect the concentrations in the sample due to dissolved metals in the water as well as any metals in sediment or residue contained in the water column at the time of sampling.

Copper shoved little variation in annual mean concentrations from 1974-1981 then began to rise through 1984 (Figure 2-15). Overall the levels of Cu have shown a slightly increasing trend throughout the study. The observed concentration was higher following the 1981 study period and may reflect the change in analytical laboratories.

Chromium concentrations peaked in 1985 at all three river locations.

2.3.2 Cooling Lake Water Quality Water quality sampling in the WCCL began in February 1981 at Locations 2 and 6.Sampling at a third location (Location

8) began in February 1984. Since that.time all three locations have been sampled. Water quality of the VCCL during the 1981 sample year reflected primarily the quality of water pumped into the lake from the Neosho River. In addition the concentrations of solutes that were associated with sediment and soils were higher in the lake due to the scouring effects of the pumped water flowing into the lake. As with the water quality in the Neosho River only selected parameters are discussed in the text of this report. Table 2-5 provides a summary of annual mean concentrations of parameters that due to either the consistency of the data, lob concentrations, or the fact that they may have been sampled for only a short period of time are not discussed in detail elsewhere in this report.Review of the data in Table 2-5 indicated that for the parameters presented the concentrations of these analyses in the WCCL have changed very little during 2-8 the 1981-1987 period. One exception to that observation is the turbidity levels in the lake. As expected during the 1981 lake filling stage, turbidity levels were 2-3 fold higher than following years due to the disturbance of soils during pumping and also the use of river water to fill the lake.During the 1981 lake filling phase a number of parameters were much higher than subsequent years. Total suspended solids, TDS, sulfates, calcium, total iron, orthophosphate and nitrate levels were all relatively high in 1981 (particularly at Location 2). This 1981 peak reflected concentrations of these parameters in the Neosho River water used to fill the WCCL.Following the 1981 lake filling a number of parameters have shown little change in concentration in the lake over the seven year study period. Total alkalin-ity (Figure 2-6), magnesium (Figure 2-3) and ammonia (Figure 2-12) levels were not substantially higher in 1981 but rather have maintained a generally constant level in the WCCL. Alkalinity increased in 1987 as did ammonia levels; however, the change in actual concentrations was small. Nitrate levels after the 1981 peak dropped to an annual mean level of 0.1 to 0.2 mg/l and have stayed in that range throughout the study (Figure 2-7).Annual mean concentration of total suspended solids (Figure 2-1) and totaldis-solved solids (Figure 2-8) declined significantly after the 1981 lake filling phase and have continued to decline slightly over the 1982-1987 study period.Calcium levels have declined more gradually over the 1981-1987 period (Figure 2-2). BOD and COD also have shown a declining trend (except COD in 1987).Levels of these two indicator parameters have been generally loy throughout the study period (Figures 2-13 and 2-14). COD concentrations have been less 2-9 consistent than BOD as was the case in the Neosho River data. This may reflect analytical precision more than it does actual water body differences in COD levels. COD values reported from four eastern Nebraska reservoirs ranged from 2.9 to 104 mg/l but usually were in the 15 to 20 mg/1 range (Ukpaka 1971). At Sutherland Reservoir in western Nebraska, BOD and COD seasonal values respectively ranged from 2.0 to 3.5 mg/l and from 0.7 to 6.5 for the period 1972 through 1984 (EA 1985).Analysis of water samples for nickel began in 1983 in the UCCL. The concentra-tion in 1983 was the highest observed in the lake to date. Subsequently the observed values have tended to be lower each year (Figure 2-11)., An exception to that trend occurred in 1985 when the higher values appeared to be due to samples collected in December of that year. The overall difference in solute concentration observed in nickel and other trace metals was small because the data is presented in vg/l levels or parts per billion. Very minor matrix differences in samples can cause seemingly large differences in concentrations for these parameters.

In addition, these data are for total metals and therefore reflect both dissolved material in the water as well as metals that were adsorbed to residue in the water sample and are therefore not immediately available as a solute in the water matrix.Annual mean concentrations of total iron and sulfates (Figures 2-5 and 2-9)peaked in 1981, dropped significantly in 1982 and have since shown very slight increases in concentration over time. The observed differences in concentration were very low as with most solutes studied in the lake. Soluble orthophosphate levels also dropped from a 1981 peak. However, the concentrations continued to drop slightly through 1984 and have since shown a 2-10 slightly increasing trend (Figure 2-5). The high values observed in 1986 were the result of higher values in August, primarily at Location 2. Orthophosphate levels also reflected higher than actual concentrations, because concentrations reported as less than the analytical detection limit were plotted assuming that value.Vith two exceptions annual mean levels of total organic nitrogen (TON) have been very stable (Figure 2-10).ý TON levels in the VCCL increased in 1982 and 1986 by 2-3 fold the usual level. Both of these peaks were observed during the March/April period and probably reflect resuspension of nitrogen-containing materials during spring turnover.Two trace metals exhibiting increased annual mean concentrations in WCCL were copper and chromium.

Annual mean copper values have generally increased steadily since lake filling (Figure 2-15). Copper levels increased considerably in 1985 and, though lower in 1987, were still higher than previously observed.

The higher values for 1986 were observed throughout the year and were observed at all locations, although Location 2 levels were higher than those at 6 and 8 in both years (Figure 2-15). Total chromium levels increased by 10 fold in 1985 within VCCL. The annual mean levels observed in the lake were high at all three locations, and the highest values were recorded in December of 1985 when replicate values were in excess of 100 Pg/l.Unusually high chromium values were also observed in the Neosho River for the same period (Figure 2-16) and the data were considered suspect. If the December 1985 data were eliminated from the calculation of annual means, the peak in 1985 would be in the range of 3.8 ug/l rather than 22 vg/l as plotted.As with orthophosphate values, plotted data for copper and chromium reflect 2-11 1'1 p.data points that were recorded at less than the analytical detection limits, but for calculation purposes were assumed to be observed at the detection limit concentration.

Average lake surface water temperatures were higher during preoperational and operational periods than during lake filling (Figure 2-17). The only exception to that trend was in April sampling at Locations 2 and 6 during 1981p when higher temperatures probably resulted from shallow water depth and the influence of pumped water from the Neosho River. On the average, lake surface has been 1.0 to 5.5 degrees C warmer during plant operation than in the preoperational period. Spatially, temperatures at Location 2 have increased the greatest (3.5.to 7.8 C); Location 6 temperatures have increased by 0.5 to 5.8 C, and Location 8 by 1.5 to 3.5 C. The greatest temperature increases were observed in April. Winter operational temperatures were similar to preoperational temperatures.

A scheduled WCGS outage generally occurs during this period and heat loading to the lake is thus reduced.Depth profiles in WCCL indicated that water temperatures generally decreased with depth. Location 6, being the deepest location, best illustrated temperature changes with depth (Figure 2-18). Temperature differentials in most months were very small, but summer temperatures at Location 6 varied by as much as 9.5 C between surface and bottom (June 1987).Dissolved oxygen profile data collected from 1985 through 1987 indicated that D.O. also generally declined with depth (Figure 2-19). Review of the profiles at Location 6 indicated that the greatest decline in D.O. occurred during summer months. Dissolved oxygen was generally well above the levels necessary 2-12.

for the protection of aquatic species in the upper level of the WCCL. However, at depths below 10 meters, D.O. was at or near zero mg/i in July of 1985 and 1986 and in June 1986 and 1987. In all years concentrations rose to above 5 mg/1 by the August sampling period. The decline in dissolved oxygen during the summer period reflected the effects of warm summer water temperatures and static deep water conditions, a combination of factors that often is conducive to D.O. depletion.

2.3.3 Groundwater Quality Mean concentrations of water quality parameters in groundwater samples collected in 1987 were within the range of concentrations observed in previous years vith few exceptions.

Concentrations of hardness, chloride and magnesium were lover in well D-65 than in any previous year as were sulfate concentrat-ions in B-12 and C-49 (Table 2-6). Total iron in well C-49 and specific conductance in wells C-20 and D-65 were also lower than previously observed.Nitrates and soluble iron concentrations were higher in wells D-12 and C-49, respectively, than in previous years. As in previous years, well D-65 generally had the highest levels of dissolved constituents and well C-49 the lowest. The water quality in wells B-12 and C-20 was generally similar.Groundwater quality with the possible exception of well C-49, reflected the age and condition of the wells and the influence of surface water inflows during vet periods.National Primary Drinking Water Criteria for nitrates (10 mg/1) has been exceeded in all four wells at various times during the 11year study period.The National Secondary Drinking Water Standard for TDS (500 mg/1) was exceeded 1) 1"4 during all sample periods in all wells. The chloride criteria (250 mg/l) was exceeded in well D-65 in all years except 1987 and in one or more years in all other wells. The total iron criteria (0.3 mg/l) was exceeded most years in all wells except C-49. Well water collected for this study has consistently been very hard with high levels of dissolved constituents.

These observations have not changed since VCCL was filled or since WCGS began operation.'

Thus to date there appear to be no effects on groundwater quality due to WCGS in the areas covered by these four groundwater monitoring wells.2.4

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 2.4.1 Neosho River Water Ouality Studies Water quality studies in the Neosho River near the WCCL have been conducted since 1973. Seasonal mean concentrations of water quality parameters during 1987 were within previously established ranges for the study area. Water quality among river locations was similar though slight natural differences between the John Redmond Reservoir tailwaters (Location

1) and the lover river (Locations 4 and 10) were apparent.

Seasonal differences observed during 1987 and previous years reflect changes in discharge rates from John Redmond Dam and runoff due to local precipitation and snowmelt events. Since filling of the VCCL began in 1981, flows from Wolf Creek into the Neosho River have been limited to seepage, releases for testing of blowdown procedures, and runoff events. There have been no apparent deleterious effects to water quality in the Neosho River due to operation of WCGS based on available water quality monitoring data.2-14 2.4.2 WCCL Vater Ouality Studies Water quality studies of the WCCL began when the lake was initially filled during 1981. Water quality was greatly influenced by makeup water being pumped from the Neosho River during that year. Since 1981 makeup water has generally been added during routine use of the auxillary raw water pumps and quarterly testing of the makeup water pumps. Therefore, the VCCL water quality has been generally independent from influence of the Neosho River. Concentrations of water quality parameters are very similar among locations in the cooling lake, with the shallow upstream site (Location

2) slightly different in water quality than near the main dam (Location

6) and the station intake (Location 8).Concentrations of dissolved and suspended constituents continued to show declining trends since operation of the WCCL began, indicating an improvement in overall water quality. Surface water temperature in the cooling lake during spring and summer periods has been warmer than in preoperation years (particularly Location 2) as is expected due to plant operation.

There appears to be a slight trend of increasing concentrations of iron, chromium, copper and sulfate in the cooling lake; however, this trend does not appear to indicate adverse impact from plant operations but rather natural changes in impounded water.2.4.3 Groundwater Studies Groundwater data collected near WCGS since 1973 have shown that quality of well water varied widely among wells. Data collected during 1987 indicated water.quality parameters from the monitoring wells were within concentration ranges observed in previous studies with few exceptions; some dissolved constituents 2-15 (Cl, Mg, and Fe) were lover in one or more wells in 1987 than in previous years. Yell water at the monitoring sites has typically been very hard with high levels of dissolved constituents.

Water quality in the wells tends to reflect shallow perched water resulting from precipitation and runoff. These observations have not changed since dam closure for the WCCL or after WCGS began operation.

2-16

2.5 REFERENCES

American Public Health Association, Pollution Control Federation.

of Water and Wastevater.

13th American Public Health Association, Pollution Control Federation.

of Water and Wastevater.

14th American Public Health Association, Pollution Control Federation.

of Water and Wastevater.

15th American Water Works Associations and Water 1971. Standard Methods for the Examination Edition. APHA, Washington.

1134 pp.American Water Works Associations and Water 1975. Standard Methods for the Examination Edition. APRA, Washington.

1134 pp.American Water Works Associations and Water 1980. Standard Methods for the Examination Edition. APHA, Washington.

1193 pp.EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. 1985. Gerald Gentleman Station Aquatic Ecology Study Sutherland Reservoir 1984 Annual Report. Report to Nebraska Public Power District, Columbus, Nebraska.Ukpaka, S.O. 1971. A Eutrophication and Water Quality Study of Five Flood Control Reservoirs.

A thesis presented to the faculty of the Graduate College at the University of Nebraska.

Lincoln, Nebraska.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati.

2-17

., ;ý,O ý -.f*!'. C, 250" 20 11+50" n00 Spatial Total Suspended Solids Neosho River 12881 Loc I10 OM Lo= 4 Spatial Total WCGS Suspended Solids Cooling Lake SL=oc 2 E Loc 68 I I 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 I.J Annual Total Suspended Neosho River Solids Annual Total Suspended Solids WCGS Cooling Lake w 41 250-20-150-100-so-0 w ,1)A 150" 125-100-75-Gar 25 I -I 1974 1976 178 1980 1982 1984 S " I a I 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 2-1.Total suspended solids hI the Neosho FRver and WCGS Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station.

Spatial Calcium Concentrations Neosho River j I I 100"'so-70-60O S 20 0 Spatial Calcium Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake___ Loc 6___7 Loc 8 k I 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 Annual Calcium Concentrations Neosho River 1981 1g92 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Annual Calcium Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake 100-io.w~o Un 60-150-* 40 30-20" 10-U)'70 20 w1 I I I I I I I I a I I I 1 1 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 196 1Q81 1962 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 2-2. Calciun conomnutloans In the Neohod River ncl WCGS Cooling Lake ne. Waif Creek Gers*ting Stticn.

--rt,-# ~ .-- -- -.Spatial Magnesium Concentrations Neosho River I I I:1 10 Spatial Magnesium Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake Mm Loa 2 LoC 6 LOO a U I)0 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984. 198 Annual Magnesium Concentrations Neosho River 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 Annual Magnesium Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake w Au 4)I 25-20'10, 2&0 0'a-"a'F I V 7 1 1 1 1974 1976 19ý6 ' 1960 ' 1062 ' 1064 ' 106 1981 1982 1983 1964 1985 1986 1987 Rgure 2-a Mahfetlskn oaiontrutions In the Nio"ho River and WCGS Cooling Lake ruir Wolf Creek Gmnwatlnq Station.

Spatial Orthophosphate Concentrations Neosho River Spatial Orthophosphate Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake M L I~o= L=o 10 1011Lao 2 102 Lm 6 EMLaO a 0*J0.1= ILoa 4 I:1 0.00!1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1964 1986 Annual Orthophosphate Concentrations Neosho River 1981 1982 1983 1984 1988 1986 1987 Annual Orthophosphate Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake 028-0.20 0.15 Q1010 I0.06-w.)A 9% r'%.1974 1976* 1978 1980 19' 2 .1984 l6 'Figure 2--4.Soluble orthoomholte conenbstlons in the Neosho River mrid WCQS Cooling Lake ro Wiolf Creek Gunasting Station.

-0. r Spatial Total Iron Concentrations Neosho River L= I Spatial Total Iron Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake EM LM 10 EML= 4 I 40-1.0-t-Loc 2-L" c 6 OmLac a iN:1 I m N iEwwm E I 1974 1976 1978 1980 1962 1984 1986 Annual Total Iron Concentrations Neosho River 191 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Annual Total Iron Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake 4.0 2-0 mI w U)A*1 I 1974 197 1978 '190 ' 1982 1984 1986 Figure 2-5. Total Irkn corenfrutlons in the Neosho Rlver and WCGS Coolkng Luke rmo Waif Creok Gwrnmting Station.

Spatial Total Alkalinity Neosho River Spatial Total Alkalinity WCGS Cooling Lake I I 0 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 N IA Annual Total Alkalinity Neosho River 19J1 1969 IM 198 1984 1981986 1987 Annual Total Alkalinity WCGS Cooling Lake 3001 Jio A B B mm I El J1o81 1862 1983 1J94 1985 1996 1987 Figure 2--.Total sikallrity conroenbmtlor In the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake nro Wolf Creek G emtrutlng Station.

Spatial Nitrate Concentrations Neosho River Spatial Nitrate Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake J1.0 EM ac 10 EMLac 4 M Lmo 2 Lao Um6-MLma.I I 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 Annual Nitrate Concentrations Neosho River 1981 1982 1983 1984 1988 1986 1987 Annual Nitrate Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake w (I)A 46 I I oz-w U)A*1 I I 00I 1974 1476 1978 1980 48192 4184 1986 1981 1962 191 Figure 2-7. Nitmte ormnoanatiOns In the River and WCGS Coolrg LAMke near Wolf Creek Gnamung Statlon.

Spatial Total Disolved Solids Neosho River Spatial Total Disolved Solids WCGS Cooling Lake"500-400 M Loa 2 LOG 6 1 05'.3'.3 LA 1974 1976 1978. 1960 1982 1984 198 Amual Total Dissolved Solids Neosho River.1981 1982 1963 1964 1985 196 1987 Annual Total Dissolved Solids WCGS Cooling Lake'Ii 03 A 4 I I 500-400-300-2W~MY&3100 200 I I I I I I KJ ....1974 1976 197 1960 1982 1984 '1986 1 1 8 I I I 1 1MI, 196 196 IM 1988 187, Figure 2-8. Total dlissolved solids In the Neoso River and WOGS Cooling Lake rme Wolf Creok Guigrting Station.

-V- -%.'W fl....Spatial Sulfate Concentrations Neosho River I I I I 10o-s8o 70 10.Spatial Sulfate Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake 1 Loc 2 EMLoa 6 OMLaO 1 II -.I 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1980 Annual Sulfate Concentrations Neosho River 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1980 1987 Annual Sulfate Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake U)A 100-90-S80-70-60-5O 41 I 100-9o-8o-70-60-0.w 1974 ' 1976 ' 1978 1960 I 19I2 194 ' 1980 Ill" 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 2-9. Sulfate Unrn In hthe Neosho River and WOGS Cooling Lake nro Waif Creek Gnuratng Station.

.Spatial Total Organic Nitrogen Neoaho River 2.0 I X:1.0 ML0C I EMLao 10 EMLao 4 I I 1,5 I 1X Spatial Total Organic Nitrogen WCCL Cooling Lake M Lao 2 IM Loa 6 EmLoa a d 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1966 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Annual Total Organic Neosho River Nitrogen Annual Total Organic Nitrogen WCGS Cooling Lake w a, A.4'I 06&h~i a)A.06&nn, 1974° 19768 1978 1980 1984 1986 1981 1982 1983 198 1986 1966 1987 Figure 2-10. Total organic ntrogen ooenmtloner in the Neosho River mnd WCGS Cooling Lake new Wolf Creok Generating Station.

..~ r--~~I-*l%-.~ ~.Spatial Nickel Concentrations Neosho River Spatial Nickel Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake MLoam ISM L=o 10 M LAC 2 MLo 6___ LOO 8 I 1Z7 Lao 4 I I M L'14 0 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 IJ N)Annual Nickel Concentrations Neosho River Annual Nickel Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake 50" 41 10-w 41 lI*:1 2&10 01 0 1974 ' 1976 1978 1980 182 ' 1984 ' 1986 1961 1962 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 2-11. Nickel ooncenfatlans In the Neo.Jo River and WCGS Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Gravting Station.

Spatial Ammonia Concentrations Neouo River 10.*0.00 Spatial Ammonia Concentrations WCG-,S Cooling Lake M Lac 2___ LOO 6 LosE8 m 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1gs1 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Annual Ammonia Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake Annual Ammonia NeoSho Concentrations River w co 0.1&-10.10.0O.08 j0.o5ýA M I II 1974 1976 IwM IWO IM2 1964 ' 196 I9I I 19 Figure 2-12. Amnonla conoentratlona In the Nloi River and WCGS Coollng Lake rmm Wolf Creek Gwwrsting Station.

-~ 7".I:1 100 70 6o-so-40 30 2 0i Spatial Chemical Oxygen Demand Neosho River Loc 10 Loc 4 Spatial Chemical Oxygen WCGS Cooling Lake Demand I:1 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 0 0 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987Chemical Oxygen Demand WCGS Cooling Lake Annual Chemical Oxygen Neosho River Demand 100 704'60 20r 10 01 w 41 Au*6 I 1974 " 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984

• 1980 Figure 2-13. CheucaI oxygen dmTinn In. the Neosho River and WC-S Coolin Luke near Wolf Creek GeurUtng Station.

Spatial Biochemical Oxygen Demand Neosho River Spatial Biochemical Oxygen Demand WCGS Cooling Lake:1 aI I4 1*M Loc 2 00 Lac 8 hh'dIcx dPl ~AU __w 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1988 Annual Biochemical Oxygen Demand Neosho River 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Annual Biochemical Oxygen Demand WCGS Cooling Lake 3M 0 I&w 4'0 30 2.0-I 1974 1976 1978 1980 1062 1964 1i'6 nnJ 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Rgure 2-14, Blocheflcal oxwygen dcnnd In the Neosho River and WOGS Cooling Lake ewr Wolf Creek Gertratlng StWtIon.

7 L I:1 Spatial Copper Concentrations Neosho River 50-Loc I 4(> Loc 10 36- EM Loc 4 30-25" 20-15" 01 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 160 8.0 2.0 1.ý/ Loc 2 Mf Loc a Lac a8 ild Spatial Copper Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake I1 n J' 1 1981 1982 1983 1984 1988 1986 1987 N, Annual Copper Concentrations Neosho River Annual Copper Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake 50-w 4'30 120, JIC-10.0-U19.0-8.0-7D -6.0-n.v 1974 ' 1976

• 1978 ' 190 1982 ' 1964 ' 1916 'nu 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 19;87 Figure 2-15.Copper cancuntruUons In the Neouho River and WCGS Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station.

Spatial Chromium Neosho Concentrations River Spatial Chromium Concentrations WCGS Cooling Lake 50-SL~oe 1 1 Lao 10 I0 Loa 4 M Lao 2Loc 6 EMLOO a 30 20 SIr I I I MMU n -Ia La)1974 1976 1978 .190 1982 1984 1986 Annual ChromiLun Concentrations Neosho River 1981 19g2 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Annual Chromium Concentrations WCGS Coolinr Lake 50" w (I)A I I 40-3o, 20 10 w 0)1 At I 1974 1976 1978 ' 1980 ' 192 Figure 2-16.194" 1986 1961 1982 1983 198 Cromlumn cnetrtloon In the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake new Wolf Creek Generating Station.

Location 6 Surface Temperatures Location 2 Surface Temperatures oI I-Ii APR JUN AUG OCT DEC No APR JUN AUG OCT DEC Average Lake Surface Temperatures Location 8 Surface Temperatures I-I S I-I APR JUN AUG OCT DEC APR JUN AUG OCT DEC Figure 2-17. Surface water teperatlrea In WCOS Cooling Lake roea Wolf Creek Gewerating Station.

Location 6 -1985 Location 6 -1986-A-- Ar--G- ---I .&-- Au -- -- Oct S I I-30-26-22 18-14-10-L-A*- A- A-A A-A- A- A.A-A-A-A-A-A

.i 11 11 0 C S 8 S t 0-Ar--- Ap un -u & Au- - Oct U S I b ftp 18" 14-10-61, 0 0 i 1 0 ....1 "6 2 -....2 .-t 8 10 18 20 2.iAi I'DOMU (m)Location 6 -1987 I M ith.n):6- AWa --G- JAN --AM- -~ A- NoW U S I I-Figure 2-18.Depth profiles of water temperature at Location 6 In WCGS Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Statlon, 1985-1987.

1. A £A*4*A*A*A**A*6*

A £A*A* £ A 0 8 10 1i 20 25 0m (4m) 6 16" 14-12-10" 6-4-2" Location 6 -1985 A-- AMr --- lum Wi A- Ag Oct~&ZZIAA- A- A- LA- AL-A-AA Location 6 -1986-Ap -- -jun-+- .. .. Aug----- Oct A.*A .A , A.A A 1-01ýI'4ka'A e-~ -stilt 0 5 10 11 20 25 0 a 0%1 Depth (m)Location 6 -1987--h- Apr --G- Jm -+- Aug .&.- Nov Depth (Im)ii 6 Figure 2-19. Depth profiles of dissolved oxygen at Location 6 In WCGS Cooling Lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1985-1987.

0 10 1 Depth (m)20 26 TABLE 2-1

SUMMARY

OF LOCATIONS SAMPLED AT WOLF 1974-1987 CREEK GENERATING STATION, River and Creek Locations Year 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1 (a) 3 4 5 7 10 Lake Locations 2 (a) 6 8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x K x x K x x x x x x x X.x K x x K x x X K x x x x x K x K K K K K K x K K K K K K x K x x x x x x x x x x x x K K K x K K K x (a) Location Location present.1 -Above John Redmond Dam 1974-1975.

2 -Upper Wolf Creek before dam closure-in upper lake 1981 to.-37 TABLE 2-2 WELLS SAMPLED AS PART OF GROUNDWATER PROGRAM NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1974-1987 Well # 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 B-12 -x X X X X X X X X X X x x C-6 -X ........ ...C-1i -x .... ...C-20 -X -X X X X X X X X X X X C-49 -X -K K X K K X C-50 -X X K X .........D-24 -----X .... ....D-26 X ........." -.. ..D-28 X X X K K ....-----D-42 -X X X X X ........D-55 -X K .X .--' --". .-D-65 -X x x X x X X X X x x X X Note: X indicates veil vas sampled during the year.2-38 TABLE 2-3

SUMMARY

OF PARAMETERS ANALYZED IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES FROK WELLS NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1974-1987 Parameter 74 75 76 77 78 50 6i 82 83 64 65 86 81 Alkalinity x x X X X x I I x X I x I x Calcium I x I I x I I I I I I x -I x Magnesium x x I I x I x I x x I I I I Potassium x x I I x I * * * .....Sodium X I I x

• I

• x I .....Chloride x

• I I I x I

• I I I I I I Sulfate I I X I 1

• I X I *. x I I *TDS

• I I

• I *

• I I *

• x I *Conductance I I I I I I I I

• x I

• x *Nitrate I X I I

• x -* I I

• I * *Phosphorus I x x I I x x I ---.silica I x x x x *

• I * ---Iron (Total) I

• X x 1 I X .1 2 x I I I x Iron (soluble)

-*

• I I

• X

• I X

• I I I Manganese I

• X x

• x I I I I I ---Mangqanse

-I ---------" --PH I

• I I I *

• I

• I

• I *Hardness ......I -x

• I I x *Selenium --* * * * *

• I .. ...-%0 TABLE 2-4 NUMBER OF ANALYSES CONDUCTED ON SURFACE WATER QUAITT YSAKPLES COLLECTED NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION. 1974-1987 0 Parameters Oil and grease Water temp Dissolved oxygen Oxygen saturation pH Alkalinity Sulfate TDS Specific Cond.TSS Turbidity Color, True Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite Organic Nitrogen Orthophosphate Sol.Phosphorus silica Bact. Fecal Colif.BOD COD Organic Carbon Hexane Sol.Copper, Total Iron, Total Lead, Total Manganese, Total Mercury, Total zinc Calcium Chloride Magnesium Potassium Sodium Iron (sol.)Bact. Fecal Strop.Selenium Hardness Chromium, Total Nickel 22 24 22 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 22 24 24 24 24 24 20 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 20 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 22 36*24 36 24 36 24 36 20 35 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 30 24 36-36-36-36-36-36 36 24-36 20 39 39 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 34 36 36 36 31 36 36 30 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 33 36 16 32 28 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 35 36 36 36 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 16 12 35 23 31 -36 24-24 36 24 36 24 36 18 36 24 36 24 36 18 36 24 36

• 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 35 24 35 24 36 24 36 24 33 21 36 24 36 24 36 16 36 24 36 24 35 24 36 24 36 24 36 24 36 24.36 24 36 24 35 24 36 18 7.-24 48 24 26 48 48 47 48 34 -48 48 48 48 46 48 48 48 48 48 46 48 48 46 48 48 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 -45 48 48 48 24 48 48 24 48 48 48 48 48 24 48 48 48 -47 30 48 48 48 47 48 48 48 48 48 -48 48 38 48 48 48 48 48 -48 24 48 48 --48 48 -48 24 48 48 48 48 48 24 48 48 24 -48 24 -48 24 48 23 --48 ---48 ---48--48 60 71 72 60 36 33 56 51 57 56 63 33 60 72 72 60 72 72 60 72 72 60 72 71 54 72 72 60 72 71 60 72 72 60 72 72 60 72 72 60 72 72 60 72 72 59 72 66 60 72 72 59 72 72 60 72 64 60 72 72 60 72 72 60 --60 72 72 60 72 72 60 72 72 60 71 72 60 72 72.60 72 72 47 22 36 22 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48.48 48 48 48 48 48 46 48 48 48 48 48 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Note: Total analyses scheduled for collections from *eosho aiver, Wolf Creek. and WCCL.

TABLE 2-5 ANNUAL HEAR CONCENTRATIONS Or SELECTED WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS FOR THE 3OSK0 RIVER AND WOLF CREEK COOLING LAKE (WCCL) NEAR WOLF-CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1974-1987 Parameter 1974 75 76 77 Neosho River 78 79 80 81 82 Bacteria-Fecal coliform Bacteria-Focal streptococcus Chloride Color Dissolved oxygen Iron-soluble Lead Manganese Mercury Nitrite oil and Grease pH Phosphate-Total Potassium Selenium silica Sodium Specific Conductance Total Organic Carbon Turbidity Water Temperature Zinc Parameter Bacteria-Fecal Coliform Bacteria-Focal Steptecoccus Chloride Color Dissolved oxygen Iron-soluble Lead Manganese Mercury Nitrite Oil and Grease pH Phosphate-Total Potasium Selenium Silica sodium Specific Conductance Total organic Carbon Turbidity Water Temperature zinc 610 16 11.*1 7 0.08 0.1 0.03 0.6 7.9 0.14 6.6 456 13 35 12.4 21.5 148 19 9.1 (3.09 2.0 0.02 1.4 7.7 0.15 4.4 468 16 64 14.7 15.2 146 104 26 11 9.3 0.10 (2 0.12 (6.S 0.02 0.48 8.1 0.21 4.2 3.8 3.0 22 592 7.6 27 15.2 8.7 100 53 34 22 9.8 0.09 3.7 0.12 (1.1 0.02 (3 8.0 0.17 4.9 (2 6.9 21 552 8.2 43 14.3, 17.5 194 43 31 12 10.0 0.06 9.4 0.09 1.1 0.02 2.5 8.1 0.13 4.9 2.8 3.7 25 620 8.0 27 11.9 16 602 160 23 Is 9.9 0.06 (3 0.09 0.65 0.02 (3 8.1 0.15 5.3 21 4.5 19 501 8.6 35 13.2 23 278 80 22 21 10.6 0.16 (2.0 0.11 (1.9 0.02 51 7.8 0.17 4.8 (1.7 1.4 20 477 8.0 29 11.2 (50 32 343 29.6 9.6 0.27 (4.3 0.11 (4.8 (.02 (19 7.9 0.33 4.4 (0.7 (7.3 20 399 6.4 30 15.6 (11.1* 13 9.9 0.15 43.9 0.06 0.03 7.9 3.9 437 7.8 35 15.1 (21.3 83 84)200* 44 18 13 10.6 10.5 (0.12 (0.86 0.11 0.17 (0.02 0.05 (3.2 (3 7.9 7.8 85)68 9 9.5 (0.13 0.06 (3 7.5 361 56 14.7 86 19 11 11.2 0.08 (0.03 (3 7.6 396 33 14.0 87 45*11 9.7 0.05 0.05 (3 7.7 417 44 20 476 27 12.1 413 54 11.0 WCCL 1981 82 83 80 --26 15 15 4.8 4.6 -9.4 9.4 8.9 0.30 (0.15 (0.5 (2.7 --0.08 -0.07 (2.1 --(0.01 (0.03(0.01 (10.3 (1.1 (3.1 7.9 7.8 7.9 (0.15 (0.26 -4.2 4.1. -(0.5 --1.8 2.4 -19 11 -436 407 376 6.0 6.9 -13.5 5.3 6.0 15.9 14.7 14.7 (16.4 (2i.8 -84 85-'. -J 586 57-~-4 14 6.7 (0.005 0.07 (0.01 (3.0 7.8 13 12 9.7 12.8 (0.08 (0.09 16 8.9 (0.1 (0.01 (3 8.0 (0.01 (3.1 7.6 (0.01 (3.0 7.7 367 4.2 15.1 367 5.8 16 .5 319 4.2 15.7 353 5.2 22.2 Note: Dash 1-) indicates the parameter was not scheduled for determination.

-p-.---TABLE 2-6 MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS rFO WELLS SAMPLED NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1977-1987 Well B-12 Units 1977 1978 1979 1980 1381 1982 1983 1984 1985 1386 1987 pH units 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.3 6.8 7.6 8.2 7.6 8.3 8.2 7.5 Alkalinity ag/1 365 390 290 259 401 572 451 491 486 774 522 specific conductance pmhos/cu 1,155 1,200 1,100 635 2,140 3,196 2,850 1,770 1.615 985 2,100 Hardness ag/1 ---909 -1,301 883 642 386 400 677 Total dissolved solids mg/I 759 793 757 .690 2,283 2,415 2,113 970 1,212 1,003 1,479 Calcium ag/l 107 116 115 260 398 262 232 62 108 111 196 Chloride ng/I 60 81 97 57 312 269 238 194 126 75 342 Magnesium mg/1 22.6 21.3 22 65 94 25.9 73.8 131 39.6 38.6 45.6 sulfate ng/i 117 170 220 387 450 620 484 413 227 120 48 Nitrate ag/l 10 4.2 54.6 81 21.5 2.2 (.05 114 Iron, total mg/l 1.8 3.6 1.5 16.4 32 .20 20.4 20.0 28.4 56.3 5.4 Iron, soluble mg/1 0.26 0.08 0.01 0.80 0.03 0.1! 0.87 16.5 0.14 0.24 0.12 Well C-20 Units 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 pH units 7.1 7.5 7.1 6.8 -7.0 7.4 7.6 7.3 7.1 7.3 Alkalinity mg/i 262 249 186 224 -292 258 312 .272 295 519 Specific conductance pshos/ca 1,370 1,600 1,400 1,300 -1,295 1,665 1,152 1,572 1,169 1,100 Hardness ag/I ---702 -788 790 650 655 545 653 Total dissolved solids mg/I 1,090 1,192 1,140 654 -952 1,126 556 1,091 1,084 985 Calcium rg/I 200 .217 220 250 -300 280 102 224 241 222 chloride ng/I 170 147 130 IS0 -128 188 .121 284 135 243 Magnesium n9/1 21 20 22 19 -14.2 22.6 20.5 24.2 15.0 23.9 Sulfate ng/i 45 32 60 --53 49 68 166 s0 53 Nitrate ag/i 61 -29.9 78 31.4 42.2 50.3 50.1 Iron, total ig/I 1.8 0.9 1.6 5.8 -15.1 1.5 3.5 7.0 <1.6 2.4 Iron, soluble ag/i 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.05 -1.4 0.12 3.4 0.18 40.03 0.07 Well D-65 Units 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 pH units 6.9 7.3 7.5 6.5 7.5 6.8 6.8 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.1 Alkalinity ng/i 161 130 158 110 190 167 138 164 150 153 320 Specific conductance pmbos/cm 5,093 5,530 5,700 4,700 3,040 4,399 4,031 3,040 3,625 2,592 2,000 Hardness ag/i -.. "2,070 -1,634 1,379 1,294 "1,412 1,250 868 Total dissolved solids ag/l 3,358 4,690 4,565 1,162 2,914 3,146 4,342 1,774. 2,954 2,747 2,229 Calcium ng/l 499 596 750 690 501 498 394 184 416 380 270 Chloride mg/I 497 510 610 6,045 576 578 352 459 386 312 142 Magnesium mg/1 120 133 150 114 96 74 96 65 77 90 47 Sulfate ng/I 20 41 180 30 44 62 74 60 58 68 59 nitrate ng/I 0.45 -0.70 -1.4 310 372 178 231 173 171 Iron, total ag/, 10.9 7.8 6.1 4.3 4.6 31.5 26.9 65 12.0 6.7 9.0 Iron, soluble mg/1 0.027 0.033 0.011 0.12 2.66 5.57 0.45 17.5 0.29 40.05 0.06 TABLE 2-6 Cont.Well C-49 Units 1980 1931 19.2 19.L I 1984 19. 5 1386 1987 PH units 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.2 7.0 7.4 7.3 7.1 Alkalinity ag/I *265 348 431 368 356 348 376 541 Specific conductance pnhos/cM 1,100 860 1,160 1,348 1.314 1.191 1,026 1.000 Hardness mg/1 499 -530 518 633 515 461 477 Total dissolved solids mg/i 142. 781 785 1,418 730 800 792 841 calcium 9g/1 140 126 126 143 64 141 206 12S Chloride .g/1 3,066 84 48. 72 44 74 47 52 magnesium mg/I 37 31 405 39 36 36 34 40 Sulfate mg/l 151 188 206 258 278 143 114 46 Nitrate 9g/1 -3.4 11.5 186 8 6.6 63.7 4.4 ZIron, total mg/i -0.24 0.10 0.09 6.18 0.09 3.8 0.07 ZIron, soluble mg/i 0.068 0.23 0.14 0.06 (0.1 0.08 (0.03 0.32 I,)

3. PLANKTON PRODUCTIVITY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The plankton of freshwater lakes and rivers is composed of small plants and animals. Their position both vertically and horizontally in the water column is for the most part not self-controlled but rather is determined by physical factors such as currents, eddies, and turbulence.

Phytoplankton consists of various types of algae, microscopic plants, which are suspended in the water column. While some algal taxa normally occur in suspension, others are washed free from substrates to which they were attached.

Phytoplankton is given consideration in aquatic studies because it forms the primary trophic level of the aquatic food chain. Several species of zooplankton and macroinvertebrates feed on phytoplankton (Jonasson 1969, Saunders 1969), as do some fish species such as gizzard shad (Cramer and Marzolf 1970). There are also aesthetic considerations which may affect recreational use of lakes and reservoirs.

Large algal blooms may occur sporadically during warm weather, cloud the water, and make recreational activities such as fishing, swimming, and boating less enjoyable.

Zooplankton are generally considered the second link (primary consumers) in aquatic food chains, although certain common limnetic taxa such as Cyclops species prey upon other zooplankters and thus are regarded as secondary consumers (Fryer 1957, McQueen 1969). Zooplankton that are primary consumers feed on phytoplankton, bacteria, protozoa, and organic detritus and are in turn utilized by aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish (secondary and tertiary consumers).

Most fish species at some stage of development depend primarily on 3-1 zooplankton as a food source. Availability of sufficient quantities of zooplankton at critical periods may affect survival of the fry and fingerling stages of fish species that are of commercial or recreational value (Siefert 1972, Clady 1977). Gizzard shad, the primary species of forage fish in the diets of walleye, white bass, and largemouth bass in several midwestern reservoirs, relies exclusively on zooplankton during a portion of Its early life history (Kutkuhn 1957, Cramer and Marzolf 1970).Plankton studies at WCGS began on the Neosho River in 1973 and on the Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL) in 1981. Although these studies at one time Included determinations of phytoplankton and zooplankton composition and abundance, for several years emphasis has been placed on standing crop and productivity estimates for WCCL. These include phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations, phytoplankton carbon fixation rates, zooplankton dry weight biomass, and zooplankton ash-free dry weight biomass. Although plankton studies in the river were discontinued in 1982, phytoplankton studies resumed the next year, and measurements of chlorophyll a concentrations continue.

The primary purpose of the present study is to examine spatial and temporal trends in the plankton data for effects of VCGS operation, which began in August 1985.3.2 METHODS Phytoplankton samples were collected from the Neosho River either quarterly or bimonthly from 1973 through 1987, except in 1982 when sampling was not conducted.

In all years sampling occurred at Location 1 either in John Redmond Reservoir or its tailvaters, at Location 10 upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek, and at Location 4 downstream of Wolf Creek (Figure 1-1). At each 3-2 location whole water was collected for six replicate determinations of chlorophyll a concentration and carbon fixation rate. Bimonthly plankton sampling in WCCL began in 1981 at Location 2 near the WCGS discharge and Location 6 near the dam. Location 8 near the VCGS intake was added to the program in 1984. As in the river, phytoplankton collections consisted of surface sampling of whole water for six replicates at each location.Zooplankton blomass sampling consisted of four replicate vertical tows (bottom to surface) with a 30-cm diameter, No. 10 (153 vm) mesh conical plankton net.Analytical methods for the plankton standing crop and productivity measurements are described in detail in recent VCGS annual reports. For phytoplankton, chlorophyll a concentrations (corrected for phaeophytin) were determined fluorometrically from acetone extracts (Lorenzen 1966; Strickland and Parsons 1972; APHA 1981) and were reported per cubic meter of water (mg/m 3). The rate of carbon fixation was estimated with the light bottle/dark bottle C-14 method (Vetzel 1964; Parkos et al. 1969; Strickland and Parsons 1972), and primary 3 productivity was expressed as carbon fixed per cubic meter per hour (mg/m /hr).Zooplankton biomass was determined gravimetrically after drying at 60 C for dry weights (Lovegrove 1962) and after incineration at 500 C for ash-free dry weights (APRA 1981). Both zooplankton biomass parameters were reported per cubic meter of water (mg/m )3 Overall spatial trends in the data were examined by plotting average annual values for each location in each year of sampling.

Three approaches were used to evaluate temporal trends. First, average values for either the river or lake were calculated for each sampling date. The resulting plots permitted detailed examination of temporal cycles within each year. Secondly, average 3-3 bimonthly (seasonal) values were calculated for each of three time periods.For the river these periods were prior to lake-construction and dam closure on Wolf Creek (Pre-Lake, 1973-1979), Pre-Operational (1980-AUG 1985), and WCGS operational (OCT 1985-1987).

For the cooling lake, the Pre-Lake period was replaced by Lake Filling (1981). This approach allowed conditions during station operation to be compared with those of earlier periods. Finally, annual means and standard errors were calculated to examine overall year-to-year trends in the data.3.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.3.1 Neosho River Phytoplankton Chlorophyll a concentrations in the Neosho River ranged from <1 to nearly 144 mg/M3 (Tables 3-1, 3-2). Spatially, annual phytoplankton standing crop was often greatest at Location 1 and usually very similar at Locations 10 and 4 (Figure 3-1). The phytoplankton of the river is strongly Influenced by releases from John Redmond Reservoir, which constitute nearly all of the flow in this section of the river. During moderate to high flows, chlorophyll concentrations Immediately upstream and downstream of the confluence with Volf Creek were very similar to those observed in the tailvaters.

During low flow conditions, values at Location 10 Immediately upstream of Wolf Creek were often different (usually but not always higher) than those observed at the other locations.

Temporally, no consistent pattern was noted In standing crop for the individual sampling dates (Figure 3-1). Unusually high values (>100 mg/Mn 3) occurred in 3-4 February 1984 and March 1986. On a seasonal basis, little variability was noted in chlorophyll for the period 1973 through 1979. Although there was a tendency for slightly lower values in June and higher values in late summer, 3 average chlorophyll fell within a relatively narrow range (= 10-20 mg/rn).During the 1980 to 1985 preoperational period, standing crop was distinctly higher in late winter with a minor peak evident in late summer. The late winter peak persisted during the operational period when. spring and early summer values were higher than in earlier periods. A late summer minimum was also noted during the operational period. On an annual basis, chlorophyll values in the river displayed a moderate increase from 1973 through 1983 and then rose to a maximum in 1984. Since then, annual values have been declining toward earlier levels, except in 1985 when heavy precipitation in the watershed and unusually high river flows resulted in the lowest phytoplankton standing crop observed in the Neosho. River.Carbon-fixation rates ranged from 0 to 226 mg C/m3/hr (Tables. 3-1,. 3-2). There were no consistent spatial differences in annual productivity, and in most years values were similar at all three river locations (Figure 3-2). There were no apparent seasonal cycles from the temporal results for individual sampling dates, but these data did show that the four greatest productivities all occurred during 1986. These high values caused seasonal means for four of the six seasons during the operational period to be substantially higher than respective values for earlier periods. Not surprising the annual mean productivity was much higher in 1986 than in any other year. However, carbon fixation rate in 1987 was within the range of annual values observed prior to 1986.3-5 The absence of major spatial differences between Locations 10 and 4 in recent years Indicated that neither phytoplankton standing crop nor productivity in the Neosho River was affected by WCGS operation.

The general absence of spatial differences prior to WCGS operation suggested that Wolf Creek,. which was an intermittent stream, seldom affected river phytoplankton historically.

Instead phytoplankton standing crop primarily reflects releases from John Redmond Reservoir (JRR), with some downstream declines typical for lake plankton subjected to the lotic conditions of a river. Carbon fixation rates in turn are strongly influenced by phytoplankton standing crop as well as natural variations in ambient conditions such as temperature and turbidity.

Thus, temporal patterns for phytoplankton productivity may be modified from those observed for standing.

crop. The potential for WCGS to impact the Neosho River phytoplankton community has been minimal based on lov diversion rates from the JRR tailvaters and the absence of substantial discharges from the cooling lake. When these discharges do occur, any effects on the river phytoplankton would probably be additions to or dilutions of the community that originated in JRR. These effects would be very temporary and only persist for a short time after the discharge was discontinued.

3.3.2 Cooling Lake Phytoplankton Chlorophyll a concentrations in the Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL) ranged from 1.8 to 25.7 mg/m3 (Table 3-3). Spatially, standing crop was distinctly greater at Location 2 than at Location 6 through 1984 (Figure 3-3). Since then spatial differences have been less pronounced, probably because WCGS operation has Increased the circulation and mixing of waters throughout WCCL. Temporally chlorophyll values tended to be at or near annual maxima in autumn and at 3-6 I! annual minima in winter or early spring. There has been little evidence of a major spring pulse that is typical of most midwestern lakes and reservoirs.

(.1 Unusually high phytoplankton standing crops occurred in October and December 1985 and April 1986, soon after WCGS operation began. Similar peaks did not occur in the JRR tailvaters (Table 3-2), suggesting that factors peculiar to.CCL rather than local climatic factors were responsible.

It is conceivable Is that increased lake mixing and the onset of thermal discharges associated with WCGS start up caused a temporary stimulation of phytoplankton standing crop.However, chlorophyll values had returned to normal levels by the summer of 1986. The absence of fall peak in 1987 probably resulted because sampling was postponed from October to November.On a seasonal basis, phytoplankton standing crop was consistently highest during lake filling in 1981 (Figure 3-3). This result was not unexpected as the tailvaters of John Redmond Reservoir, a relatively shallow eutrophic reservoir, were the primary source of water for lake filling. Also, the newly flooded soil and vegetation in VCCL would serve as an added source of nutrients stimulating phytoplankton standing crop. More uniform seasonal values were observed during the preoperational period although a fall maximum remained evident. The prominence of the fall maximum continued to decline during WCGS operation.

Other seasons exhibiting progressive declines from lake filling through operation included spring (April) and early winter (December).

On an annual basis, chlorophyll values appeared to stabilize soon after the lake-filling maximum, increased to near lake-fill values in 1985-86, and declined to a 1987 minimum. Most of the annual increases observed for 1985 and 1986 were related to the previously discussed high standing crops recorded soon after WCGS start up. The absence of October sampling In 1987 was a factor 3-7 which reduced that annual mean. Overall annual trends were considered representative of a new lake that was initially filled with eutrophic water and then gradually assumed its own character, with a possible temporary stimulation associated with JCGS start up. Based on average annual chlorophyll a concentrations, the WCGS cooling lake can be classified in the mesotrophic range (Vetzel, 1975).3 Phytoplankton carbon fixation rates ranged from 0.0 to 115.8 mg C/m /hr (Table 3-3). Spatial differences were less pronounced than those observed for chlorophyll a concentrations, but productivity was often greatest at Location 2 (Figure 3-4). Temporally, there were no consistent trends in the timing of annual minima and maxima. Unusually high fixation rates occurred in February 1981, April and October 1982, and April through December 1986. The high productivity in 1986 caused all seasonal values except those in cold months to be higher during the operational period than during earlier periods. However, carbon fixation rates were also unusually high in the JRR tailwaters during 1986, indicating that the cause was not unique to WCCL and not related to WCGS operation.

Different seasonal patterns were evident for each of the three periods examined.

During lake filling in 1981, maximum fixation rates were restricted to cold months (Figure 3-4). In the preoperational period, a bimodal pattern with peaks in April and October was observed.

During VCGS operation, the April peak became dominant and resulted in a unimodal pattern. On an annual basis, phytoplankton productivity has varied between 9 and 17 mg C/m 3/hr since 1982, except for the unusually high value (65 mg C/m 3/hr) in 1986. Carbon fixation rates have been strongly influenced by phytoplankton standing crop as 3-8 well as natural variati6ns in ambient conditions (e.g. temperature), and as a result fixation rates have revealed few consistent spatial or temporal trends.-t Phytoplankton standing crop in VCCL was less than that observed in other regional lakes that are thermally influenced (Table 3-4). Chlorophyll a 3 concentrations in WCCL averaged less than 10 mg/mr for 1981-87, whereas most Fi: other lakes have recorded overall means of 20 mg/m or greater. Turtle Creek I, Reservoir, a 1,550-acre Indiana lake, exhibited substantially increased standing crop under two-unit operation but not under one-unit.

Chlorophyll a values in Sutherland Reservoir, a 3,050-acre lake in western Nebraska, peaked during one-unit operation in 1981 and stabilized at somewhat lover values during two-unit operation.

Standing crop in 660-acre Nelson Lake, located in western North Dakota, was similar to that observed in Sutherland Reservoir.

Only Clinton Lake, a 4,890-acre Illinois impoundment, exhibited standing crops considered similar to VCCL, but those values were prior to the onset of thermal enrichment.

Unlike many lakes in midwestern and plains states, the VCCL is deep and does not have a major source of nutrient inputs. These factors may be adequate to prevent eutrophic conditions from developing at WCCL.3.3.3 Cooling Lake Zooplankton 3 Zooplankton biomass in WCCL ranged from 17 to 1,052 mg/mr for dry weights and from 14 to 338 mg/mr 3 for ash-free dry weights (Table 3-5). Spatial differences in dry weight were minor except in 1985 and 1987 when standing crop was highest at Location 2 and lowest at Location 6 (Figure 3-5). No consistent temporal patterns were evident, but there was a tendency for high dry weights in April and low dry weights in June or August. Unusually high values occurred in 3-9 April, June, and October 1985 and in December 1986. On a seasonal basis, there has been a shift in the occurrence of maximum dry weight from spring in the preoperational period to autumn during WCGS operation.

Based on annual values, zooplankton dry weights declined from 1981 through 1983, stabilized briefly before. sharply rising to a 1985 maximum, and then returned to levels similar to the first two years of study. Most of the 1985 maximum was attributable to high standing crops that occurred before WCGS began operation.

Because zooplankton biomass samples sometimes contained sand, silt, and other suspended solids, ash-free dry weights (AFDV) was considered more representative of standing crop. Although AFDU was greater at Location 6 than at Location 2 from 1981 through 1983, there have been no consistent spatial trends in recent years (Figure 3-6). Neither has there been a consistent timing of yearly minima and maxima. Seasonally, standing crop from late winter through summer was greater during lake-filling than in later periods. Vith the exception of early winter, seasonal zooplankton standing crops were similar in preoperational and operational periods. Annually, AFDW declined through 1984, increased through 1986, and again declined in 1987. These annual trends were similar to those observed for dry weights, with the exception of 1985. The nature of differences between dry weight and AFDV in 1985 suggested that dry weights in that year were strongly influenced by non-organic materials (e.g.sand, etc.). The absence of consistent spatial differences in recent years, the similarity in seasonal values for preoperational and operational periods, and the absence of sustained high biomass after WCGS start-up all indicated that VCGS operation was not adversely affecting AFDW standing crop in the cooling lake.3-10 U EZooplankton AFDV in the cooling lake has been similar to that observed for lakes Sangchris and Shelbyville in Illinois, but substantially less than that recorded for Nelson Lake, North Dakota (Table 3-4). In WCCL similar annual trends were observed for phytoplankton and zooplankton standing crop (Figure 3-7). However,.

for both zooplankton parameters there were declines between 1982 and 1983 while chlorophyll a concentrations remained stable,. This C) difference was related to differential declines in plankton production after IWCCL was filled and major inputs from John Redmond were discontinued.

Apparently for phytoplankton the decline occurred very soon after lake filling, but for zooplankton it did not occur until June 1982. Because crustacean zooplankters have much longer life cycles than planktonic algae, the degree and extent of these annual zooplankton declines probably reflected relatively slow natural attrition of zooplankton introduced from JRR as well as a response to the declining phytoplankton production.

Other differences between phytoplankton and zooplankton occurred in 1985 for dry weights and in 1986 for AFDV (Figure 3-7). The effect of inorganic materials on the high 1985 dry weights has already been discussed.

Zooplankton AFDW continued to increase in 1986 while phytoplankton chlorophyll a declined slightly.

There was moderately good correlation (r = 0.70) between chlorophyll a concentrations and each zooplankton biomass parameter.

When regression lines were fit to their data, the distribution of points was somewhat better for AFDV because dry weight was affected by the unusually large value for 1985. In the absence of biomass data, chlorophyll a concentrations could be used to estimate zooplankton standing crop.3-u1 3.4

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 3.4.1 Neosho River Phytoplankton Studies Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations and carbon fixation rates in the Neosho River from the tailwaters of John Redmond Dam to below the confluence with Wolf Creek have been monitored since 1973. Flow in the study area is controlled by releases from John Redmond Reservoir.

During periods of moderate to high flows, chlorophyll concentrations and fixation rates immediately upstream and downstream of the confluence with the creek were very similar to those observed in the tailwaters.

During low flow conditions, values for both parameters immediately upstream of Wolf Creek are often different (usually but not always higher) than those observed at the other locations.

In 1987, both 3 the average annual chlorophyll concentration (27.38 mg/im ) and carbon fixation 3 rate (29.86 mg C/m hr) were within the respective ranges (3.81-63.38 mg Chi a/m 3 , 12.18-238.22 mg C/m 3 hr) observed for previous annual averages.

The 1987 results reflected a return to more normal conditions after the high phytoplankton values resulting from the generally low river flow of 1986.There has been no indication that adverse effects on the phytoplankton of the Neosho River have occurred as a result of the construction and operation of WCGS.3.4.2 WCCL Plankton Studies Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations and carbon fixation rates (surface samples) as well as zooplankton biomass (vertical tows) in the WCGS cooling lake have been monitored bimonthly since initial lake filling in 1981. Average 3-12 annual chlorophyll concentrations declined by approximately 30 percent from I: 1981 to 1982, remained fairly stable from 1982 through 1984, and returned to 9o..* near 1981 levels in 1985 and 1986. The annual value in 1987 declined by* approximately 35 percent to 6.6 mg/m3 and was below the previous range*3 (7.5-11.0 mg/mr) of annual values. Temporally, phytoplankton standing crop has been generally greatest in late-summer or early autumn, and spatially, it has generally been least in the dovnlake deep water location near the dam.However, exceptions to these general patterns have been observed, and chlorophyll concentrations were unusually high in October and December 1985 and April 1986. Carbon fixation rates have been strongly influenced by phytoplankton standing crop as well as natural variations in ambient conditions (e.g. temperature), and as a result fixation rates have revealed few consistent spatial or temporal trends. Unlike 1986 when unusually high fixation rates were common, the annual mean rate-in 1987 (9.1 mg C/m3 ) was slightly below the 3 previously observed range of annual values (11.7-64.4 mg C/m /hr).Average annual zooplankton biomass, both dry and ash-free dry weights, declined from 1981 through 1984, although dry weight biomass appeared to stabilize in 1983 and 1984. Ash-free dry weight increased from 40 mg/mr 3 in 1984 to 67 mg/m3 in 1985 and 92 mg/m3 in 1986, and then declined to 53 mg/m 3 in 1987. Dry 3 weight peaked in 1985 (234 mg/mr) and has since progressively declined in 1986 (154 mg/mr3) and 1987 (123 mg/m3). Average annual dry weight in 1987 was less than that observed during lake filling in 1981 but greater than the 66 mg/m3 minimum of 1984. Few consistent spatial and temporal trends have been observed for zooplankton biomass, but there has been a tendency for greater biomass in the uplake shallower water and for greater biomass in late winter or early spring from 1981-1985 with spring and fall peaks in 1985 and 1986. A spring 3-13 peak also occurred in 1987, but zooplankton sampling was discontinued before the normal period of the fall peak.Annual trends in phytoplankton and zooplankton through 1984 were considered representative of a new lake, with nutrient inputs from recently inundated soil and vegetation, that was initially filled with eutrophic water (from John Redmond Reservoir) and then gradually assumed its own character'.

Increases in plankton apparent in 1985 and 1986 were considered primarily a response to natural factors although operational effects of the thermal discharge and altered lake circulation patterns associated with WCGS start-up may have been contributing factors. Plankton declines to normal levels during UCGS operation in 1987 support the conclusion that station operation is not adversely affecting plankton production.

Based on average annual chlorophyll a concentrations, the VCGS cooling lake remains in the mesotrophic classification.

3-14

3.5 REFERENCES

American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation.

1981. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.

15th edition. APHA, Washington.

1,134 pp.Clady, M.D. 1977. Crustacean zooplankton populations and concurrent survival of larval yellow perch in Oneida Lake. N.Y. Fish and Game J.24(1):46-52.

Cramer, J.D. and G.R. Marzolf. 1970. Selective predation on zooplankton by gizzard shad. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 99(2):320-332.

Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1981. Entrainment Studies at Gerald Gentleman Station, August 1979 through December 1980. Report to Nebraska Public Power District, Columbus.Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1982a. Gerald Gentleman Station Entrainment Study, 1981 Annual Report. Report to Nebraska Public Power District, Columbus.Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1982b. Wolf Creek Generating Station Construction Environmental Monitoring Program, February 1981 -January 1982. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita.Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1983a. Gerald Gentleman Station Entrainment Study, 1982 Annual Report. Report to Nebraska Public Power District, Columbus.Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1983b. Wolf Creek Generating Station Construction Environmental Monitoring Program, February 1982-December 1982. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Companyt Wichita.Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1984a. Gerald Gentleman Station Entrainment Study, 1983 Annual Report. Report to Nebraska Public Power District, Columbus.Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1984b. Wolf Creek Generating Station Preoperational Phase Environmental Monitoring Program, March 1983 -December 1983. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita.EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1985a. Gerald Gentleman Station Entrainment Study, 1984 Annual Report. Report to Nebraska Public Power District, Columbus.EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1985b. Wolf Creek Generating Station Preoperational Phase Environmental Monitoring Program, February 1984 -December 1984. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita.EA Engineering, Science and Technology Inc. 1985c. Biological and Chemical Monitoring in Turtle Creek Reservoir near Herom Generating Station, 1984.Report to Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Bloomlngton, Indiana.EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1986a. Wolf Creek Generating Station Operational Phase Environmental Monitoring Program, March 1985 -December 1985. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita.3-15 EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. 1986b. Biological and Chemical Monitoring in Turtle Creek Reservoir near Merom Generating Station, 1985.Report to Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Bloomington, Indiana.EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1987. M.R. Young Station, Nelson Lake, North Dakota, 1986 Aquatic Ecology Study. Report to Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., Grand Forks, North Dakota.Fryer, G. 1957. The food of some freshwater cyclopold copepods and its ecological significance.

J. Animal Ecol. 26(3):263-285.

Jonasson, P.M. 1969. Bottom fauna and eutrophication, in Eutrophication:

Causes, Consequences, Correctives, pp. 274-305. Natlonal Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.Kutkuhn, J.H. 1957. Utilization of plankton by juvenile gizzard shad in a shallow prairie lake. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 87:80-103.

Lorenzen, C.J. 1966. A method for the continuous measurement of in vivo chlorophyll concentration.

Deep-Sea Res. 13:223-227.

Lovegrove, T. 1962. The effect of various factors on dry weight values.Rappt. Proces-Verbaux Reunions, Conseil Perm. Intern. Exploration Her.156:86-91.

Mcoueen, D.J. 1969. Reduction of zooplankton standing stocks by predaceous Cyclop blcuslpdatus thomasi in Marion Lake, British Columbia.

J9 Fish.Res. Board Can. 26(6):1,605-1,618.

Parkos, W.G., T.A. Olson, and T.O. Odlaug. 1969. Water quality studies on the Great Lakes based on carbon-14 measurements on primary productivity.

Bull.17, Water Resources Research Center, Univ. of Minn. Graduate School. 121 pp.Saunders, G.V., Jr. 1969. Some aspects of feeding in zooplankton, in Eutrophication:

Causes, Consequences, Correctives, pp. 556-573. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.Siefert, R.E. 1972. First food of larval yellow perch, white sucker, bluegill, emerald shiner, and rainbow smelt. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.101:219-225.

Strickland, J.D.H. and T.R. Parsons. 1972. A Practical Handbook of Sea Water Analysis.

2nd edition. Fish. Res. Board Can. Bul. 167. 311 pp.Waite, S.V. 1981. Effects of cooling lake perturbations upon the zooplankton dynamics of Lake Sangchris, in The Lake Sangchris Study: Case History of an Illinois Cooling Lake (Ru.. Larlmore and J.A. Tranquilli, eds.). 111.Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 32(4):342-357.

WAPORA, Inc. 1982. Preoperational Biological, Chemical, and Physical Monitoring at Merom Lake, Sullivan County, Indiana, Final Report. Report to Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana.3-16 WAPORA, Inc. 1983. Turtle Creek Reservoir Biological, Physical, and Chemical Monitoring, 1982 Final Report. Report to Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana.VAPORA, Inc. 1984. Biological, Physical, and Chemical Monitoring of Turtle Creek Reservoir, 1983 Final Report. Report to Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana.Vetzel, R.G. 1975. Limnology.

Saunders, Philadelphia.

743 pp.Willhite, G.P., F.B. Cross, V.J. O'Brien, and Y.S. Yu. A Study of the Physical and Biological Effects of Thermal Discharge on LaCygne Lake. Principal Investigators' Report to the Office of Water Research and Technology, Department of the Interior, July 1976, Washington, D.C. 356 pp. including appendices.

3-17 Spatial Algal Standing Crop Neosho River Temporal Algal Standing Crop Neosho River 11 N-E I 5ý LAW I CMLao 10 CMLao 4 II 11 0hrl 1973-.4 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 Seasonal Algal Standing Crop Neosho River 1982 1988 5-S I S 10 70.60 50-40" 30.20.1 M Prfr-Lake (1973-79)-w Pr.-Owa.11980-"5 EMOpamtlai U)A Annual Algal Standing Crop Neosho River 100 goo-80o 70 60 40-311 1973 1978 gr 1977 19 81 I 1,9g63 '9 1987 n -FEB-MAR APR JUN AUM-4EP OCT DEC Fioure 3-1. Ptvytopalrton standing crop trends In tUe Neosho River near Wolf -Creek Generating Station, 1973-1987.

"r -.-b. -t-..7 .-,. .- -.M.Spatial Algal Productivity Neosho River Temporal Algal Productivity Neosho River 300&I 260-150-100-50-M L~CMLo 10 CMLoa 4 IM IM L9I E I n u-w La H I0 1973 1978 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 Seasonal Algal Productivity Neosho River 1973 1976 1979 1982 1988 198l Annual Algal Productivity Neosho River I I 400-350-300-250-200-100.G0o MR (1 973-79)(198045a)OpwaUan (1066-67)I 300" 200" 150 100 z B I% _i~a -U"-9%v I mm 19V3 197I 1977 197I.9 1981 18 1.. ..78171 17 1981 1963 1985 1967 FEB-MAR APR JUN AUG-SEP OCT OEC: Figure 3-2. Phytoplankton productivity trends In the Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1973-1987.

Spatial Algal Standing Crop WCGS Cooling LAke Temporal Algal Standing Crop WCGS Cooling Lake or r: t-M Lou 2 CMLao 6 EMLao a I 10-5-0 tI t.1981 1982 1983 1984 1986 1986 1987 Seasonal Algal Standing Crop WCGS Cooling Lake II el I II I l ulL I l IIII III I I {II I I I I I ,IJII I II II F JOMJ OMJOF J OM J OMJ OM J N 1981 1912 193 1904 1965 1986 1987 Annual Algal Standing Crop WCGS Cooling Luke I S AUw I I 5 18" IS 14-4-2-N FES-M~ APR JUN ,AU OCT-N+V DEC 1981 19162 11063 I194 196 1986 I'98 Figure 3-3. Phytoplankton standing crop trends In the cooling lake near Wolf Creek Generating Station. 1981-1987.

Spatial Algal Productivity WCGS Cooling Lake Temporal Algal Productivity WCGS Cooling Lake 11 E M LAW a CMLee a EMLao a A 1981 0182 1963 1984 198O 1986 1987 LA 1%)FJOMJOMJOFJOMJOMJOMJ 1961 1982 1983 1984 1986 196 1967 Seasonal Algal Productivity WCGS Cooling Lake Arnual Algal Productivity WCGS Cooling Lake:1 B I I 100 70 Go ft (1961)-M Pro-Op (1962-60 M OwuU'I B I I 100 90 so: 70-40 30 2D 10 FEB-M~ APR JUN AUG OCT-NOV DI 1981 198 1983 198 1985 196 96 Rgure 3-4. Phytoplankton productivIty ltends In the cooling lake near Wolf Creek Gmenerating Statlon, 1981-1987.

E 400 35 300-250.200" 150-100" s Spatial Zooplankton Dry Weight WCGS Cooling Lake Mil L@ 2 Lac 6 UMLao a Temporal Zooplankton Dry Weight WCGS Cooling Lake E 4..600" 550" 500-450"-400-350-300-250-200-150-100" 50%0 I..1981 1982 1983 1984 1986 1986 1987 Seasonal Zooplankton Dry Weight* WCGS Cooling Lake F J 0 M J 0 M J 0 VJ................

F JOMJOM JO JM OMJOMJN 1981 1982 1983 1904 1985 1360 1987 Annual Zooplankton Dry Weight WCGS Cooling Lake L I*1 I 3002 250-200-150-100&so.FEB-MAR APR JUN AUG OCT , EC 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 3-5. Zoopiariton dry weight standing crop treids In e cooling lake near Wolf Creek Gonrating Station. 1981-1987.

Spatial Zooplankton AFDW Biomass WCGS Cooling Lake Temporal Zooplankton AFDW Biomass WCGS Cooling Lake E 20 Is 16" 14" 120-100-so-60.40-20-n M Loa 2 CMLac a emLoa a E 35 3 250-200-150-100" 0 p1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Seasonal Zooplankton AFDW Biomass WCGS Cooling Lake S *lll 5,ilill Sl i l* l IIIII55 II I 55l5I I III F JO6M J Y 0 M J 0 F MMJ N 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 Annual Zooplankton AFDW Biomass WCGS Cooling Lake fi 400" 350-300 2M 200 150 50 0 Lake-fill (1981)Pro-op (1992-65)OperatIa¶(1065-51)200-175-150-125" 100-75-Go-25, FEB-MAR APR JUN AUG OCT DEC I, I I I5 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 3-6. Zooplankton ash free dry weiflt trends In the cooling lake nar Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1981-1987.

WCCL Plankton Comparison Chil a vs. Dry Weight WCCL Plankton Correlation Chil a v& Dry Weigt O E ii E y m 22.5x -- 6.7 r 0.6 0 O I1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 WCCL Plankton Comparison Chil a vs, AFDW 0 5 10 Arumal CacrtorApy a fmix-W WCCL Plankton Correlation Chil a vs. AFDW 15 E a it E M y 11.5x -27.1 r 0.69 0 O 0 0 0 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 0:kmai Qaroqhll a (mon*')FIgure 3-7. FRelationsllp between phytoplarnton arid zooplankton Standlng crop In te cooling lake near Wolf Creek Generating StatIOr TABLE 3-1 PHYTOPLANKTON STANDING CROP AND PRODUCTIVITY AT NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, LOCATIONS 1, 10, AND 4 IN THE NEOSHO RIVER KANSAS. 1973-1979 Chlorophyll 1 Concentrations (mg/A3 1 10 4 Mean Carbon Fixation Rates (.maC/n /hr)Da to 12APR73 12JUN73 11SEP73 12DEC73 Mean 27MAR74 11JUN74 10SEP74 10DEC74 mean 16APR75 10JUN75 9SEP75 3DEC75 Kean 25FEB76 6APR76 15JUN76 10AUG76 5OCT76 14DEC76 Moan 22FEB77 5APR77 9JUN77 9AUG77 4OCT77 13DEC77 Moan 22FEB7O 25APR78 27JUN78 29AUG07 10OCT78 12DEC76 Mosa 20FEB73 10APR73 12JUN79 7AUG79 9OCT79 11DEC79 Mean 10 4 Mean 1.50 8 13 13.41 3.57 6.67 8.77 0.70 4.14 10.50 6.03 34.97 3.67 10.97 21.67 17.02 30.67 10.33 16.00 7.27 7.17 6.33 15.63 12.27 21.33 1.53 35.90.8 54-0.20 14.63 35.04 12.00 30.11 24.63 37.41 20.07 26.54 3.36 6.40 2.66 21.53 11.52 48.06 15.59 6.57 0.77 1.83 9.17 4.59 33.33 1.84 10.34 6.57 13.02 11.67 15.37 14.23 16.00 9.73 2.99 11.67 12.43 14.53 1.47 28.54 6.32 7.61 11.82 29.85 10.33 21.29 20.68 14.86 2.95 16.66 2.50 5.61 5.61 17.07 10.21 50.96 15.33 1.93 2.23 19.75 3.13 6.76 7.54 0.00 0.08 9.00 4.54 34.00 2.27 6.70 7.87 12.71 17.33 16.63 12.77.16.00 19.73 2.53 14.17 11.60 14.33 1.53 43.25 5.24 7.96 13.99 28.98 9.54 23.42 27.96 14.56 2.15 17.78 1.42 5.41 4.64 16.62 11.11 50.64 14.97 1.78 5.10 16.50 3.35 6.72 7.63 0.76 2.26 9.56 5.05 34.10 2.59 9.34 12.04 14.52 22.56 16.78 14.33 13.09 12.21 3.95 13.62 12.10 16.73 1.51 35.90 6.71 7.92 13.48 31.29 10.62 24.94 24.43 22.28 8.39 20.32 2.43 5.81 4.30 18.41 10.95 49.63 15.30 3.51 29.61 28.00 5.45 16.64 3.96 22.34 35.06 5.21 16.64 18.29 15.57 7.30 24.83 16.50 90.90 14.24 44.26 32.16 45.40 21.66 50.82 45.79 26.23 41.58 21.39 35.91 67.42 55.25 5.30 34.26 15.09 15.42 32.13 4.71 6.51 25.80 28.24 26.64 12.19 17.68 3.35 12.00 11.10 43.60 50.85 6.99 21.33 prior to 1976.17.45 0.15 5.62 22.92 11.54 125.98 6.87 36.62 10.39 45.02 20.35 62.25 45.97 80.69 46.35 5.27 43.48 69.00 45.02 5.75 33.34 13.24 14.47 30.15 8.00 4.90 24.54 45.14 13.45 1.55 16.28 1.15 10.42 16.59 56.46 46.04 6.19 22.81 18.90 11.40 5.94 22.92 14.79 130.65 2.54 24.66 10.36 42.06 20.82 64.23 41.07 95.5, 73.01 4.64 50.93 77.00 45.32 7.04 45.35 13.22 13.99 33.69 6.56 5.76 30.52 51.68 17.66 2.56 19.13 0.92 9.77 16.65 61.55 46.32 6.72 23.99 3.74 25.98 31.53 5.33 16.64 18.21 9.04 6.29 23.56 14.26 115.64 7.88 35.25 17.65 44.16 20.94 61.77 44.28 67.50 55.65 10.50 43.44 71.14 48.53 6.03 37.66 13.17 14.63 31.90 7.12 5.72 26.95 41.69 19.25 5.44 17.70 1.81 10.73 14.81 53.67 48.40 6.63 22.71 Note: 1. Location I was in John Redmond Reservoir 2. Dash I-) indicates location not sampled.3-25 TABLE 3-2 PHYTOPLANKTON STANDING CROP AND PRODUCTIVITY AT LOCATIONS 1, 10, AND 4 IN THE NEOSHO RIVER NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION BURLINGTON, KANSAS. 1980-1987 Date 15APR80 17JUN60 23oCT80 16DEC80 Moan 28APR61 23JUN61 20OCT81 15DEC81 Moan 1MAR63 26APR83 30AUG83 13DEC83 Mean 28FED84 17APR64 21AUG84 18DEC84 Mean 6MAR65 16APR65 25JUN65 27AUG6S 22OCT85 10DEC85 Mean 4MAR66 29APRB6 25JUN86 19AUG80 28OCT86 16DEC86 Mean 2MA"$7 27APR87 22JUN87 24AUOG7 23NOV87 28DEC87 Mean Chlorophyll I Concentrations (mg/m 3 3 1 10 4 Mean Carbon Fixation Rate* (mg C/n 3/ ar)10 4 Mean 7.31 25.48 31.28 27.41 22.37 30.57 9.26 13.71 17.28 17.71 53.30 5.34 9.68 10.94 19.86 126.46 1.74 45.44 73.96 61.90 1.17 9.67 1.14 3.86 0.59 1.73 3.03 142.75 35.80 27.44 4.33 9.09 83.93 50.56 29.94 43.97 31.71 13.01 29.66 6.61 20.97 11.37 16.56 14.93 44.28 10.20 18.33 14.30 21.70 49.96 5.05 22.98 6.16 21.04 143.83 1.68 48.02 75.60 67.33 2.32 13.82 0.66 4.21 1.48 2.30 4.13 123.35 44.69 36.45 5.61 7.69 62.51 46.75 25.56 40.55 21.45 12.63 39.37 17.34 26.15 7.91 26.06 12.76 14.12 15.71 33.74 10.85 21.52 15.87 20.50 50.23 5.17 17.77 5.81 19.74 127.40 1.64 37.35 77.27 60.92 2.20 14.65 1.06 4.03 0.92 2.64 4.28 116.27 46.50 47.35 5.82 6.60 51.81 46.09 23.22 44.32 20.39 14.64 42.20 15.29 26.71 8.01 24.84 18.47 20.03 17.84 36.20 18.02 17.65 15.62 21.97 51.16 5.19 16.88 7.64 20.22 132.56 1.69 43.60 75.66 63.38 1.90 12.70 0.95 4.03 1.00 2.22 3.61 128.09 42.42 37.08 5.25 7.66 66.06 47.80 26.25 42.95 24.52 13.49 40.79 16.31 27.38 2.84 77.78 7.74 0.48 22.21 18.39 22.58 13.61 48.90 25.92 29.61 13.68 1.91 0.70 11.48 1.60 3.46 63.83 123.66 48.19 2.10 63.68 1.21 4.08 0.47 1.68 12.20 295.06 129.12 142.08 15.19 27.70 826.04 239.20 31.75 74.14 10.77 6.62 30.87 2.69 33.14 3.47 1.49 10.20 30.42 21.64 14.34 40.09 26.62 29.26 13.37 5.07 2.64.12.64 2.12 2.25 04.62 96.79 46.50 6.01 66.84 2.93 4.41 0.46 3.48 14.08 403.68 126.08 149.53 27.45 37.66 697.16 240.60 21.58 87.59 7.15 7.45 30.94 2.64 108.76 4.45 1.16 29.26 22.39 23.15 13.80 43.35 25.67 26.24 13.14 4.99 3.26 12.41 1.76 0.07 112.34 100.45 53.66 3.61 68.71 2.14 4.21 1.30 3.29 13.90 350.68 103.56 189.78 27.19 32.06 705.69 234.86 12.07 62.99 7.91 6.10 27.77 2.72 73.23 5.22 1.05 20.56 23.73 22.46 13.96 44.11 26A07 29.04 13.40 3.99 2.27 12.16 1.83 1.93 87.00 107.03 49.45 3.93 66.43 2.09 4.23 0.86 2.62 13.40 349.81 120.23 160.46 23.26 32.48 743.03 238.22 21.80 61.50 6.61 7.46 29.46 Note: Danh (-) indicates location not sampled.3-26 ft ,* )C: 6.I'I-TABLE 3-3 PHYTOPLANKTON STANDING CROP AND PRODUCTIVITY AT LOCATIONS 2, 6, AND 8 IN THE COOLING LAKE OF WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION BURLINGTON, KANSAS, 1981-1987 Chlorophyll I concentrations (mg/n3)Carbon Fixation Rates mg c//m 3/hr)2 6 8 Mean Date 24FEB81 28APR81 23JUN81 25AUG81 20OCT81 15DEC81 Mean 3MAR82 27APR82 22JUN82 31AU082 190CT82 7DEC02 mean IMAR83 26APR83 26JUN83 30AUG83 18OCT83 13DEC83 Mean 28FEB84 17APR84 19JUN84 21AUG84 16OCT84 18DEC84 Mean 6MAR85 16APROS 25JUN05 26AUG85 220CT85 10DEC85 Mean 4MAR86 29APR86 25JUN86 19AUG86 28OCT86 16DEC86 Mean 2MAR87 27APR87 22JUN87 24AUG87 23NOV87 28DEC87 Mesn 2 6 8 Mean 25.5 11.5 10.3 11.5 14.4 16.5 15.0 7.0 12.3 6.0 16.9 9.7 6.3 9.7 5.4 11.4 11.6 10.9 15.2 4.4 9.8 4.9 8.0 12.4 11.1 12.6 5.4 9 A 1.8 4.6 9.0 6.7 20.1 14.7 3.5 5.3 19.6 7.6 8.6 14.3 7.5 10.5 10.4 4.5 7.4 7.6 4.9 3.5 6.4 10.2 4.9 2.7 6.0 7.0 11.2 7.0 2.6 7.0 6.7 7.6 12.4 4.6 6.8 4.1 5.7 6.9 9.2 9.8 3.9 6.6 4.9 6.8 4.4 5.6 9.3 5.3 6.0 3.3 5.3 6.0 6.9 15.2 25.7 10.4 4.8 17.7 9.2 6.3 7.9 10.5 9.4 8.4 3.8 6.0 7.3 4.4 4.9 5.9 6.0*6.9 6.7 7.8 10.6 7.1 7.5 2.9 9.3 8.7 7.6 22.2 20.0 11.9 4.3 19.5 8.8 3.0 10.3 10.6 10.3 7.5 4.5 7.5 11.1 3.4 5.3 6.6 17. 3 8.2 6.5 8.8 10.7 13.9 11.0 4.0 9.7 6.4 12.3 11.1 5.5 0.3 4.8 8.6 9.3 10.1 12.5 4.2 8.2 5.3 7.2 7.0 8.2 10.8 5.9 7.5 2.7 6.4"7.9 7.1 19.2 20.4 10.6 4.8 18.9 0.5 7.6 10.8 9.5 10.1 4.8 4.3 7.0 8.6 4.4 4.6 6.3 115.8 4.1 24.5 2.8 14.8 32.3 32.4 10.9 80.9 0.5 0.2 62.8 1.5 27.S 2.0 35.2 32.7 0.5 15.9 0.2 14.4 1.0 28.2 26.3 40.8 11.8 10.8 19.8 7.1 11.7 11.0 11.8 31.8 12.3 14.3 10.9 115.3 80.4 62.7 93.5 50.2 68.8 6.5 14.6 4.0 10.6 8.9 40,2 2.8 5.2 2.4 7.1 23.9 13.6 4.1 44.6 0.1 0.0 80.3 0.1 21.6 2.1 17.6 22.0 1.0 10.3 1.4 9.0 6.3 26.9 7.0 22.0 7.8 15.0 14.2.6.8 7.9 13.2 16.7 32.9 15.2 15.4 12.1 100.9 67.9 73.3 50.1 71.6 62.7 8.7 12.9 4.0 9.9 9.1 0.0 26.8 16.1 33.9 10.4 15.7 17.t 2 5.5 10.9 19.2 15.5 38.0 13.0 17.0 9.9 94.4 61.0 65.1 62.1 73.3 61.7 7.0 11.2 5.8 13.6 9.4 78.0.3.4 14.9 2.6 10.9 28.1 23.0 7.5 66.8 0.3 0.1 71.6 0.$24.5 2.0 26.4 27.4 0.8 13.1 0.8 11.7 2.4 27.3 16.5 32.2 10.0 13.0 17.1 6.5 10.2 14.5 14.7 34.2 13.5 15.6 11.0 103.6 69.8 68.4 68.6 65.0 64.4 7.4 12.9 4.6 11.4 9.1 Note: Dal; (-) Indicates location not sampled.3-27 TABLE 3-4 PLANKTON STANDING CROPS FOR SELECTED THERMALLY INFLUENCED LAKES IN MIDWESTERN AND GREAT PLAINS STATES Phytoplankton Chlorophyll a (mgn -)Year Mean (M2in -Max)Zooplanktou Bimnass (m!/rn ,AFDW)Mean (Mmn -Max)Reference Lake WCCL, KS 1987*1986e 19850 1984 1983 1982 1981 Mean 6.3 10.1 10.6 7.5 8.2 8.2 11.0 8.8 Nelson Lake, ND 19860* 27.0 Turtle Creek Res., IN Sutherland Res., 33 Clinton Lake, XL LaCygne Lake. KS Lake Sangchris, XL 1985"0 1984"0 1983*1982*1981 Mean 1984*0 1983"*1982"*1961*1980*1975 1974 1973 Moan 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 Mean 1974" 1973*1972 Mean 22.8 41.2 9.5 i4.4 13.2 20.2 29.3 29.0 26.3 35.9 24.2 26.0 13.4 15.3 24.9 22.5 12.7 12.0 15.5 7.3 8.1 13.0 23.3 12.6 22.7 19.5 (3.4-11.1) 44.3-20)11.8-26)(4.9-13)(3.9-15)(2.6-17)(2.7-26)(12.0-57)(9.6-47)(23-991 (5-14)(7-26)(6-24)(7.0-83)110.4-91)(10.3-67)(13-104)(6-79)(3.4-57)15.0-22)(1.5-48)(2.7-116)(2.6-37)(2.0-38)213 (42-647) CA 1987b 53 91 67 40 56 95 123 75 (23-187)114-257)(22-297)(15-88)(13-130)(18-183)(26-338)EA 1986b EA 19805 WAPORA 1984 WAPORA 1983 WAPORA 1982 Present Study EA 1987a EA 1986&EA 1985b Ecological Analysts 1984b Ecological Analysts 1983b Ecological Analysts 1982b EA 1905a Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecologcial Ecological Analysts Analysts Analysts Analysts Analysts Analysts Analysts Analysts 1984a 1983a 1982a 1981a 1981b 198lb 1981b 1981b Willmore Willmore willmore Willmore Willmore Willmore Willhite willhite willhite 1985 1985 1985 1982 1982 1982 et a1 1974 et al 1974 et al 1976 (1.5-259)(0.9-311 (1.4-43)1975-76* -78 443-164) Waite 1981 Lake Shelbyville, XL 1975-76 -82 (18-134) (preserved samples)Note: Asterisk (*) indicate number of generating units operating during the year.3-28 TABLE 3-5 ZOOPLANKTON BIOMASS STANDING CROP AT LOCATIONS

2. 6. AND G IN TUE COOLING LAKE OF WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS, 1 981-1 987 Dry Weight (mfg/n 3)2 6 a mean Ash-Free Dry Weight (mg/m 3)2 6 a Mean Date 23FEB61 28APR61 23JUN81 2 5AUG61 19OCT81 16DEC81 Moa N 3MAR82 27APR62 22JUNG2 31AUG62 19OCTI2 7DZC82 Mean*1MAR83 26APR83 26JUN83 29AUG83 18OCT83 13DEC83 Mean 28FEB84 17APR64 19JUN04 21AUG84 19OCT84 18DEC84 Moan SMAR85 I5APR65 24JUN85 26AUG6S 22OCTa5 1ODEC65 Mean 3MAR06 29APR$6 25JUN66 18AUG86 28OCT66 15DEC86 Mean 3MAR87 26APR87 i2JUN67 24AUG07 Mean 226 92 205 86 171 156 Ig0 194 44 24 117 76 10L 30 75 17 53 153 99 71 59 87 27 64 67 68 66 252 1052 231 46 392 as 344 338 143 100 153 29 128 140 109 161 61 66 115 LIS0 190 57 65 83 27 90 107 72 34 43 34 53 95 75 56 103 136 97 87 196 72 115 106 154 61 60 201 315 150 43 93 95 76 77 338 186 96 179 56 150 152 150 178 52 45 116 133.112 61 52 67 93 78 69 73 199 261 676 94 187 35 242 119 128 169 61 142 360 163 79 265 65 79 122 44 70 50 40 122 103 71 51 61.43 70 6s 84 66 185 483 335 76 258 65 234 101 167 100 53 203 300 154 141 150 120 79 123 sanpled.195 56 169 55 113 116 175 178 23 16 71 32 63 17 53 14 S16 130 64 52 44 6o 20 32 63 31 42 63 297 29 22 54 66 as 46 162 22 14 136 82 77 61 66 23 23 43 338 127 62 106 26 99 127 105 148 56 60 90 193 107 29 45 75 is 84 101 5s 30 36 29 is s6 24 37 30 59 40 70 65 41 51 91 127 48 37 64 257 1.04 24 71 28 32 39 101 30 41 57 21 70 31 42 47 112 76 42 67 25 62$1 a6 137 38$2 133 93 40 167 25 57 77 336 161.5, 138 40 106 123 140 La3 40 39 s0 10L 9S 23 49 44 17 92 92 56 35 46 35 23 74 29 40 47 156 46 45 62 44 67 73 126 69 30'4 157 91 42'lo0 25 37 53 78 219 71 37 265 226 149 301 93 200 63 169 Notes D-auh (-) indicates location not 3-29

4. MACROINVERTEBRATES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The macroinvertebrate fauna of freshwater lakes and rivers is mostly composed of aquatic insects, worms and roundworms.

Their distribution within an aquatic macrohabitat is determined by the habits and habitat requirements of the various macroinvertebrate taxa. Habitat variables include current velocity, substrate type, organic matter content, temperature, and water depth. Habits can be mode of feeding (filterers, shredders, grazers, or predators) or the drifting phenomenon which occurs in some taxa found in lotic habitats.Voltinism of aquatic insects can affect density rates and make them highly variable on an annual basis.Macroinvertebrates can either be primary consumers (detritivores-herbivores) or secondary consumers (carnivores) in aquatic food chains. Primary consumers are usually grazers, shredders, or filterers that feed on phytoplankton, bacteria, aquatic plants, protozoa, and organic detritus.

Secondary consumers are predaceous feeding on zooplankton and other macroinvertebrates.

Most fish are secondary or tertiary consumers that utilize macroInvertebrates in their diet either as fingerlings or adults. The diversity of macroinvertebrates gives a relative index of species composition, and is also an excellent indicator of water quality due to the narrow tolerance range of some macroinvertebrates to pollutants.

Macroinvertebrate studies at WCGS began on the Neosho River in 1973 and on the Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL) in 1981. These studies were directed towards 4-1 V the determination of taxa composition, macroinvertebrate density, and diversity from a qualitative and quantitative sampling regime. The primary purpose of this study was to examine spatial and temporal trends in the macroinvertebrate communities for effects of VCGS operation, which began in August 1985.-I A macroinvertebrate occurring near WCGS and warranting special attention is the asiatic clam, Corbicula fluminae.

The first report of Corbicula near VCGS was in August 1986 when immature clams were collected at a long term monitoring site located on the Neosho River (EA 1987). Quarterly and bimonthly surveys at these sites since 1974 had not produced evidence of Corbicula until 1986. The occurrence of Corbicula in the vicinity of intake structures poses potential biofouling problems associated with these clams as indicated by IE Bulletin 81-03 issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (April 10, 1981), regarding flow blockage of cooling water to safety system components.

Thus, sampling efforts associated with WCGS environmental monitoring program were increased in the fall of 1986 following the August report of Corbicula and the initiation of planned annual surveys began in 1987 to monitor CorbIcula in the vicinity of ICGS.4.2 METHODS Macroinvertebrate samples were collected from the Neosho River either quarterly or bimonthly from 1973 to 1987 except in 1982, 1983 and 1984 when sampling was not conducted.

In all years sampling occurred at Location 10 upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek and at Location 4 downstream of Wolf Creek.Location 1 in the John Redmond Reservoir tailwaters was added to the sampling regime in 1976 (Figure 1-1). Macroinvertebrate samples were collected from the 4-2 VCCL bimonthly from 1981 through August 1987. Sampling at Location 2 near the ICGS discharge and Location 6 near the dam began in 1981. Location 8 near WCGS intake was added to the program in 1984.Quantitative duplicate benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected from Locations 4 and 10 on the Neosho River and Locations 2, 6, and 8 on the WCCL with a ponar dredge (area sampled=530 cm 2). The texture of sediment from each ponar sample was visually characterized and then sieved on a U.S. Standard No.30 mesh (0.595 mm) screen. The sieve residue was preserved with 10 percent formalin and stained with rose bengal (Mason and Yevich 1967) in appropriately labeled containers.

Qualitative river samples were obtained by seining and hand picking rocks at Locations 1, 10, and 4 on the same schedule as the ponar collections.

Macroinvertebrates encountered were placed in vials and preserved with 10 percent formalin..

In the laboratory, ponar samples from the Neosho River and.WCCL were further washed on a U.S. Standard No. 30 mesh screen prior to manually separating macroinvertebrates from debris under 1OX magnification.

Oligochaeta and Chironomidae were mounted in a nonresinous mounting medium (CMC-10) on glass slides and identified under a compound microscope at 78.75-1250X magnification.

Other macroinvertebrates were identified under a binocular dissecting microscope at 10-70X magnification and preserved in 70 percent ethanol. All organisms were identified to the lowest positive taxonomic level using appropriate references.

Organisms from the qualitative samples were identified and counted.4-3 Overall trends for densities, taxa composition, and diversity were examined by graphing average annual values for each location.

For this report, densities from the benthic macroinvertebrate ponar samples were reported as the mean number of organisms per meter square (No./m2) annually, and by collection dates. Contribution of major taxonomic groups to the benthos community was graphed as average percent of the annual total density. Identified taxa numbers were reported annually for each sampling location.

Diversity indices were calculated using Shannon's (1948) equation using base-2 logarithms and graphed by location for each sampling years. The resulting figures and tables permitted detailed examination of annual temporal cycles and variances between locations.

Sampling efforts for Corbicula during the 1986 survey occurred in August, November and December at Locations 10 and 4, in the vicinity of the makeup water pumphouse (MUSH), and at Hartford Rapids, all in the Neosho River.Sampling in the WCCL was conducted at the three established monitoring sites (Locations 2, 6, and 8), at the Makeup Water Discharge Structure (MUDS), and at the WCGS circulating water intake.The 1987 survey for Corbicula near ICGS was conducted on 30 September

-1 October. Samples from the Neosho River were taken near the low water dam at Burlington, at U.S. 75 Highway bridge, and belov John Redmond-Dam in the vicinity of the MUSH. The Neosho River was also sampled at sites above John Redmond Reservoir between the 310 county road bridge and the public launch site at Hartford.

Wolf Creek was sampled approximately 50 meters upstream of the FAS-1O bridge. The WCCL was sampled in the vicinity of the MUDS, circulating water screenhouse (CVSH), and the service spillway (Figure 1). Additional 4-4 samples were taken along the "hilltop gravel" beach west of the service spillway.Sampling was conducted with three gear types. Ponar grabs were taken at most.sites where substrates were suitable.

A clam rake with a 1/8-in mesh liner was used at some sites and a 15-ft common-sense seine of 1/8-in mesh was used in the Neosho River where currents allowed kick seining. Vater temperature and depth was recorded at each site and substrates were visually characterized and recorded.4.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.3.1 Neosho River Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates collected during the 1973-1987 Neosho River study were represented by 179 taxa (Table 4-1). The benthic population was dominated by four taxonomic groups that accounted for 65 percent of the total identified taxa; aquatic midges composed 30 percent (54 taxa; Diptera), mayflies 15 percent (26 taxa; Ephemeroptera), aquatic worms 11 percent (20 taxa;Oligochaeta), and caddisflies 9 percent (16 taxa; Trichoptera).

Other groups represented in the collections included mollusks (11 taxa), aquatic beetles (10 taxa; Coleoptera), leeches (9 taxa; Hirudinea), dragonflies (9 taxa; Odonata), miscellaneous arthropoda (6 taxa), stoneflies (4 taxa; Plecoptera), true bugs (4 taxa; gemiptera), hydras (2 taxa; Cnidarla), planarlans (2 taxa;Platyhelminthes), bryozoans (2 taxa; Entoprocta), and Collembola and Arachnida (one taxa each).4-5 Macroinvertebrate taxa collected annually from the Neosho.River ranged from a low of 26 taxa to a high of 132 taxa in 1973 and 1976, respectively (Table 4-2). The 1973 collection was restricted to Locations 10 and 4, whereas Locations 1, 10 and 4 were sampled in 1976. Annual trends of macroinvertebrate taxa showed no spatial differences between locations.

The highest fluctuation in taxa numbers occurred in 1980 with 60 identified taxa from Location 10 and 46 from Location 4 representing a 23 percent difference.

In 1977 an equal number of taxa was collected from both locations (Table 4-2).On a temporal basis, taxa numbers showed an increase from 1973 (26 taxa) to peak taxa numbers in 1976 (132 taxa) when Location 1 was added. Stable taxa numbers occurred from 1976 to 1979 with a decline present in the 1979 and 1981 sampling years. Total taxa collected in 1985 showed a 32 percent decline from 1981 levels, and then gradually approached pre-1985 levels in 1986 and 1987 (Figure 4-1). The declines in taxa number during the 1985 sampling season were attributed to high river flows, which affected sampling efficiency.

Macroinvertebrate densities in the Neosho River ranged from a mean annual low of 48/m2 In 1985 to a high of 9,156/m2 in 1976 (Table 4-3). Total annual densities showed a gradual increase in numbers from 1973 to 1975, increased substantially in 1976 and 1977, and then stabilized between 2,000 and 5,000/m2 from 1975 to 1981 when the study was suspended.

In 1985 when the study was resumed, the lowest annual density of the entire study occurred, apparently as a result of the increased water flows which occurred during that year. Due to the high river flows, collection schedules were altered and the sampling efficiency was affected contributing to the low densities.

Density recovered eight fold in 1986 and remained stable in 1987. The same trend in total 4-6 density occurred for both locations during the study.Annual density lows were 65 and 48 specimens per square meter at Locations 10 and 4, respectively, with both occurring during the 1985 collections (Table 4-3). Respective maximum annual densities were 12,329 and 5,984/mr 2 , with both occurring during the 1976 collection season. Densities were highly variable within collection years, and these differences were attributed to climatic and limnological (e.g., flow) changes within the system and to life cycle patterns of the macroinvertebrates.

Of the four major macroinvertebrate taxa groups collected from the Neosho River during the study period, only oligochaetes and caddisflies shoved location preferences.

01igochaete occurrence was annually more dominant at Location 4 than at Location 10, except in 1975 and 1977 (Figure 4-2). This difference would be attributable to variations in substrate types between the two locations.

Location 10 is a riffle area with a rocky substrate while Location 4 is primarily a sand silt substrate.

Annual caddisfly composition shoved a preference for Location 10 except in 1977 when caddisflies were more numerous at Location 4 (Figure 4-2). Caddisflies often show preferences for hard substrates (e.g., rocks such as those predominant at Location 10) due to their habit and habitat requirements.

Mayflies showed a mixed distribution between Locations 10 and 4 vith no obvious location preference (Table 4-4). Temporally the mayfly composition in the quantitative samples showed an initial high rate, then declined and fluctuated for the remainder of the study. Midges on an annual basis shoved no preference for Location 10 or 4, which would be characteristic of the ubiquity of this 4-7

'" group. Overall annual trends of midges showed a steady increase in their contribution to the macroinvertebrate composition from 1973-77. Their contribution remained fairly stable from 1977-1985 but declined in the 1980 season. The lowest occurrence of midges occurred in 1986 when they made up" less than 6 percent of total density.Diversity or species richness of macroinvertebrates in the Neosho River was considered moderate from 1975 to 1981 with no consistent spatial difference (Figure 4-1). Diversity during the period ranged between a high of 3.52 in 1980 and a low of 2.37 In 1981 (Table 4-3). Although Location 4 often had slightly higher diversity, Location 10 had the highest annual diversity at 3.81 in 1980. The high diversity peaks in 1980 and 1976 at Location 10were due to the increased densities of stoneflies (Plecoptera);

in 1980 stonefly density 2 2 was 507/mn, and in 1976 it was 464/m. The next highest density of stoneflies occurred in 1979 with 153/m 2 , and stonefly-densities did not exceed 50/m 2 in other years (Table 4-4).Diversity trends during the sampling years of 1985 to 1987 shov the lowest annual diversity of 0.98 recorded in 1985 (Table 4-3). An increase in diversity was seen in 1986, and stabilization occurred in 1987 at approximately 1986 levels. The low diversity from the 1985 samples was attributed to the high river flows which occurred during most of the year and affected sampling efficiency.

A recovery period was evident during the sampling years of 1986 and 1987 when diversity increased to pre-1985 levels.Linear regression was performed using annual densities and annual flows to examine the relationship between these two parameters.

This analysis gave a 4-8 correlation of r=0.75 (Figure 4-1), indicating a relatively strong, inverse relationship between the two variables.

High flows can either affect sampling efficiency or the macroinvertebrate community itself by loss of habitat, particularly current velocity parameters, or actual removal of organisms by the increased stream load and its degrading effects. Increased flovs can also affect the macroinvertebrate composition and the diversity of the community.

Macroinvertebrate studies of the Neosho River at the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) tailvaters and upstream and downstream of the confluence with Volf Creek have been conducted since 1973. Aquatic oligochaetes, mayflies, stoneflies, net-spinning caddisflies, and midge flies have been dominant organisms.

No long-term patterns or empirical differences have been found that were attributable to the construction and/or operation of the VCCL and VCGS. The data have been highly variable which was attributed to fluctuating river flors that undoubtedly affected organism abundances but also greatly influenced sampling efficiency.

The potential for WCGS to impact the Neosho River macroinvertebrate community has been minimal based on lov diversion rates from the JRR tailwaters and the lack of substantial discharge from the WCCL.4.3.2 Cooling Lake Macroinvertebrates Benthic macroinvertebrates collected from the Volf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL)were represented by 70 taxa from the study period of 1981-1987 (Table 4-1).The benthic community was primarily dominated by the aquatic midges (Diptera)which accounted for 41 percent (29 taxa) of the taxa identified.

Two other taxonomic groups which are important to lentic environments and collected from the WCCL were the oligochetes Naididae (7 taxa) and Tubificidae (12 taxa), 4-9 comprising 10 percent and 17 percent of the taxa total respectively.

Other groups represented in the collections were the Hollusca (7 percent, 5 taxa), Ephemeroptera (7 percent, 5 taxa; mayflies), Trichoptera (6 percent, 4 taxa;caddisflles), and Odonata (4 percent, 3 taxa; dragonflies).

Groups represented by a single taxon included the Cnidaria, Platyhelminthes, Nematoda, Arthropoda and Arachnida.

Annually, the number of taxa identified from the WCCL remained fairly stable during the 7 year study ranging from a high of 32 taxa in 1981 to a loy of 19 in 1987 (Table 4-2). Spatially, no consistent pattern was evident between sampling locations relative to the number of taxa collected during the study period (Figure 4-3). Hovever, data collected shov differences in the macroinvertebrate composition at certain locations due to differential location or substrate preferences between taxa groups (Figure 4-3).For example, Locations 2 and 8 were dominated by the midge taxa group (Figure 4-3 and Table 4-5), based on average percent composition of the annual total macroinvertebrate density. The one exception to the pattern occurred in 1981 during lake filling, when Location 2 was dominated by tubificids and Location 8 was not sampled. The midge dominance at Locations 2 and 8 may be due to the shallower depth of these sampling locations, (4.5 and 7.5 meters respectively) when compared to Location 6 (19 meters). Another factor which could affect macroinvertebrate distribution at the three sampling locations was substrate composition, because prior to lake filling Location 2 was a cultivated field, Location 6 was an old quarry site, and Location 8 was an area of alluvial deposits.

Spatially, tubificid taxa were predominantly more abundant at Location 6-during the study period, except in 1981 when tubificids were more 4-10 abundant at Location 2 (Figure 4-3 and Table 4-5).Naidid.worms never dominated any sampling locations in terms of benthic composition during the study. The highest contribution by the naidids occurred in 1981-82 at Locations 2 and 6, and in 1986-87 at Location 6 only (Figure 4-3 and Table 4-4). During 1983-85, naidlds were almost nonexistent in the benthic samples; the same was true for Location 8 throughout the study period.Macroinvertebrate densities in WCCL were typical of new reservoirs, which often exhibit Initially high annual densities and then show a decline in numbers to a stable density (Figure 4-4). In WCCL, initially high macroinvertebrate densities occurred during the lake filling phase (1981-1982) and reflected the incorporation of two new temporary nutrient sources, one by the use of a shallow eutrophic reservoir (JRR) as the primary source of water for lake filling, and secondly by the inundation of vegetation.

A decline in macroinvertebrate densities occurred in 1983 at the start of the preoperational phase (1983-85), and densities then remained stable for the duration of the study, reflecting the process of the lake assuming its own character.

Macroinvertebrate densities during the three VCCL operational phases ranged from a high of 1,521/m2 to a low 170/m2 in the lake fill phase (1981-82) and operational phase (1985-87), respectively (Table 4-6). Preoperational and operational densities (1983-1987) averaged 286/m2 for the five years, whereas 2 the two year lake-filling average was 1,311/m2.

Spatially, densities were variable between the sampling locations during preoperational and operational sampling years (1983-1987) with no location showing consistently higher densities.

However, during lake-fill macroinvertebrate densities were 50 percent greater at Location 2 when compared to Location 6. The density 4-11 E! differences between the two locations is probably due to the previously mentioned variations in depth and substrate type./Different seasonal trends in benthic densities were evident for the three* phases of the study (Figure 4-4). During lake-fill (1981-82), densities peaked e;in February-March and June, with the February-March peak being the greatest.Remaining sample periods during the lake-fill phase were reasonably stable with the lowest densities occurring in August. In the preoperational phase, peak densities occurred in April while the remaining collection periods were variable.

During the operational phase, peak densities occurred in the February-March samples, declines were evident in April, and densities then remained fairly constant for the later collection dates.Seasonal benthic densities showed the relatively high density which occurred during the lake-fill phase, the decline during the preoperational phase, and the stability during the operational phase that was also evident in the annual benthic density (Figure 4-4). This decreasing density pattern was evident for nearly all sampling seasons. Exceptions included the February-March season, when a minor density increase occurred between the preoperational and operational phases, and the April season when a minor decrease occurred between the lake fill and preoperational phases. Overall annual and seasonal density trends were considered representative of a new lake that was initially filled with eutrophic water and experienced nutrient loading, and thereafter gradually assumed its own character.

Diversity or species richness of the ICCL macroinvertebrate community showed no annual trends or consistent spatial differences during the study period. Low 4-12 benthic diversity occurred in 1985 for Locations 2 and 6 at 1.14 and 0.88 respectively.

Diversity maxima occurred at Location 6 in 1981 (.1.89) and Location 2 in 1982 (2.00), and even these values were considered In the low to moderate range. On an average annual basis maximum diversity occurred in 1981 at 1.76, and the low was 1.06 in 1985 (Table 4-6). There were no evident changes in benthic diversity attributable to WCGS. Incidents of variations in benthic diversity both annually and seasonally could be attributed to climatic and limnological changes within the system.Obvious differences were noted in diversity between the Neosho River (annual high 3.52) and WCCL (annual high 1.76). These differences reflect variations in the habitat requirements.

of certain benthic groups and the greater variety of habitats in the river. Two groups poorly represented in the WCCL but important in the Neosho River.were the Ephemeroptera (mayflies, 26 taxa from the Neosho River) and Trichoptera (caddisflles, 16 taxa from the Neosho River).Both of these groups contain primarily lotic inhabitants.

Hovevert four taxa from each group were identified from the Wolf Creek Cooling Lake.The quantitative dominance of the burrowing benthic TubificIdae and Chironomidae in the VCCL reflected the characteristic soft ooze-like substrates rich in organic matter typical of the lake bottom (Reid 1961). This benthic fauna is typical of most depositional lake bottom sediments (Brinkhurst 1974)and is similar to that of other midwestern reservoirs:

John Redmond Reservoirt Kansas (Funk and Ransom 1977); Keystone Reservoir, Oklahoma (Ransom and Dorris 1972); Lakes Matanzas, Quiver and Chautauqua, Illinois (Paloumpus and Starrett 1960).4-13 Benthic macroinvertebrates in the VCCL have been sampled bimonthly since 1981 when the cooling lake was initially filled. The 1986 program represented the second annual study since WCGS began operation and data were similar to previous lake-filling and preoperational data. The benthic fauna of the VCCL is fairly typical of lakes in general and midwestern reservoirs in particular.

Quantitative dissimilarities in the faunas from the three sampling sites reflected differences in their respective depths, substrate composition, and organic matter content. The data have exhibited high annual variation from 1981 through 1987 that likely reflects various ecological, climatict and limnological factors. Operation of VCGS has caused no apparent changes in the macroinvertebrate community.

Declines in macroinvertebrate abundance that occurred after VCCL was initially filled represent normal responses to changes In productivity that occur as reservoirs begin to age.4.3.3 Corbicula Distribution and Abundance Asiatic clam (CorbIcula fluminea) densities in the Neosho River belov Burlington ranged from no clams to 9.4/m 2 at Location 10 and from 47.3 to 2 57.6/mi at Location 4 In 1986. The 1987.samples shoved a 41 percent increase 2 (57.6 to 79.9 m ) at Location 4 and essentially no change at Location 10, (Table 4-7). These densities are considered indicative of pioneer populations.

In the Nev River, Virginia, Corbicula increased from 30/.2 to more than 10,000/m2 in a two year period (Cherry et al. 1986).Additional efforts to monitor the distribution of Corbicula in the vicinity of YCGS in 1987 (30 September

-1 October) showed an expansion upstream to the U.S. 75 bridge where one specimen was collected (Table 4-8). Additional 4-14 locations sampled included FAS-1O Bridge on Wolf Creek, Burlington low water dam, John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) tailvaters, and the Hartford Boat Ramp area above JRR. Three Corbicula were collected near the Burlington Dam which is downstream of the U.S. 75 bridge, but no Corbicula were collected at the remaining sampling Locations (Table 4-8).Corbicula surveys in the Neosho River near JCGS have shown a gradual increase in densities at downstream locations and an increase in distribution upstream to the U.S. 75 bridge. Further expansion of Corbicula distribution appears to be limited by substrate types found in the Neosho River upstream of Burlington.

Corbicula are reported from nearly all substrate types, however, optimum conditions seem associated with loose gravel in shallow pools below riffles and sandy or rock-bottom streams of intermediate flow (Neck 1986).Substrate types below JRR consists of extensive natural bedrock and coupled with high current velocities would be a limiting factor in this area. The reservoir itself has rich ooze and mud substrates which would also limit Corbicula colonization.

The potential for Corbicula to become established in JRR or its tailwaters near the MUSH, which could be a possible vector for distribution into WCCL, appears to be limited due to the inhospitable substrate types.Asiatic clams have not been collected from the Wolf Creek Cooling Lake.Sampling in the WCCL after the reported occurrence in the Neosho River consisted of 70 ponar grabs since August of 1986. Forty-two of those samples were taken bimonthly from established monitoring sites near the WCGS Intake (Location 8), the main dam of VCCL (Location 6), and an uplake site near the 4-15 WCGS discharge (Location 2). The additional 28 samples were taken in the 1986 and 1987 Corbicula surveys near the CVSH and MUDS.The apparent lack of Corbicula upstream in JRR minimizes the potential that VCCL will have a future population because makeup water for the cooling lake is pumped from the Neosho River immediately belov the JRR stilling basin* It is generally accepted that other than man-mediated dispersion, downstream drift of the planktonic larval stage is the main factor affecting range extensions..

Therefore, before Corbicula could be introduced to the WCCL via makeup water, it would have to occur upstream in JRR.4.4

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 4.4.1 Neosho River Macroinvertebrate Studies Macroinvertebrates studies of the Neosho River at the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) tailvaters as well as upstream and downstream of the confluence vith Volf Creek have been conducted since 1973. Aquatic oligochaetes, mayflies, stoneflies, net-spinning caddisflies, and midge flies have been dominant organisms.

No long-term patterns, empirical, or statistical differences have been found that suggested any alterations attributable to the construction and/or operation of the WCCL and WCGS. The data have been highly variable which has been attributed to fluctuating river flows that undoubtedly affects organism abundances but also greatly influences sampling efficiency.

The macroinvertebrate monitoring program on the Neosho River was reimplemented in 1985 to coincide with start up of VCGS after the program was discontinued in 4-16 1982. High, variable flows in 1985 resulted in low sample recovery and benthic densities that approached the lowest recorded since monitoring was initiated in 1973. Species richness and abundance improved substantially in 1986 as flows were comparatively stable and low. In 1987, the number of taxa encountered remained stable, and mean annual ponar density exhibited continued improvement.

The potential for WCGS to impact the Neosho River macroinvertebrate community has been minimal based on low diversion rates from the JRR tailwaters and the lack of substantial discharge from the WCCL.4.4.2 WCCL Macroinvertebrate Studies Benthic macroinvertebrates In the WCCL have been sampled bimonthly since 1981 when the cooling lake was initially filled. The benthic fauna of the VCCL is fairly typical of lakes in general and midvestern reservoirs in particular.

The data have exhibited high annual variation from 1981 through 1987 that likely reflects various ecological, climatic, and limnological factors. While quantitative dissimilarities in the faunas from the three sampling sites reflected differences in respective depths, substrate composition, and organic matter content. Operation of WCGS caused no apparent changes in the macroinvertebrate community during the initial two years of operation.

Although mean annual benthic macroinvertebrate densities in 1987 (170 22 organisms/rn2) were at a low for the seven-year study, densities declined annually through 1984 after peaking in 1982 (1,521/m2).

Mean annual densities increased slightly in 1985 (332/m2), the first year of station operation, but have since continued to decline. Down lake densities at the deep water (17-22 m) location near the main dam were primarily responsible for the annual trend.4-17 At the organism level, primarily oligochaetes and chironomids influenced the trend as both groups declined annually after peaking in 1982 except for tubificid which recovered in 1985 and than declined to relatively low densities in 1986 and 1987. The 1985 recovery was due almost exclusively to mean annual tubificid densities at Location 6, which were the second highest recorded for the VCCL study. Apparent changes in the WCCL benthos reflect normal responses.

of pioneer organisms to newly-filled reservoirs and could be expected independent of WCGS operation.

4.4.3 Asiatic Clam-Corbicula The 1987 survey for Asiatic Clams in the vicinity of Volf Creek Generating Station verified that Corbicula fluminea remained established in the Neosho River below Burlington, Kansas. Further distribution of Corbicula upstream-of Burlington appears to be limited by inhabitable substrate types in these reaches of the Neosho River. Corbicula has not been found in the UCCL.Possible colonization of VCCL could occur by man-mediated dispersion or by uptake of Corbicula larvae via the MUSH into WCCL. The absence of an established population in the JRR tailwaters or further upstream makes the second mode of introduction unlikely.

However, substantial expansion in abundance and upstream dispersion would increase the likelihood that Corbicula could eventually occur in the WCCL.Several factors which could possibly affect Corbicula distribution and abundance include substrate types in both the river and the cooling lake, anoxic conditions in the stratified cooling lake (Sickel 1986), and low winter temperatures and low flows in the Neosho River.4-18

4.5 REFERENCES

Brinkhurst, R.O. 1974. The Benthos of Lakes. St. Martin's Press, New York.190 pp.Cherry, D.S. et al. 1986. Corbicula fouling and control measures at Celco Plant, Virginia.

Pages 69-82 in Special Edition No. 2, Amer.Malacological Bulletin.EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1987. The Occurrence and Abundance of Asiatic Clams (Corbicula fluminea) in the Vicinity of Wolf Creek Generating Station. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric, Burlington, Kansas.Funk, F.L. and J.D. Ransom. 1977. Benthic diversity and related physico-chemical features of John. Redmond Reservoir, 1971-72. Emporia State Res.Stud. 26:23-26.Mason, W.T. and P.P. Yevich. 1967. The use of phloxine-B and rose bengal stains to facilitate sorting benthic samples. Trans. Am. Microse. Soc.86(2):221-223.

Neck, R.W. 1986. Corbicula in public recreation waters of Texas: habitat spectrum and clam-human interactions.

Pages 179-184 in Special Edition No. 2, Amer. Malacological Bulletin.Paloumpus, A.A. and V.C. Starrett.

1960. An ecological study of benthic organisms in three Illinois river flood plain lakes. Am. Midl. Nat.64:406-435.

Ransom, J.D. and T.C. Dorris. 1972. Analysis of benthic community structure in a reservoir by use of diversity indices. Am. Midi. Nat. 87(2):434-447.

Reid, G.K. 1961. Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries.

Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. 375 pp.Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication.

Bell System Tech. J. 27:379-423, 623-656.Sickel, J.B. 1986. Corbicula population mortalities:

factors influencing population control. Pages 89-94 in Special Edition No. 2, Amer.Malacological Bulletin.Vetzel, R.G. 1975. Limnology.

Saunders, Philadelphia.

743 pp.4-19 CDN; L...% :-:1 I= M WS-1 T-> -"- b--t Annual Macroinvertebrate Taxa Neosho River Spatial Benthic Densities Neosho River I 1'U I I I I 1973 1975 1977 1979 1911 1983 1985 1987 I.0 1973 197a 1977 1979 1981 1983 19 1987 Annual Density vs. Annual Flow Neosho River Spatial Benthic Diversity Neosho River I OE 10000~loco 100.a a a 0 0 Ym-1.B0x + .9.27 r-0.75.a 101 50(1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 0 1000 1o60o Amnli Me~ Flow (aft)Figure 4-1.Macroinvertebrate density and diversity In the Neosho River near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1973-1937.

Oligochaete Contribution to Benthos Neosho River I 0 I-0 4 M Lao 10 o Lao 4 Not I 0 a PR 4 Mayfly Contribution to Benthos Neosho River 75-25-Not 0'1 m Sampled-1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 Caddisfly Contribution to Benthos Neosho River 0 I-'1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 Midge Contribution to Benthos Neosho River I 0 I-a PR I I 0 I I I Not 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 Figure 4-2.Spatial and temporal *trerds for major benthic goups In the Neosho River rner Wolf Creek Generatin Station. 1973-1987.

Annual Number of Taxa WCGS Cooling Lake Tubificid Contribution to Benthos WCGS Cooling Lake LocU a I-I so-4O 3O 2o-I0 CMLoa 2-e- TOWa I I..a I 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Naidid Contribution to. Benthos WCGS Cooling Lake 1981 1982 1983 1984 1988 1986 1987 Midge Contribution to Benthos*WCGS Cooling Lake I 0 I (50-40-30-20 10o 0 MLa 2 M Lac a___ Lac a.I I IL Ii 1981 1982 1983 1984 1988 1988 1987 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 4-3.Spatial and temporal trends In total taxa nd rmaJor benthic groups In the Cooling Lake at Wolf Creek Generating Station. 1981-1987.

Spatial Benthic Density WCGS Cooling Lake Spatial Benthic Diversity WCGS Cooling Lake WLao 2 Mi~ G MLMao I 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1966 1987 Seasonal Benthic Density WCGS Cooling Lake 1961 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Annual Benthic Density WCGS Cooling Lake m Pr-O 00OMAM 2WO: 2000-A1800-i1000-600.Aoo L FE4AAR APR JN AUG OCT DEC 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Figure 4-4. Macroinvertebrate density and diversity in the Cooling Lake at Wolf Creek Generating Statlion 1981-1987.

TABLE 4-1 OCCURRENCE OF MACROINVERTEBRATES AT SAMPLING LOCATIONS IN THE NEOSHO RIVER AND COOLING LAKE NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS Taxa Cnidaria Hydrozoa Hdroidae Clavidae Cordylophora lacustris Allman Hydridae Hydra sp. Linnaeus Platyheiinthes Turbellaria Tricladida Unidentified Tricladida Planariidae Dugesia sp. Ginard Nemato a Unidentified Nematoda Entroprocta Phylactolaemata Plumetellidae Unidentified Plumatellidae Urnatellidae Urnatella gracilis Leidy Annelida Oligoehaeta

...Plesiopora Enchytraeidae Unidentified Eachytraeidae Naididae Dero digitata Muller Dero a Loden)Dero sp.Hae-ionais 4aldvogeli Bretcher Nais bre-tcheri (Michaelsen)

NiRj-s communlis Na-- elinquis Huller Nais' Dra s Rasismplex Piquet=Nas variabills Piquet Nais sp. (Muller)Ophdanais serpentina Muller Pristina foreli Piquet Pristina Tongisoma leidyi Pristina sp.Tubificidae Imm. with cap. chaetae Imm. without cap. chaetae Aulodrilus limnoblus Bretcher Aulodrilus pqueti Kovaleski Branchiura sowerbi Beddard I yodrilus mastix (Brinkhurst)

Ilyodrilus temp-letoni Southern Limnodrilus cervix Brinkhurst Limnodrilui c--aparedlonus Claparede* Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Claparede Neosho River 1 10 4 Cooling Lake 2 6 8.X X X X X X X X X X X X X X K X X X X X K K X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X K X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X K X X X X X X X 4-24 TABLE 4-1 (Cont.)Taxa Limnodrilus profundicola Verril Limnodrilus udekemianu Claparede Branchiobdellidae Unidentified Branchiobdellidae Prosopora, Lumbriculidae Unidentified Lumbriculidae Hirudinea, Rhychobdellida Glossiphonildae Unidentified Glossiphoniidae Immature Glassiphonildae Actinobdella ineguiannulata Moore Actinobdella triannulata Moore Placobdella multilineata Moore Placobdella ornata Pharyngobdelliaa Erpobdellidae Unidentified Brpobdellidae Immature Erpobdellidae Dina microstoma Moore Arth-r-opoda.

• Crustacea Amphipoda.Gammaridae C. sp. Bate Talitridae Hyallella azteca (Saussure)

Decapoda Astacidae Unidentified Astacidae Orconertes vIrilis Hagen Orconertes sp.Plaemoniidae Palaemonetes Kadiakensis Rathbun Arachnida Acarina Hydracarina Unidentified Hydracarina Insecta Collembola Isotomidae Isotomurus sp. Barner Ephemeroptera Siphlonuridae Siphlonurus sp. Eaton Baetidae Unidentified Baetidae Baetis sp. Valsh oligoneuri'dae Tsonychia sp. Eaton Heptageni'1dae Unidentified Heptageniidae Immature Heptagenildae Reptagenia flavescens Walsh Heptagenia bebe NcDunnough Neosho River 1 10 4.X x x x x x x x x x x x x X X x x x x X x x I x I x x I x x x X x X x x x X K x X X X x x x x I -7 r TABLE 4-1 (Cont.)Taxa Heptagenia sp. Walsh Stenacron interpunctatum Jensen Stenacron sp.Stenonema Integrum McDunnough Stenonema pulchellum Walsh Stenonema terminatum Walsh Stenonema tripunctatum Banks Stenonema sp. Traver Tricarythidae Tricarthodes sp. Ulmer Caenidae Caenis sp. Stephens Patomanthidae Potamanthus myops grp.Potamanthus sp. Piclet Ephemeridae Hexagenia limbata (Serville)

Hexagenia sp. (Walsh)Polymitarcyidae Ephoron album.Say Epohoron ip. Williamson Tortopus pimus Tortopus sp. McCunnough Odonata Zygoptera Unidentified Zygoptera Gomphidae Erpetogomphus sp.Gomphus sp. Leach Macromiidae Macromia illinoiensis Valsh Macromia sp.Libellulidae Sympetrum sp. Newman Coenagrionidae Unidentified coenagrionidae Argia icals eAr la a agen Ark ti-irallis AKgIa sp. Rambur Plecoptera Perlidae Unidentified Perlidae Acroneurla sp. Newman Neoperla clymene Newman Perlesta pacida Hagen Hempltera Gerridae Metrobates sp. While Rheumatobates sp. Bergroth Trepobates is. Uhler Corixidae Unidentified corixidae Megaloptera Sialidae Sailis sp. Latreille Neosho River 1 10 4 2927ing Lake 2 6 8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x I x I x x I X.x -x x.II I I x x x I x I I x X I I x x XI X X X x x I x I x I I x x x I x I x x I x I I x x x x x X 4-26 TABLE 4-1 (Cont.)Taxa Neosho River 1 10 47i Coolin& Lake 2 6 8-Corydalidae Corydalus cornutus Linnagus Trch-op-tera Polycentropodldae Unidentified Polycentropodidae Crrnellus fraternus Banks Cyrnellus sp. Banks Neuroclipsis sp. Melachlan Hydropsychidae Unidentified Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche sp. Vellengren Hydropsyche bidens Ross Hydropsyche sor--'-- Ross Hydropsyche simu-lans Ross Hydropsyche sp.Potamyia tlava Hagen Hydroptilia-" Hydroptila sp. Delman Limnephilidae Limnephilus sp. Leach LPnoyc sp. Banks Leptocerid ae Unidentified Leptoceridae Ceraclea sp. Stephens Nectopsyche candida Hagen Nectopsyche sp. Muller Oecetis sp. McLachlan Coleoptera Unidentified Coleoptera Gyrinidae Unidentified Gyrinidae Dineutus sp. Macleay Gyretes sp.Gyrinus sp. Muller Dytscidace Unidentified Dytiscidae Hydrophilldae Unidentified Hydrophilidae Tropisternus sp. Erichson Elmidae Unidentified Elmidae Stenelmis sp. Dufour Diptera Tipulidae Unidentified Tipulidae Hexatoma sp. Latreille Chaobori2dae Chaoborus albatus (Jobas)Chaoborus uncti'pennis (Say)Ceratopogonidae Unidentified Ceretopoganidae Simulildae Unidentified Simuliidae Prosimulium sp Rouband Simulium sp. Latreille Chir mi dae x x x x x x X x x X X X X X X X x X X K x X X X X K K x X X x K x x x x x x K x x X x K x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X x x X X x I....%-

{t-t IT i.a .0 TABLE 4.-1 (Cont.) Noh Taxa Unide-tif led Chironomidae Pupa Chironomina'b--

Unidentifled Chiron-omiin Unidentified Chironmini Chernovskia amphitrite Saether Chironomus sp. (Meiqen)Cladopelma sp. Kieffer Cladotanytarsus sp. Kieffer Cryptochironomus sp. (Kieffer)T--Dicrotendepis sp. Kieffer Endochironomus sp. Kieffer lobiferus Say Glyptotendlpes sp. Kieffer Kiefferulus sp. Gaetghebuer Hicrochiranomus sp. Kieffer microspectra sp. Kieffer Parachlironomus sp. Lenz Paralauterborniella sp. Lenz Paratanytarsus sp. Kieffer Phaenopspeetra sp. Kieffer Polypedi umss convictum type.(Valker)

Po ype i um ss scalaenum type Schrank Poypedilum ss slmulans type Tovnes Olypedilu sp. Kieffer Pseudochironomus sp. Malloch Rheotanytarsus sp. Bause Stictochironomus sp. Kieffer...-

Tanytarsus sp. VanderVulp Tribelos sp.Xennchironomus anceus Roback Tanypodinae Unidentified Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia sp. Johannsen Coeleotanypus coacinnus (coquillett)

Coelotanypus sp. Kieffer Labrundira a sp. Fittkan Larsia sp. Fittkau Proc7adius sp.Pentaneura sp. Philippi Tanyps sp. Meiqen Thienemanaimyia Group Fittkau Orthor adiinae Unidentified orthorcladiiae Corynoneura sp. Vinnertz Cricotopus bicinctus group Merger Cr cotopus fucus Kieffer Cr cotopus -ss'n-tersectus Sensuhiruenaja Cricotopus tremulus group Circotopus ss tremulus type Sensuhiruenaja Cricotopus triannulatus Macquart Cricotopus vierriensls Goetghebuer Cricotopus sp. Van der Vulp Eukieffernella sp Thieneman Hydrobaenus Sp. Brundin Nanocladius sp. Kieffer Octhocladius oliveri Sapenis Neosho River Coolin 1 10 74 6 x x x. x x x X Lak IX X I X I X X x x X X x x X, x K XX K K X X K I x x K x x x x x x X X X X X X X X X K x K x x x K X K I.1 X x x X X x x I K K K K K K x K K K x K K K x K x K K K x I K I x K K K x K K x x I K x K Kx K K x K K K x x x x x x x K x x x X X x K x X X 4-28 TABLE 4-1 (Cont.)Taxa Neosho~~~.r C4"2hlingake Octhocladlus sp. Van Der Vulp Thienemanniella sp. Kicffer-Dolichopodidae Unidentified i'iAc'.3opadidae Mollusca Gastropoda Unidentified Castropoda Pulmonata Physidae P sp Draparnaud Ancylidae Unidentified Ancylidae Ferrissio rivularis (Say)Ferrissia sp. Walker Pelecypoda Heterodonata Sphaerlidae Musculium transversum Muller Pisidium sp. Pfeiffer Sphaerium transversum (Say)Sphaerium sp. Scopoli Corbicu idae Corbicula fluminea Muller Corbicula sp.Unianidae---

-- --------Anodanta grandis Say Lampsilis ovata Say x X x x x x x x Ix Ix X x X X K Ix x x x x I x X I I x Total Taxa 87 126 118 54 42 26 Combined Taxa 179 70 4-29 A G E C-4 TABLE 4-2 ANNUAL NUMBER OF MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA COLLECTED FROM LOCATIONS 1, 10, AND 4 IN THE NEOSHO RIVER AND LOCATIONS 2, 6, AND 8 IN THE COOLING LAKE OF WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS 1973-1987 Site/Year Neosho River 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983.1984 1985 1986 1987 Cooling Lake 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Location/Number of Taxa 1 10 4 Total 66 55 87 75 35 42 20 34 38 95 76 73 84 60 61 32 58 47 79 76 69 75 46 54 30 53 46 26 58 99 132 108 114 121 85 85 57 82 80 2 6 8 Total 20 22 17 20 14 18 10 27 12 14 12 11 15 14 15 13 15 6 32 26 20 29 20 25 19 Notes: 1. Dash (-) indicates location not sampled.2. Asterisk (*) indicates location results not reported separately.

3. Results for river include both qualitative and quantitative samplings.

4. Ponar sampling only vas conducted in the cooling lake.4-30 TABLE MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY AND DIVERSITY IN PONAR COLLECTIONS FROM LOCATIONS 10 AND 4 IN THE NEOSHO RIVER STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS, 1973-1987 NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING 2 Density (No./m)10 4 Mean Date Diversity (base 2)10 4, Mean ..27MAR73 11JUN73 10SEP73 10DEC73 Mean 2 6MAR74 11JUN74 10SEP74 10DEC74 Mean 17APR75 IOJUN75 9SEP75 3DEC75 Mean 25FEB76 6APR76 15JUN76 9AUG76 50CT76 14DEC76 Mean 22FEB77 4APR77 8JUN77 9AUG77 40CT77 13DEC77 Mean 21FEB78 25APR78 27JUN78 29AUG78 10OCT78 12DEC78 Mean 38 265 189 164 340 2646 974 567 1132 4366 13098 350 23795 16282 16084 12329 35504 15498 265 510 14317 2485 11430 104 1606 9894 7881 4536 11179 5867 1598 143 871 142 463 1370 658 388 2174 1257 2438 1564 3657 8496 1890 7590 4328 9941 5984 8902 5746 605 1701 14723 1852 5588 718 1002 2022 1077 3449 3081 1892 1598 143 871 90 364 780 411 364 2410 1116 1503 1348 4012 10797 1120 15693 10305 13013 9156 22203 10622 435 1106 14520 2169 8509 411 1304 5958 4479 3993 7130 3879 1.90 2.05 1.01 3.36 2.08 3.78 4.32 2.31 3.38 4.05 4.27 3.69 2.27 3.74 1.89 2.49 1.83 2.69 2.49 1.88 3.43 2.36 3.54 3.18 3.18 2.93 2.23 2.67 2.41 3.47 2.70 3.30 3.76-2.10 2.92 2.62 3.58 3.05 2.85 3.54 3.33 2.66 2.09 2.31 2.80 2.39 3.62 3.09 3.03 2.87 3.71 3.12 2.07 2.36 1.71 3.42 2.39 3.54 4.04 2.21 3.15 3.34 3.93 3.37 2.56 3.64 2.61 2.58 1.96 2.50 2.64 2.14 3.53 2.73 3.29 3.03 3.45 3.02 4-31 Ii.~G E I?.-I.1 TABLE 4-3 (Cont.)2 Density (No./m)10 4 Mean Date 20FEB79 10APR79 12JUN79 6AUG79 8OCT79 10DEC79 Mean 15APR80 17JUN80 28OCT80 16DEC80 Mean 27APR81 22JUN81 190CT81 15DEC81 Mean 5MAR85 16APR85 22JUL85 23SEP85 19NOV85 9DEC85 Mean 3MAR86 28APR86 22JUL86 19AUG86 17NOV86 16DEC86 Mean 2MAR87 28APR87 22JUN87 24AUG87 Mean Diversity (base 2)10 4 Mean 30051 775 576 869 7532 57 6643 4413 17360 435 7403 8713 1975 66 9 2691 28 94 266 0-0 0 65 142 227 1852 113 19 9 394 1783 226 406 123 635 3270 633 983 813 3307 94 1517 1399 4111 567 2026 6880 3478 2750 76 3296 38 66 9 28 28 236 76 605 463 473 371 1311 208 151 245 479 16661 704 780 841 5420 76 4080 2906 10736 501 4714 7797 2727 1408 43 2993 33 80 266 5 14 48 142 232 964 359 241 241 383 1547 217 279 184 557 4.00 3.57 2.13 2.61 3.94 1.29 2.92 3.98 4.19 3.25 3.81 3.86 3.00 1.61.2.12 0.92 2.32 1.64 0.81 1.87 2.70 1.27 1.83 1.00 1.45 2.95 1.83 1.25 1.91 1.99 2.71 3.79 3.10 3.02 3.10 2.13 2.98 3.23 4.07 2.38 3.23 2.84 3.04 2.80.1.79 2.62 1.50 2.81 1.58 1.18 2.47 0.00 3.39 2.25 2.48 2.12 3.51 1.30 1.50 1.72 2.01 3.36 3.68 2.62 2.82 3.52 1.71 2.95 3.61 4.13 2.82 3.52 3.35 3.02 2.21 0.90 2.37 1.21.2.57 1.64*0.00 *0.00 0.79 0.98 1.87 2.59 0.64 2.61 1.63 1.24 1.75 2.32 1.57 1.38 1.82 2.00 Notes: 1. Dash (-) indicates locations not sampled or diversity not.calculated.

2. Asterisk (*) indicates diversity not calculated because <2 organisms collected.

Diversity assumed to be 0.00 for mean calculations.

4-32 TABLE 4-4 SELECT MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA DENSITIES IN PONAR COLLECTIONS FROK LOCATIONS 10 AND 4 IN THE NEOSHO RIVER NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS, 1973-1987 011ochaetes Mayflies Stoneflies Caddlsflies Midges Date '10 4 i0 4 10 4 10 4 10 4 27MAR73 .... .. .11JUN73 ..........

10SEP73 906 38 -416 10DEC73 20 38 -19 Mean 463 38 -218 26MAR74 --------11JUN74 9 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 9 38 10SEP74 0 350 113 85ý 0 0 57 0 38 28 10DEC74 19 737 19 19 0 0 19 19 94 576 Mean 9 362 44 47 0 0 25 6 47 214 17APR75 218 38 0 19 0 0 0 114 86 104 10JUN75 28 10 264 567 19 0 1200 1163 1012 369 9SEP75 19 28 19 76 56 454 832 520 10 57 3DEC75 38 237 57 227 10 10 19 57 246 1664 Mean 76 78 85 222 21 116 513 464 .339 549 25FEB76 397 217 57 132 , 38. 1172- 283 38 3147. 1285 6APR76 2982 2675 142 160 775 671 1105 19 6709 4593 15JUN76 28 0 151 1200 0 66 66 321 57 113 9AUG76 47 245 1624 3676 737 85 18919 19 2240 3307 50CT76 85 408 2930 312 225 38 3496 0 8533 3393 14DEC76 387 822 3827 672 1011 9 4403 75 4876 7475 Mean 639 728 1455 1025 464 340 4712 79 4260 3361 ,22FEB77 567 94 973 274 0 38 3034 9 29286 8108 4APR77 3374 1342 396 37 9 9 56 0 11000 3884 8JUN77 113 160 9 95 0 0 9 28 57 113 9AUG77 255 47 122 1125 9 47 0 311 104 151 40CT77 56 141 302 841 246 208 12748 12748 652 756 13DEC77 85 38 9 37 9 76 1427 1228 539 217 Mean 742 304 302 402 46 63 2879 2387 6940 2205 21FEB78 28 85 0 19 0 9 38 482 38 104 25APR78 37 19 19 104 57 66 584 208 463 208 27JUN78 94 312 1029 916 19 19 7862 0 803 576 29AUG78 19 123 1654 19 9 0 793 28 5207 888 10OCT78 378 529 1143 1143 151 0 28 19 2693 2164 12DEC78 491 9 321 132 9 813 28 18 10140 1673 Mean 175 180 694 389 41 151 1556 126 3224 936 4-33 TABLE 4-4 (Cont.)Dt1gochaetes Maflies Stoneflies Caddisflies Midges Date 0 10 4 10U 20FEB79 5075 1739 1522 95 850 9 3534 28 15329 1304 10APR79 132 151 47 28 0 0 0 9 472 274 12JUN79 19 538 47 0 0 0 0 0 170 180 6AUG79 19 19 236 236, 0 0 425 265 161 142 8OCT79 19 85 435 179 66 .142 1370 189 5358 2665 10DEC79 9 19 0 9 0 0 9 19 28 47 Mean 879 425 381 91 153 25 890 85 3586 769 15APR80 17JUN80 28OCT80 16DEC80 Mean 27APR81 2JUN81 190CT81 15DEC81 Mean 5MAR85 16APR85 22JUL85 23SEP85 19NOV85 9DEC85 Mean 3MAR86 28APR86 22JUL86 19AUG86 17NOV86 16DEC86 Mean 2MAR87 28APR87 22JUN87 24AUG87 Mean 0 331 227 186 435 47 0 9 123 0 9 10 0 0 0 2 19 9 0 76 0 0 17 18 9 0 0 7 0 472 397 299 265 208 274 28 194 19 28 0 0 9 11 19 0 95 9 0 25 349 9 0 0 90 397 7173 38 2536 1691 1134 19.0 711 0.0 47-0 0 0 8 9 95 0 0 0 17 104 9 28 0 35 350 832 47.410 76 2117 47 0 560 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 76 38 0 0 25 38 0 28 0 17 265 1210 47 507 47 66 0 38 1531 444 5320 19 9 0 2287 154 217 0 113 208 9 28 0 0 85 59 123 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 161.0 0 0 30 76 9 9 9 26 47 0 104 38 57 49 0 0 19 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 113 1588 0 0 0 285 679 19 349 94 285 1 0 0 9 9 4 9 0 170 151 198 106 76 19 104 38 59 1909.1682 28 1206 5887 444 19 0.1588 9 66 170 0 0 0 41 104 9 9 28 0 0 25 613 0 0 9 156 519 1918.98 845 6067 766 2202 28 2266 0 238 0 0 9 9 9 0 95 9 0 23 679 9 0 0 172 Notes: 1.Dash (-) indicates location not sampled.4-34 TABLE 4-5 SELECT MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA DENSITIES IN PONAR COLLECTIONS FROM LOCATIONS 2, 6, AND 8 IN TH1e COOLING LAKE OF WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS. 1981-1987

'Naidadae Tubificide Midges Other Date 2 6 8 2 6 8 2 6 8 2 6 237EP81 28APR11 23JUNI1 24AUG11 20OCT81 15DEC81 3MAR82 27APR82 22JUN82 31AUG12 19acT82 7DEC82 Mleals 1MAR63 25APR83 23jU683 29AUG83 18oCT83 13DEC8S Mesa 297E584 17APR84 19JUN84 21AUG84 16oCT84 17DEC84-Mea.16APS85 24JUN85 26AUG85 21OCT85 9DEC95 Mean 3MAR86 28APR8S 24JUN86 19AUG86 27OCT86 16DEC86 Mean 2MAR87 22jUN87 24AUG87 Mean 0 38 369 680 272 331 28 19 860 9 274 254 9 0 0 38 0 0 8 0 189 9 0 387 151 123 19 0 0 0 208 47 46 0 19 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 19 0 24 104 66 0 0 43-208 1162 57 3667 1625 302 19 0 0-85 1283 332 0 0 0 813 0 0 0 473 66 1711 38 1965 17 830 95 217 66 1143 28 76 113 680 as 19 19 65 68 370 217 9 95 331 9 28 66 217 28 9 85 95 683 11 19 302 198 2663 O 0 0 0 26 9 0 0 41 529 47 161 0 9 0 57 19 113 9 104 9 47 14 82 0 28 0 925 0 38 0 0 0 248-- 0-142-66-132-65-6483-1682-169-132-577-1040-1684-633-567-142-. 47-19-38-241 605 170 66 19 38 19 76 227 19 510 47 756 142 284 9 161 95 454 0 19 38 89.9 113 19 66 28 150 180 680 26 76 47 28 47 151 142 a5 38 104 80 187 47 208 19 123 0 28 0 66 17 106 766 38 142 142 28 28 191 104 104 9 0 255 312 131 28 482 142 as 0 9 124 19 28 19 26 24 28 9 0 0 19 47 17 39 9 0 0 0 0 a 10 19 312 9 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 16 0 0 0*0 S 19 312 a5 435 38 28 9 9 0 85 113 246 44 186 142 104 265 548 57 95 0 36 a 0 113 57 96 140 113 624 104 104 19 0 0 19 19 142 9 38 44 155 76 38 57 36 19 0 19 0 43 19 0 0 0 19 9 47 13 9 9 0 0 0 0 3 47 19 9 19 9 19 20 28 9 9 0 12 0 28 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 29 0 6 66 9 0 0 19 0 a 0 9 0 0 2 0 38 0 0 0 0 6 0 19 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Note= Dash (-) indicates location not sampled.4-35 TABLE 4-6 MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY AND DIVERSITY IN PONAR COLLECTIONS FRoi -LOCATIONS 2, 6, AND 8 1N THE COOLING LAKE OF WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS, 1981-1987 2 Density (No.Mm a 2 6 8 ?ean 0 3 0.4 a 2 0 S Diversity (base 2)2 6 6 Mean Date 23FEB81 28APR81 23JUNa1 24AUG61 20OCTO1 15DEC61 Mean 3MAR62 27APR62 22JUN82 31AUG682 19OCT82 7DEC82 Mean 1MAR63 25APR63 23JU683 29AUG83 16OCT$3 13DEC83 Mean 29FE684 17APR64 19JUN684 21AUG84 16OCT84 17DEC84 meam 5MAR65 16APR6s 24JUNSS 26AUG5S 21OCT65 9DECS5 mean 3MAR86 28APR66 24JUN6G 19AUG66 27OCTS66 16DEC66 Real 2 MARO 7 28APR87 22JUN87 24AUG87 Mean 1161 3884 775 a9g 1685 6936 1729 208 1068 671 1399 2002 746 643 170 217 104 57 323 367 113 28 359 586 907 337-189 662 19 65 151 66 19t 764 94 38 169 113 142 227 243 132 38 66 120 992 302 2088 208 416 274 713 198 917 9 472 2202 2436 1039 255 1673 217 765 38 113 510 38 454 66 227 9 217 169-442 3126 57 0 113 625 406 113 94 113 170 76 162 274 1057 57 19 352 964 501 66 94 113 293 339 113 660 94.76 9 76 175 822 161 47 66 293 76 244 Is 57 9 0 38 992 742 2966 492 657 274 1102 3567 1323 103 770 1437 1919 1521 501 1156 194 491 71 8S 417 463 356 53 227 236 472-301 248 1490 57 54 56 85 332 671 123 60 123 192 96 211 201 415 35 28 170 0.75 1.55 2.36 1.S7 1.56 2.37 2.19 1.48 1.07 1.94 2.97 2.00 1.97 2.22 1.40 2.77 1.31 0.92 1.77 2.57 1.38 0.92 3.24 0.83 1.93 1.81 1.12 2.64 0.00 0.50 2.00 0.53 1.14 1.97 1.57 1.S0 1.96 1.21 1.74 1.66 2.25 1.20 1.50 1.38 1.58 2.92 2.31 1.86 1.34 0.73 2.14 1.89 2.03 1.57 A 0.86 1.64 1.56 1.31 1.43 1.98 1.56 0.73 1.00 1.78 1.42 1.50 2.31 0.99 0.74 a 2.35 1.32 2.13 2.20 0.92 0.00 0.88 2.73 1.26 2.12 0.65 2.53 1.75 1.65 2.66 2.31 0.92 1.00 1.72* 2.92 1.56 1.71 1.86 1.15 2.14 1.76 2.20 1.81 0.74 0.67-1.69 2.27 1.66 1.70 2 2.10 1.40 1.78 1.16 1.35 1.53 2.39 1.68" 0.99 1.57 1.21 1.70'1.*59 0.41 2.23 1.30 1.91 1.07 1.15 2.40 2.02 0.00 0.06 2.33 1.00 1.45 2.20 1.58 0.95 2.15 1.79 0.97 1.65 0.66 1.99 1.57-1.23 2.36 0.74 0.60 0.67 0,55 1.06 2.39 1.62 1.21 1.16 2.04 1.50 1.65 2.37 1.70 0.61 0.79 1.42 Notes: 1. Dash (-) indicates location not sampled.2. Asterisk (M) indicates diversity not calculated because <2 organisms collected.

Diversity assumed to be 0.00 for mean calculations.

4-36 TABLE 4-7

SUMMARY

OF ASIATIC CLAM (CORBICULA FLUMINEA)

ABUNDANCE IN PONAR GRABS FROM TWO LOCATIONS ON THE NEOSBO RIVER, BURLINGTON KANSAS Location 4 No. Density (No.m 2)Location 10 No. Density (No.im2)Date AUG 86 NOV 86 DEC 86 MAR 87 APR 87 JUN 87 AUG 87 Mean 6 5 5 6 2 0 17 56.7 47.3 47.3 56.7 18.9 0.0 79.9 43.8 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 9.4 0.0 9.4 18.9 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 Note: Density data represents mean of duplicate samples from each location.4-37 TABLE 4-S

SUMMARY

Or SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING SURVEY FOR ASIATIC GENERATING STATION, 30 SEPTEMBER

-I OCTOBER 1967 CLAMS N THE VICINITY Of WOLF CREEK Vat or Site wcc__L Location/Replicate CWSU 1 2.3 4 5 6 7 8 Water Temperature (C)21.3 Water Depth (ft.)4 4 5 5 is 1i 6 Gear'(&) Substrate Type4b)No. of..Asiatic clams wCCL MUDS I 2 3 4 s 6 7 23.7 7 S.3 4 2 3 1 3 3 4 4 P p p P P P P P P P P P P P P P p P P p R 1 R a Clay, gravel Clay, gravel Ooze, clay Ooze, clay, gravel, rock Silt, gravel Clay, gravel, rock Ooze, detritus, Fine gravel Ooze, detritus, Fine gravel Silt, clay, detritus Silt, clay, detritus Silt, clay, detritus Silt, clay, detritus Silt, clay, detritus Silt, clay, detritus Silt, clay, detritus, Gravel Silt, clay, detritus, Gravel Detritus, silt, clay Detritus, silt, clay Detritus.

silt, clay Detritus, silt, clay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a wCCL service Spillvay 1 2 3 4 Gravel Reach I 2 3 23.1 23.1 wCCL 1-2 1-2 1-2.Upland gravel Upland gravel Upland gravel Wolf-Creek PAS-10 Bridge 1-Neosho Rivefr 2 3 Burlington Dan Downstream 1 3 3 4 21.5 (I (1 a a a PP'P Pp pp Silt, gravel Silt, gravel Silt, gravel Gravel, sand. silt Gravel, sand, silt Gravel, sand, silt Gravel, sand, silt 0 0 0 I 1/2 1/2 20.5 41 (1 lADLE 4-6 ICont.), site Neosho River Water Location/Replicate Temperature ICL Water Depth (ft.)4b) A i tno. of GoataW Substrate Type Asiatic Clang MUSH Chute below MUSH Chute below Island-and Stilling Basin U.S. 75 Bride Upstream 50 a At bridge Dowsstream-150 m 200 a 300 a Hartford Boat Ramp DovnStream Upstream 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 19.7 19.5 13.5 19.6 19.1.19.1'1-3 3, i Bedrock, gravel, silt (1-2 5, a Gravel, bedrock 4 3 4 P P P P P P P p Gravel Clay Clay Clay Detritus, silt Detritui, Silt Clay, woody debris clay, woody debris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neosho River 2 I%t0 2 2 1-2 3 2 1-3 1-3 1-3 p Silt, detritus P Silt, clay P Silt, clay p Gravel, rock, silt P Gravel, rock, silt R Gravel, rock, silt P Silt, clay S Silt, gravel S Gravel S Gravel S Gravel (a) Gear: Paponar, PP-petite ponar, m-clam rake, S-seine.(b) Substrate types listed in order of dominance.

9.5. FISHERIES""

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Adult, juvenile, and larval fish were monitored in the Neosho River and Wolf':1 Creek to provide data on potential construction and operational impacts of WCGS on the aquatic communities since 1973. Baseline information was obtained from the tailvaters of John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) to determine potential impingement and entrainment losses at the make up water screenhouse.

Areas upstream and downstream of the Wolf Creek and Neosho River confluence were monitored to determine potential effects of construction and dam closure. The occurrence of fishes in Wolf Creek was monitored to (1) establish seasonal and spatial patterns, (2) monitor construction effects, and (3) to establish the value of Volf Creek as a spawning and/or nursery area.This report section summarizes adult and juvenile data collected from the Neosho River from 1973 through 1982 and 1985 through August 1987. The data represent the seining and electrofishing program that provided a basis for preoperational-operational comparisons.

Data from program components that were not incorporated into the operational study initiated in 1985 (EA 1986) were not included in this report. PreImpoundment fisheries data from Wolf Creek were obtained through 1980 and results are summarized in annual monitoring reports and the WCGS environmental report (KGB 1981). Results of post-impoundment cooling lake fisheries studies are presented in annual reports prepared by Ecological Analysts (1983) and WCNOC (1988).5-1 5.2 FIELD AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES Surveys of the Neosho River from the tributaries of JRR to below the Wolf Creek confluence were conducted seasonally from 1973 through 1982 and 1985 through 1987. Locations and gears changed during early study years. Location 1was in John Redmond Reservoir upstream of the dam until 1977 when the tailwaters location replaced the reservoir location.

Gill and hoop nets were also part of the program but were discontinued when the reservoir location was replaced in 1977 and when electrofishing proved more effective than hoop nets to determine species composition and relative abundance in the Neosho River. Locations were added in 1975 to include Location 10 upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek and Location 11, a riffle immediately below the confluence that was monitored only for Neosho madtom.Data collected from 1977 through 1981 and 1985 through 1987 were most comparable because of the above changes. Differences between these data sets, which essentially represent preoperational-operational data are summarized in Table 5-1. Program changes were made as milestones were met at WCGS. The actual sampling scheme reflects schedule changes resulting from weather and water conditions.

Cold weather often resulted in sampling in early March rather than February, and high water conditions occasionally caused sampling to be delayed or missed.An AC boat-mounted boom shocker has been used since 1977 to collect fish at Locations 1, 10, and 4. Sampling consisted of a 30-minute effort at each location and encompassed approximately 800 meters of shoreline.

Changes in the electrofishing equipment used during the study probably contributed to lower 5-2 catches in recent years. The three-phase 230 volt AC generator used from 1977 through 1980 was replaced by a 3,000 watt single-phase generator in 1981. From 1982 through 1987, a single-phase 3,500 watt generator was used with a Coffelt model UVP-15 unit. An operating comparison (Heidinger et al. 1983).of three electrofishing systems similar to those used in this study indicate substantial differences in efficiency with the Coffelt unit the least efficient.

The difference between the Coffelt and the Homelite systems (which.vere very similar to that used in the Neosho River from 1977-1980) was attributed to a combination of electrode array and amperage drawn. The electrode array for the Neosho River study remained the same, although the electrodes were changed in 1981.A 1.8 x 4.6 meter straight seine with 0.3 centimeter Ace mesh was used to collect forage-sized fish from shallow areas at Locations 1f 10, and 4 on the Neosho River. Generally two to four straight seine hauls were performed at each location when water levels were suitable.

Since 1976 qualitative kick seines have been performed at Location 11 using the standard seine to document the presence of the Neosho madtom, listed as threatened in Kansas (Kansas Administrative Regulations, 1987). All Neosho madtoms collected using this method were measured and released at the time of capture.Fish collected by electrofishing were identified, weighed, measured, and released alive unless needed for radiological/environmental samples. Seine samples (excluding Neosho madtom) were preserved in 10 percent formalin and returned to the laboratory for analysis.

Each fish collected was identified, measured, and weighed (if greater than 10 g). Species represented by more than 25 individuals were counted after 25 lengths were recorded.5-3 Catch per unit effort (CPE) was defined as the number of fish collected per 30 minutes (No./30 min.) of electroshocking.

Seine catches were presented as the number of fish collected per seine location (excluding Location 11). Spatial and temporal comparisons were based on CFE data.5.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.3.1 Overviev Surveys of the Neosho River from 1973 through 1987 (exclusive of 1983 and 1984)from the tailwaters of John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) to below the confluence with Wolf Creek yielded 52 species representing 12 families (Table 5-2).Annual surveys encountered 29 to 41 species, with 13 species reported during each of the 13 years, Including gizzard-shad, carp, golden shiner, ghost shiner, red shiner, river carpsucker, smallmouth buffalo, channel catfish, white bass, green sunfish, orangespotted sunfish, white crappie, and freshwater drum. Nine additional species occurred during 11-12 annual surveys, and four (shorthead redhorse, blue suckers, flathead catfish, and mosquitofish) were collected each year after electrofishing was initiated in 1977 (Table 5-2).Similarly, Neosho madtom were encountered each year except 1978 after kick seining at Location 11 was added to the program. All reported species from the study area are common to the Neosho River system except wiper and valleye which were introduced through stocking activities of the Kansas Department of Parks and Wildlife.5-4 Electrofishing and seine catches from 1977 -1982 and 1985 -1987 were utilized to examine species composition and relative abundance of the Neosho River fish community.

The combined gear provided the best representation of species encountered in the study. The total catch of 35,400 fish captured during the 9 years that both gears vere used was dominated by cyprinids and herrings (i.e.gizzard shad), which accounted for 65 and 17 percent, respectively.

Comparison of preoperational (1977-82) and operational (1985-87) data sets indicated only slight shifts in relative abundance at the family level: RELATIVE ABUNDANCE 1977-82 1985-87 Family (Preoperational) (Operational)

Gars 0.3 0.3 Herrings 16.4 16.*8 Minnows/Carp 61.2 73.0 Suckers 7.8 2.0 Catfishes 3.1 1.4 Topminnovs

<0.1 <0.1 Livebearers 0.8 2.7 Silversides 0.4 0.1 Temperate basses 1.7 0.4 Sunfishes 4.6 2.0 Perches 0.3 0.2 Drums 3.5 1.0 5-5 The greatest difference between data sets occurred for cyprinids which increased by nearly 12 percent. That increase primarily reflected lover relative abundance for all families except gars, herrings, topminnows, and perches which were relatively unchanged and livebearers which increased.

The increase of livebearers was due to a large 1987 catch of mosquitofish (317 fish) that accounted for 61 percent of the total 9-year catch for these fish.Thirteen species contributed 83 to 97 percent to the annual catches and accounted for 95 percent of the total catch for the 9 years that both electrofishing and seining were conducted.

Annual differences were apparent at the species level, although red shiner was the most abundant species all years except 1982 (Table 5-3). The 1982 survey included only tailwater collections where red shiner catches were typically low (Section 5.3.3). Gizzard shad were codominant except in 1980 and from 1985-1987 when ghost shiner catches were higher. Approximately 74 percent of the ghost shiner captured in the 9-year study were collected during the operational study period.ý5.3.2 Electrofishing Electrofishing in the Neosho River from 1977-1982 and 1985-1987 captured 7,918 fish representing 37 species and two hybrids (Table 5-4). Gizzard shad accounted for 35 percent of the total electrofishing catch and was the most abundant species except in 1979 and 1980 when river carpsucker catches were highest. River carpsucker accounted for 13 percent of the total electrofishing catch and other catostomids as a group contributed 10 percent. Few catostomids were collected by seining (Section 5.3.3) and all blue sucker were taken by electrofishing.

Blue sucker were considered a threatened fish in Kansas until 5-6 May 1, 1987 when it was removed from the list (Kansas Administrative Regulations, 1987).Total catch per unit effort (CPE) ranged from 39.0 to 90.1 during the 1977-82 preoperational study, compared to 16.1 to 38.5 during the 1985-87 operational study (Table 5-4). Changes in electrofishing equipment after 1980 (Section U El 5.2) likely contributed to lover CPE in recent years which averaged 40.5 after the change compared to 70.9 from 1977-80. The low catch in 1980 before the equipment change was due primarily to the lowest annual catch of gizzard shad and relatively low catches of white bass and white crappie (Table 5-4).Catches of all three species are typically highest at Location 1 in the JRR tailwaters and appear related to year-class strength in John Redmond Reservoir and seasonal releases from JRR dam, Relative abundance and the average CPE for predominant species in the electrofishing catch declined during the operational study except for increased relative abundance of gizzard shad, smallmouth buffalo, and flathead catfish (Table 5-5). Overall operational catches averaged 55 percent lower than the preoperational average with percent reductions ranging from 34 (gizzard shad)to 82 percent (white bass). Catch rates of flathead catfish were similar between preoperational and operational study periods because of high catches in 1986 and 1987 that ranked second and third for the 9-year study (Table 5-4).Consistent spatial differences were apparent throughout the 9-year study with higher total electrofishing catches from the JRR tailwaters (Location 1), followed by Location 10 upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek (Table 5-6).Catch rates below the Wolf Creek confluence were consistently lower except in 5-7 1981 and 1987 when average CPE was slightly higher than at Location 10. HIgher catches from the JRR tailwaters resulted primarily from catches of gizzard shad, although average catch rates of most other predominant species were also higher in the tailvaters than in the lower river. Exceptions included freshwater drum, carp, and flathead catfish. Freshwater drum and carp catches averaged highest upstream of the 0olf Creek confluence (Location 10), whereas flathead catfish catch rate averaged highest below the confluence (Location 4).Annual catches generally reflected the overall spatial differences'as there were only 17 exceptions (7 percent), primarily for carp, smallmouth buffalo, and flathead catfish, species with relatively low average catch rates.Higher catches at Location 1 have been attributed to habitat differences between the tailwaters and the lover river locations and to the proximity of Location 1 to JRR. Several species (e.g., gizzard shad, white bass, and white crappie) are thought to originate primarily from JRR. Catch rates for the ten predominant species, as a group, averaged 61 percent higher upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek than at the downstream sampling site. Catches.between the two lower locations were most similar in 1981 and 1987 (Table 5-6).Habitat differences also existed between Locations 10 and 4 and probably contributed to differences in catches from the lower river. Location 10 includes a large riffle and gravel bar with a long shallow run downstream of the riffle, whereas Location 4 is on a bend in the river below the riffle at Location 11 and includes a deep pool and smaller gravel bar.5-8 Fl 5.3.3 Seining Neosho River seine collections from 1973-1982 and 1985-1987 captured 36,306 fish. Collections were dominated by gizzard shad, ghost shiner, and red shiner, which collectively accounted for over 90 percent of the seine catches during the 12-year study (Table 5-7). Annual catches of red shiner ranked Li first except in 1973, and catches of gizzard shad and ghost shiner generally ranked second or third. Data from 1973-1975 included seine collections only below the confluence vith.Wolf Creek (Location 4), whereas after 1975 three sites (Locations 1, 10, and 4) were surveyed.

The occurrence of Neosho madtom after 1975 resulted from the addition.of qualitative kick seining at a riffle immediately below the Wolf Creek confluence (Location 11), although subsequent sampling at Locations 10 and 4 also yielded Neosho madtom. The numbers of fish per seine collection did not exhibit a long-term trend. The lowest catch occurred in 1973 and the highest in 1985 when WCGS began operation.

Total catches during the 1973-82 preoperational study ranged from 207 to 5,9"t compared to 1,956 to 7,314 during the 1985-87 operational study.Preoperational catches from 1976-82 were compared to the operational catches to evaluate potential shifts in species composition.

Operational catches averaged 29 percent higher, due primarily to higher catches of ghost shiner (Table 5-8).most other predominant species increased only slightly, although mosquitofish increased more than 3-fold because of a large catch in 1987 at the lover river locations (Table 5-9). The game fish catch declined by nearly 35 percent during the operational study. This group included nine species (black bullhead, channel catfish, flathead catfish, white bass, bluegill, spotted bass, largemouth bass, white crappie, and freshwater drum) but only contributed 5-9

.three percent to the total catch from 1976-1982 and 1985-1987.

Bullhead minnow catches declined by 82 percent during operational study. Lover bullhead minnov catches were apparent both upstream and downstream of the Wolf Creek confluence with nearly identical reductions between preoperational and operational catch rates (Table 5-9). Bullhead minnow occurred in the JRR tailvater collections only in 1980 and 1985.Seine catches of the predominant species were highest at the lover river collection sites except for catches ýof gizzard shad and game fish which averaged highest from the JRR tailvaters (Location 1; Table 5-9). As was indicated for the electrofishing data, the abundance of gizzard shad, white bass and white crappie at Location 1 suggest tailvater catches reflect the influence of releases from JRR reservoir.

Cyprinid catches were much higher at the downstream sites, although ghost shiner catches at Location 1 ranked higher than upstream of the Wolf Creek confluence at Location 10. Ghost shiner collected from Location 1 were taken from a small shallow (<2 ft.) cove adjacent to the main channel leading from the JRR stilling basin, habitat apparently preferred by ghost shiner (Cross 1967).As a group, cyrpinids comprised over 90 percent of the seine catch from the lower river, compared to 46 percent of the tailwaters.

Habitat at the lover river locations include gravel bars, pools, and riffles (during normal flow)which are preferred by most cyprinid species. Juveniles of fish which are thought to originate primarily from JRR occurred most often in the tailvaters.

Red shiner have generally been the most abundant species in the Neosho River, probably because it is very adaptable to environmental variation (Cross 1967, Pflieger 1975) which may give it a competitive advantage over other cyprinid 5-10 species.5.4

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS The fish community in the Neosho River at the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR)tailvaters, and above and below the confluence with Wolf Creek has been monitored since 1973. The study was curtailed in.1981 and discontinued from 1982-1984 before reinstatement in 1985 to coincide with start up of WCGS.Potential operational effects of WCGS on the fishery were limited to diversion of water from JRR tailwaters for raw water and/or makeup water for the WCCL and the effect discharges from the VCCL would have downstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek. Following initial lake filling in 1981, maximum diversion of river water occurred 2-11 August 1987 when use of two make-up water pumps diverted 100 cfs, which was equivalent to 40 percent of the mean daily discharge from JRR during this period. Maximum diversion of river water based on mean monthly flows also occurred in August 1987 (3.1 percent) and was higher than the previously observed maxima. Closure of the WCCL dam eliminated flood stage flows in Wolf Creek and generally improved the water quality.Trends in electrofishing and seining data between locations upstream and downstream of the Wolf Creek confluence suggested changes in Wolf Creek due to the VCCL and operation of WCGS had no effects on the Neosho River fishery.overall, few long-term trends were apparent and annual differences were related to natural variability, releases from JRR, and river flows which Influenced gear efficiency.

Changes in electrofishing gear that occurred in 1981 contributed to lower catches during the operational study. Catch data did not reflect potential influences of commercial fishing in 1980, impingement losses 5-.1 at the ICCS makeup water screenhouse in 1981, or a documented fish kill in August in 1986.5-12

5.5 REFERENCES

Cross, F.B. 1967. Handbook of Fishes of Kansas. Univ. Kansas Publi Museum of Natural History. No. 45. 357 pp.EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1986. Wolf Creek Generating Station Operational Phase Environmental Monitoring Program, March-December 1985. Report to Kansas Gas and.Electric Company, Wichita.Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1983. Wolf Creek Generating Station Environmental Monitoring Program, February 1982 -December 1982. Report to Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita.Heidinger, R.G., D.R. Helms, T.I. Hiebert, and P.H. Hove. 1983. Operational comparison of three electrofishing systems. North Amer. Journal Fisheries Management 3(3): 254-257.Kansas Gas and Electric Company. 1981. Wolf Creek Generating Station Environmental report (operating license stage). Wichita, Kansas. 2 vols.Loveless, B.S. 1988. Wolf Creek Generating Station 1987 Operational Fishery Monitoring Report. Environmental Management Group, Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp., Burlington, Kansas. 72 pp.Pflieger, V.L. 1975. The Fishes of Missouri.

Missouri Conservation Department, Jefferson City. 451 pp.Robins, C.R., Chairman.

1980. A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada. 4th edition. Spec. Publ. No. 6, Amer.Fish. Soc., Washington, D.C., 174 pp.5-13 TABLE 5-1 SUMAMR OF SAMPLING SCHEDULE FOR SURVEYS OF THE NEOSHO RIVER NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION Year/Geat JAN FE3 MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1973 1974 1975 Bea 0n 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 Ln 1976 1977 Electro Seine 1978 Electro Seine 1979 Electro Seine 1980 Electro Seine 1981 Electro seine 1982 Electro Seine 1985 Electro Seine 1986 Electro Seine 1987 Electra seine 1,10,11,4-1,10,4-1,10,11,4-1.10,4-1.10,11,4-1,10,4 1.10.11.4 I 1.11 1,10,4 1.10.4-1,10,11.4 1 1,10,11,4-1,10,4 1 1,10,4-1,10,11,4 1 1,10.11,4 1 1,10,11,4 1 1,10,4-1,10,11,4 1,10,11,4 1 1,10,4 1 1,10,11.4 1,10,11,4-1,10,4-1,10,11,4-1,10,4-1,10,11,4-1.10.4-1,10,11,4-1,10,4-1,10,11,4 1 I-1,10,4 1 1,10,4 1,10,11,4-1,10,4-1,10,11,4-1,10,11,4-1,10, 4-1,10,11,4 1,10,4 1,10,11.4-1,10,4 1 1,10,4--1 1,10,11.4 I 1 1,10,4-1,10,11,4 1 1 1,10,11,4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 -11 1 10,11.4 1 1 1 1 10,4-1,10,11.4 1,10,4 1,10,4-1,10,4 1,10,4 -1,10,4 --1,10,4 1,10,11e4

--1,10,11-1,10,4-1,10,11,4-1,10,4-1,10,11.4 10.4 1,10,4-1,10,4 1,10,4-1,10,11.4 1,10.11.4-1.10,4 1,10,4-1,10,11 1,10,11,4-1,10,4-1,10,11,4-1,10,4-1,10,11,4-1,10,4-1,10,11,4 1,10,4-1,10,11.,4 1,10,4 1,10,11,4 Note: Location I was in John Redmond Reservoir prior to 1978.

TABLE 5-2 CHECKLIST OF FISHES COLLECTED FROM THE 33080 ,IVER NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATZNG STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS INA'l Scientific Name Lapiaostoidso (gari)Ljpissteus platostoCUC Le isosteus osseus Cluepidas (herrings)

Dorosoma capedianum Cyprinidae (carps and minnows)Campostoma anomalum Cyprinus carpio Carassius auratus Nybopsis x punctata?Sotemigonus crysoleuca Notropis buchanani Notropi luetrensin Wotropis rubellus Notropis stramineus o tropis umbratilis Phenacobiue mirabilis Pimephales notatus pimephales promelas Pimephales tenellus Pinephales vigils: Catostomidae (suckers)Carpiodes.

c 1 Carpiodes cyprTnus rctiobus bubslus Ictiobus cyprin'llas 1Ictiobus niger Moxostoms erythrurum Hoxostoms macrolepidotun Cycleptus elongatus Ictalaridae (freshwater catfishes)

Ictalurus melas Tctalurus natalis Ictalurus punctatus!ZjodictTsoivrl Noturus flavus Noturus plscidus Noturus nocturnus Cyprinodontidae (topoinnovs) rundulus notatus poecilliidae (livebearera)

Gambusla affinis Common same Shortnoso gar Longnose gar Gizzard shad I Z x I I x x I I I I I I I I I I I I Central stonorollor Common carp Goldfish Gravel chub Golden shiner Ghost shiner Red shiner Rosyface shiner Sand shiner Redfin shiner suckermouth minnow Bluntnose minnow Fathead minnow Slim minnow Bullhead minnow River carpsucker Quillback Smallmouth buffalo Bignouth buffalo Black buffalo Golden redhorse Shorthead redhorso Blue sucker Black bullhead Yellow bullhead Channel catfish Flathesad catfish Stonecat Neosho madton freckled nadtom Ulackstripe topninno*t I I

• X I I I I I I x I I x I x x I I I I I I I I x I Z I I I I I I 2 I I x I I K I I I I I I I I Z I X I x x I 2 I I x I x I I I I IZ I I I I I I I, Z I I I I Z I x I I I I I x I x I I I x x I x I I I I x I x I I x I x I 2 I x I x x x I I I I X X* I I I I I I I Z 1973 1974 1975 1976 1377 1978 1979 1980 1961 1982 1985 1986 1987 I x I I I I x x x x I Z I I

• I I

• I X I .1*I I I I x I x I I x I2 Z I I I I I I "X I I x I I x I I I I I I I I I *I I 2 mosquitofish I .I I , Z x Z Z x lADLE 5-2 (Cent.)Scientific game Atherinidao (silversides)

Labidesthes sicculus Percichthyidae (temperate basses)morons .a. j I. chrysops Centrarchidae (sunfishes)

Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis huMilis ma crochirus LOPOmis sagalotis Lepomis macrochirus x L. Begalotis niroteerus Ucnctulatus.

MicroptErus slmoides Ponoxi8 annularis Percidae (perches)Etheostoma chlorosomum Etheostoms Spctabile Percina phoxocephala PercIna ca rodes zosedio vit reum.Sciaenidae (drums)Aplodinatus grunniens No. of Species Accumulated go. of Species Common Name Brook silversides 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1985 1986 1987 T z x K x K .* I I K White bass Wiper K K XK I K I * *I I Green sunfish Orangespotted sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Hybrid sunfish Spotted bass Largemouth bass white crapple.Bluntnose darter Orangethroat darter Slendorhead darter Logperch Walleye Freshwater drum K x I K K x 30 31 32 30 39 40 x x x x K I x K K x x z I x K K K K I K K K K I K x K K K *x x x x x x x X K I K x x K K

• K K K K 2 K K x I K K K x .1 K S K. K.z K K x I-0'K .K K K K 37 39 36 39 41 44 46 46 47 50*

• K K K 31 29 34 36 31 50 so 51 52 52 notes Nomenclature follows Robins 1980.

.1.C;I.j'v TABLE 5-3 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF THIRTEEN PREDOMINANT FISHES IN COMBINED ELECTROFISHING AND SEINING CATCHES FROM THE NEOSHO RIVER NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS (V 1~Species.Red shiner Gizzard shad Ghost shiner River carpsucker Freshwater drum Carp Channel catfish White crappie Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo White bass Mosquitofish Bullhead minnov 1977 1978 1979,9 1980 1981 1982 1985 1986 1987 31.9 16.2 13.4 6.5 6.2 3.8 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.4 1.6 1.6 0.4 40.0 29.2 4.5 2.5 3.7 2.2 2.4 1.5 1.9 0.5 1.1 1.2 2.9 51.4 8.5 5.2 6.6 4.0 3.0 2.4 5.3 1.4 0.7 2.5<0.1 3.8 77.7 2.6 0.4 3.5 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 4.8 48.3 27.9 4.3 3.2 1.8 1.1 1.4 2.2 1.4 0.3 1.7 0.5 1.6 9.9 14.0 5.9 6.5 7.6 3.7 5.5 6.0 7.4 2.6 10.0 3.9 0.0 51.9 15.4 25.9 0.2 0.7 0 3.0.5 0.6 0.3<0.1 0.0 0.3 0.6 39.8 20.9 22.3 2.1 1.5 1.8 1.7 2.2 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 30.0 16.7 24.5 2.1 1.0 0.9 0.5 1.7 1.3 0.4 1.0 13.1 0.5 Total Catch 3,095 5,95,0 4,945 4,903 2,914 800 7,579 2,785 2,429 Note: Combined data from Locations 1, 10 and Location 1 was surveyed.4, except in,1982 when only 5-17 TABLE 5-4 NUMBER AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH COLLECTED BY ELECTROFISHING IN THE 303080 RIVER NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING aqvqaTlvu uIfl? Tugfqni=Ofsonkh lI-In--e sun loamm --Ieav wvp a ..-s.f.Species Longnose gar Shortnose gar Gizzard shad Goldfish Common carp Golden shiner Ghost shiner Red shiner Sand shiner Suckernouth minnow Fathead minnow 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1985 1986 no0 .No. !k -no. No. w 1o T o. t No. 8 No. .1987 No. .6 2 457 116 4 1 1-&DO SLim minnofw Bullhead minnow -Notropis spp. 0 Iiver carpsucker 199 Quillback 0 Blue sucker 33 Smallmouth buffalo 79 Bignouth buffalo 73 Black buffalo 1 Golden redhorse 3 Shorthead redhorso 1 Black bullhead 0 Channel catfish 93 Flathead catfish 14 Hosquitofish 0 Brook silveaside 15 White bass 48 Wiper Green sunfish 26 Orangespotted sunfish 2 Bluegill 2 Longear sunfish 11 Bluegill I Longear sunfish -Spotted bahs 8 Largemouth bass 1 White crappie 83 Walley* 0 Freshwater drum 190 0.4 0.1 31.1 7.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 13.5 0.0 2.2 5.4 5.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 6.3 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.3 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.1 5.7 0.0 12.9 7 3 563 101 0 2 0 0 139 0 38 63 28 5 3 0 78 17 1 0 54 153 3 0 9 6 1 31 S 221 0.5 0.2 36.7 6.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 2.5 4.1 1.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 5.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 3.5 10.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.1 2.0 0.3 14.4 9 9 271 1 149 0 7 0 0 323 0 21 58 36 9 1 1 0 93 11 0 0 120 52 I 0 4 9 2 75 8 192 0.6 0.6 18.5 0.1 10.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 22.1 0.0 1.4 4.0 2.5 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 6.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 8.2 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.1 5.1 0.5 13.1 7 0 62 0 43 0 0 152 1 7 46 8 2 0 2 0 35 42 0 2 15 15 0 0 s 5 1 30 4 60 23 546 14.0 39.0 1.3 0.0 11.4 0.0 7.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 27.8 0.2 1.3 8.4 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 6.4 7.7 0.0 0.4 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.2 5.5 0.7 11.0 8 0 720 0 33 0 1 0 0 91 0 10 42 8 0 0 7 0 37 18 0 15 35 3 2 2 3 0 2 25 4 52 21 1,118 18.0 62.1 0.7 0.0 64.4 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.9 3.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.3 1.6 0.0 1.3 3.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 2.2 0.4 4.6 0 2 101 0 29 0 4 0 0 51 0 8 5$8 21 0 0 6 0 40 22 0 0 31 2 2 1 4 0 1 34 3 57 20 477 9.0 53.0 0.0 0.4 21.2 0.0 6.1 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 1.7 12.2 4.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 8.4 4.6 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.2 7.1 0.6 11.9 6 7 94 0 21 1 0 0 0 1 18 1 1 24 6 1 0 0 3 5 1 0 0 9 3 4 3 2 4 2 0 2 0 45 2.3 2.6 35.5 0.0 7.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.8 0.4 0.4 9.1 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.1 1.9 1.1 0.8 1.5 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 17.0 4 a 250 0 48 0 0 3 0 2 2 1 0 46 3 8 22 8 0 0 0 0 40 34 0 1 10 1 22 4 1 5 1 4 1 16 0 41 25 587 17.9 32.8 0.7 1.4 42.6 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 7.8 0.5 1.4 3.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 5.8 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.2 3.6 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.2 2.7 0.0 7.0 5 2 276 0 21 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 31 0 2 31 10 0 0 1 2 6 23 0 0 6 0 3 1 0 7 0 3 0 6 0 23 22 462 12.0 38.5 1.1 0.4 59.7 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.4 6.7 2.2 0.0 0;0 0.2 0.4 1.3 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 5.0 No. Species Total No. Fish Units of Effort Catch Per Unit of Effort 26 1,469 20.0 73.4 24 1,S32 17.0 90.1 24 1,462 18.0 81.2 24 265 16.5 16.1 Notes 1977-81 and 1985-87 data include fish collected Location 1.from Locations 1, 4, and 10; 1982 data only from TABLE 5-5

SUMMARY

OF PREOPERATIONAL (1977-82)

AND OPERATIONAL (1985-87)CATCH DATA FOR PREDOMINANT FISHES COLLECTED BY ELECTROFISHING IN THE NEOSHO RIVER NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS Pre-Operational Catches (1977-82)Operational Catches (1985-87)Species Gizzard shad Carp River carpuscker Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass White crappie Freshvater drum No. X 2,714 471 955 346 174 376 124 303 278 772 32.9 7.1 14.5 5.2 2.6 5.7 1.9 4.6 4.2 11.7 CPE 20.3 4.4 8.9 3.2 1.6 3.5 1.2 2.8 2.6 7.2 No. '620 90 95 77 24 51 58 22 24 109 47.2 6.8 7.2 5.9 1.8 3.9 4.4 1.9 1.8 8.3 CPS 13.4 1.9 2.0 1.6 0.5 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.5 2.3 5-19 TABLE 5-6 AVERAGE ELECTROFISHING CPE FOR PREDOMINANT FISHES IN THE NEOSHO GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS, 1977-1982 AND 1985-1987 RIVER NEARWOLF CRESK species Location 1 Gizzard shad River carpsucker Freshwater drum Channel catfish Smalluouth buffalo White bass White crappie Carp.Bigmouth buffalo Flathead catfish Total CPS Location 10 Gizzard shad River carpsucker Freshwater drum Channel catfish Smallmouth buffalo White bass White crappie Carp Bigmouth buffalo Flathead catfish Total CPO Location.

4 Gizzard shad River carpsucker Freshwater drum Channel catfish Smallmouth buffalo White bass White crappie Carp Bigmouth buffalo Flathead catfish Total CPS Year 1978 1979. 1980 1981 1902 1985 1986 1987 moen 53.9 18.1 6.9 6.1 5.4 5.6 10.0 1.8 9.1 1.4 120.3 1.1 7.7 14.0 4.0 4.3 0.2 0.3 12.3 0.0 0.2 44.1 3.2 1.7 8.5 0.7 1.7 0.3 0.3 4.7 0.2 0.3 21.6 67.1 13.2 9.6 5.3 3.7 7.3 4.0 6.4 3.1 1.7 121.4 10.2 3.6 17.4 6.2 5.0 0.2 0.2 8.6 1.2 0.4 53.4 26.5 35.8 9.8 6.5 3.8 14.2 6.1 11.5 2.0 1.0 121.2 6.4 3.4 15.8 4.4 4.0 0.6 1.6 3.4 3.0 0.4 43.4 5.3 20.2 3.5 5.2 3.3 2.3 4.7 5.5 1.3 3.5 54.8 0.8 3.8 6.5 0.8 5.2 0.0 0.5 2.2 0.0 2.5 24.3 6.8 4.0 1.2 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.8 17. 1 66.6 6.9 1.9 3.3 2.3 3.3 2.5 2.0 0.7 0.6 90.1 5.3 3.0 5.8 0.3 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.3 20.5 8.3 2.5 2.5 0.6 2.8 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.6 21.O 11.2 5.7 6.3 4.4 6.4 3.4 3.6 3.2 2.3 2.4 49.1 15.6 1.8 5.8 0.4 1.6 1.8 0.4 1.6 0.9 0.2 30.5 3.8 1.2 1.3 0.3 1.3 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.2 0.5 1.6 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 5.1 6.6 3.1 2.5 5.4 1.4 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.0 2.2 29.3 32.0 1.8 2.S 1.0 1.0.0.0 0.2 4.3.0.2 0.7 44.2 1.0.2.8 1.8 0.3 1.3 0.2 0.3 2.0 0.2 2.8 12.7 65.0 4.8 1.8 0.5 3.2 1.5 0.8 3.2 2.0 1.5 64.3 2.0 0.6 2.2 0.8 3.0 0.0* 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 11.3 2.0 2.2 1.6 0.2 1.S 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 3.6 12.6 35.6 12.2 5.3 4.3 3.5 4.5 4.1 4.1 2.5 1.6 77.9 7.7 3.2 6.4 2.2 3.2 0.4 0.4 4.5 0.6 0.6 31.3 4.0 2.9 4.8 1.0 1.7 0.2 0.3 2.5 0.2 1.7 19.4 8.4 5.4 13.4 2.0 2.4 0.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 0.6 3S.4 2.2 4.0 7.0 3.8 1.6 0.6 0.4 7.6 1.0 0.2 28.4 Notes: 1. CPS -number of fish caught per 30 mn. of effort.2. Dash I-) indicates location not sampled.5-20 TABLE 5-7 NUMBER OF SELECTED FISHES COLLECTED BY SEINING IN THE NEOSHO RIVER NZAR THU WOLF CREEK GUNERATIEG STATION. BURLINGTON, KANSAS, 1973 THROUGH 1981 AND 1985 THROUGH 1987:1 .~ -~ --,--~ ..'.species Gizzard shad Ghost shiner Red shiner Bluntnosa minnow Bullhead minnow Slim minnow Neosho madton Mosquitofish Total fish (All species)No. collections No. fish per collection Year 1973 1974 2975 "1976 " 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 2.985 " 1986. 1987 0 35 42 0 92 0 0 0 207 0 21 910 2 2 7 0 24 990 3 100 1,358 3 14 64 0 108 1,920 1,669 606 2,928 43 238 32 12 3 54 5,944 41 412 981 131 1t2:4 19 49 1.626 1,174 270 2,381 11 174 0 46 69 4,418 149 264 2,536 29 188 22 12 2 3,491 6i 21 3,808 3 236 6 6 4 4,357 94 125 1,405 a 47 13 34 15 1,829 16 114 1,072 1,962 3,934 0 42 113 8 24 7,314 17 430 333 621 1,153 2 6 15 19 6 2.254 130 594 728 13 13 4 1 317 1,956 11 179 8 a 26 124 8 26 240 229 26 28 43 156 25 14 140 311.16 124 LA TABLE 5-8

SUMMARY

OF PREOPERATIONAL (1976-82)

AND OPERATIONAL (1985-87)

CATCH DATA FOR PREDOMINANT FISHES COLLECTED BY SEINING IN THE NEOSHO RIVER NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS Preoperational catches Average catch No. % per collection Operational catches Species Gizzard shad Ghost shiner Red shiner Bullhead minnov Mosquitofish Game fish Other Total Average catch No. per collection 3,088 1,711 12,836 766 219 729 819 20,168 15.3 8.5 63.6 3.8 1.1 3.6 4.1 29.7 16.5 123.4 7.4 2.1 7.0 7.9 193.9 1,535 3,177 5,768 61 347 237 362 11,487 13.4 27.6 50.2 0.5 3.0 2.1 3.2 33 4 69.1 125.4 1.3 7.5 5.2 7.9 249.7 5-22 TABLE 5-9 NUMBER OF PREDOMINANT FISHES COLLECTED BY GENZtAYTUNG 5YAT!O3. 1676--82.

A~gn 1986-87 3I1N3B3 AT T3RAZ LOCATIONS ON TEE NEOSHO RIVER NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 1916-62 AND 1985-87 Total No. Per go. Sampling Date Species Location 1 Gizzard shad Ghost shiner Red shiner Bullhead minnow mosquito fish Game fish Other Total Location 10 Gizzard shad Ghost shiner Red shiner Bullhead minnow mosquito fish Game fish Other Total Location 4 Gizzard shad Ghost shiner Red shiner Bullhead minnow mosquito fish Game fish Other Total 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1965 1986 1987 1,664 422 49 0 S 194 39 2,373 4 87 433 8 10 13 43 598 1 77 1,222 106 34 8 65 1,513 37 195 130 0 0 13 30 405 4 71 276 2 12 8 25 398 0 143 554 6 37 3 25 770 1,054 205 438 0 42 74 56 1,671 2 19 787 66 13 13 61 961 2 44 1,131 106 14 14 54 1,367 148 165 153 0 0 179 36 663 1 7 1,068 26 1 19 25 1,147 0$3 1,302 159.1 13 51 1,609 29 18 1,184 17 4 17 61 1,350 0 3 1,987 215 0 4 40 2,249 37 0 637 4 0 22 55 755 as 13 146 0 3 46 16 312 11 47 78 0 31 72 84 323 4 44 308 7 0 8 17 388 2 68 953 40 12 9 12 1,096 1,056 540 535 2 13 45 43 2,234 16 245 1,095 23 6 39 33 1,457 0 1,177 2,304 17 S 12 108 3,623 297 317 59 0 0 49 7 729 4 103 273 I 7 33 422 32 201 774 5 5 11 38 1,066 is 30 30 0 6 36 1i 198 5 133 464.2 143 4 24 775 47 431 234 11 168 34 58 983 4,462 1,952 2,602 19 104 725 414 10,478 40 712 6,691 350 186 115 301 6,395 121 2,224 9,111 458 276 126 466 12,782 12.0* 31.5 45.2 0.3 1.7 11.7 6.7 169.0 0.9 15.8 148.7 7.8 4.1 2.6 6.7 186.6 2.8 51.7 211.9 10.7 6.4 2.9 10.8 297.3% of Total 42.6 18.6 26.7 0.2 i.0 6.9 4.0 0.5 8.5 79.7 4.2 2.2 1.4 3.6 0.9 17.4 71.3 3.4 2.2 1.0 3.6 APPENDIX A SUPPLEMENTAL WATER QUALITY FIGURES Abbreviated Title Figure A-i A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 Temporal variations in total suspended solids (TSS)Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal Temporal variations variations variations variations variations variations variations variations variations variations variations variations variations variations variations in in in In in in In in in in in in in in in calcium concentrations magnesium concentrations soluble orthophosphate total iron concentrations total alkalinity nitrate concentrations total dissolved solids (TDS)sulfate concentrations total organic nitrogen (TON)nickel concentrations ammonia concentrations chemical oxygen demand (COD).biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)copper concentrations chromium concentrations Page A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 Total Suspended Solids (TSS)NEOSHO RNVJR L 6 E 0 2 C!500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 74 76 78, 80 82 84 86 88 Year Total Suspended Solids (TSS)WCGS Cooling Law.350 E 200-150-100-50-0 81 I a 85 I a 67 Year Figure A-1.Temporal variations In total suspended solids (TSS) for the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake. 1974-1987.

A-3 Calcium NEOSHO RIER 130 120 110 100 16 C E C a o 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 86 Calcium WCGS Cooling Loke E.C all 63 87 Figure A-2a Temporal variations in calciurn concentrations for tow Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake. 1974-1987.

A.,

Magnesium NEOSHO RIVER L E r Ia 0 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 as Year Magnesium WCGS Cooling L.dw 50 40-E C 20-tO0 0.4 a1 83 85 87 Yewr Figure A-3a Temporal variations In magneslumn Neosho River and WCGS Cooling concentrations for the Lake. 1974-1987.

A-3 Orthophosphate NEOSHO RIVEIR L E c 0 0 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 74 76 75 80 62 84 86 as Yer Orthophosphate WCGS Cooling Lake ...IL E C a Ui 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10.O.09 0.00.O.0 0.O6-0.05-0.O4-0.03-0.02-0.01 -0.00-81 83 85 87 Year Figure A-4.Temporal variations in soluble orthophophate for the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake. 1974-1987.

A-4 Total Iron NEOSHO RIVER I.0 S 2 C a 6 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 74 76 78 s0 82 84 66 88 Year Total Iron WCGS Cooling Lake 10 p I 7 E C 6 5 4., 3 2 0 0 Year Figure A-5.Temporal variations in total iron concentrations for the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake, 1974-1987.

A-5 Total Alkalinity NEOSHO RIVER E r a o 3801" 3601 340~320-300-n 250 260 240 1*2201 200 -1 180 --160-140-120 74---I-76 78 so 82 84 86 as Yewr Total.Alkalinity I E 81 W w 87 Year Figure A-6. Temporal variations in total alkalinity for the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake. 1974-1937.

A-6 Nitrate NEOSHO RV L 6 E C 0 S)E I.2 2.1 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 Nitrate WCGS Cooling Lake 81 83 85 87 Yaw" Figure A-7.Temporal variations in nitrate concentrations for the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake. 1974-1917.

A-7 Total Dissolved Solids NEOSHO RIVE E C S00 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 , 8 Yeaw Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)WCCS Cooling Lake 500 400 I.2 I 2 300 200 100 0 81 83 85 87 Yeaw Figure. A-B.Temporal variations In total dissolved solids (TDS) for the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake. 1974-1987.

~A-8 Sulfates NEOSHO RIVER I.U E C 6 140 130 120 110 100 90 s0 70 60 so 30 20 10 80 Yewr as Sulfates WCCS Coonlng LAke.I 120 110-100-90 80 70 60 30 40 30 20, 10-0" I 81 83 as Yewr I 67 Figure A-9.Temporal variations In sulfate concentrations for the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake. 1974-1987.

A-9 Total Organic Nitrogen NEOSHO RIVER E C o 2.1 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 74 76 76 80 82 64 86 66 Yew Total Organic Nitrogen..WCGS Cooling -'ake ... ..5.0 E r 81 63 85 67 Yeaw Figure A-1O.Temporal variations in total organic nitrogen (TON) for the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake, 1974-1987.

A-in Nickel NEOSHO RIVIE 80 70 60 L U N.S 2 C a 0 2 40 30 20 10 0 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 as Year Nickel WCGS Cooling Lake 2 I 2 30-20-10-I 63 65 I 6 87 Year Figure A-1I.Temporal variations In nickel concentrations for the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake. 1983-1987.

A-11 AMMONIA NEOSHO RIVER 0.5 0.4 I.E C a SE 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 74 76 76 s0 82 84 86 88 Yew Ammonia 1.0 0.9 0.O 0.7 E C aI 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 81 83 85 87 Year Figure A-12.Temporal variations In ar-rnonlu concentrations for the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake, 1974-1987.

A-1 I Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)NEOSHO RI 1 10 100.90 70 7 Go-o 70" S 20 -40 30*10*0 ' p .I I I I I 74 75 8s 82 86 Year Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)WCGS Cooling LaeG 100*900 70-60 E 50-C 40 30 20 10 8l. 83 85 157.Yew.Figure A-13. Temporal variational In chemical .oxygen demand (COD) for the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake. 1974-1987.

A-13 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)NEOSHO RMVt 8 7 6 S L 0 0 E C a U 2 4 3 2.0 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 Be Year Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)WCCS Cooling LaWe 10 U-m 8-C 7-8-5-4-3-2-1-0.4 81 83 85 87 Yewr Figure A-14.Temporal variations In biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) for the Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake. 1974-1987.

A-3.4 Copper NEOSHO RIVR S.S 0 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 a 6.4 2 0 74 76 78 s0 82 84 86 as Yew Copper WCGS Cooling Luke 50 40 U: C U1 30.20, 0 81 85 67 Figure A-15.Temporal variations in copper concentrations for tie Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake. 1974-1987.

A-15 Chromium NEOSHO RIVER C o 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10.0 74 76 75 80 82 64 86 86 Year Chromium WCOSCoolnC 0 Lke.la): C 120-110I 100 go.80-70 60 50 40 30 20 10, 0 61 I kk1-1-1 .I I -83 Year I 1 87 Figure A-16&Temporal variations In chromilun concentrations for to Neosho River and WCGS Cooling Lake. 1983-1987.

A-16 Table B-i B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15 B-16 B-17 APPENDIX B 1987 DATA TABLES Contents Abbrelvated Title Replicate water chemistry data ... 2 March 1987 Replicate water chemistry data... 28 April 1987 Repli cate water chemistry data ... 23 June 1987 Replicate water chemistry data ... 24 August 1987 Water quality data from groundwater samples ... 1987 Phytoplankton and zooplankton production

... 1987 Hacroinvertebrate Hacroinvertebrate Macroinvertebrate Macroinvertebrate Macroinvertebrate Macroinvertebrate Macroinvertebrate species species species species family family family densities

...densities

...densities

...densities

...densities

...densities

...densities

...2 March 1987 27 & 28 April 1987 22 June 1987 24 August 1987 March 1987!7 & 28 April 1987.2 June 1987 4 August 1987 Page B-1.B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-9 B-l1 B-13 B-15 B-17 B-19 B-20 B-21 B-22 B-25 2 2 2 2 Macroinvertebrate family densities

...Physical measurements recorded during fish surveys in the Neosho River ... 1987 Electroshocking catch data for the Neosho River .., 1987 Seine data for the Neosho River ... 1987 TABLE 8-1 REPLICATE WATER CHEMISTRY DATA FOR GENERATING STATION. 2 MARCH 1987 SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM THE NEOSHO RIVER AND THE COOLING LAKE FOR WOLF CREEK Parameter Water Temperature Dissolved Oxygen pH Conductivity Total Alkalinity Turbidity Residue (TDS)(TSS)Biochemical Oxygen Demand Oil and Grease Bacteria, Fecal Coliform Calcium Total Chromium Copper Total iron soluble Iron Magnesium Nickel Chemical Oxygen Demand Chloride Ammonia-Nitrogen Uitrite-Nitrogen Nitrate-Nitrogen Orthophosphate Sulfate units 1A lB I0A 105 4A 48 2A 2B 0A 6B 8A as C mg/l units pmhos/ca mg/l NTU mg/l mg/l mg/l 22/1 30./ba0 ml mg/i pg/i Fg/I mg/i mg/i mg/l o 00/mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/i g9/1 mg/l mg/1 09/1 7.0 13.7 8.0 420 310 48 298 76 4.0 19 53.2 0.006 0.045 2.7 0.02 19.2 0.001 20 12 0.24 0.04 0.45 0.02 s8 13.8 8.1 420 380 50 258 82 3.45 3.1 17 56.0 0.006 0.010 2.4 0.10 15.6 0.017 (10 11 0.23 0.04 0.44 0.02 so 8.0 13.2 7.2 440 310 58 304 100 1.0 (3 88 (0.1 0.025 0.013 3.1 0.6 15.6 0.006 30 12 0.32 0.06 0.77 0.06 55 13.4 7.4 440 300 52 284 86 1.34 (3 94 (0.1 0.010 0.009 3.7 0.21 15.4 0.004 (10 10 0.30 0.06 0.55 0.06 56 8.0 12.3 7.1 410 320$8 624 S2 3.56 (3 36 61.1 0.007 0.010 3.2 0.06 18.6 0.006 30 10 0.36 0.06 0.43 0.06 54 12.7 7.2 410 290 90 628 44 5.41 (3 38 56.2 0.009 0.016 5.2 0.10 17.6 0.011 (10 10 0.36 0.07 0.46 0.06 53 12.5 12.0 7.9 320 250 17 164 4 2.0 (3 55 33.5 0.006 0.010 0.77 1.60 12.1 0.002 20 15 0.12 0.02 0.14 0.02 49-10.4 -7.9 7.9 7.9.320 320 320 243 251 256 18 5 5 232 272 146 4 8 4 2.3 2.9 2.6 (3 03 (3 38 0 0 32.7 36.8 40.1 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.73 0.15 0.19 0.06 (0.02 <0.102 12.5 14.9 15.6 (0.001 (0.001 (0.001 20 (10 10 15 16. 16 0.14 0.19 0.16 0.02 (0.01 (0.01 0.22 0.17 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.03 48 50 50 6.0 13.6 7.9 320 260 11 216 12 2.2 (3 1 38.4 0.003 0.029 0.34 0.02 15.2 (0.001 (10 15 0.23 (0.01 O15 0.03 49 7.9 320 230 9 128 12 2.3 4 39.0 0.003 0.018 0.35 0.02 16.2 (0.001 10 16 0.24 (0.01 0.13 0.04 49 TADLE 5-2 REPLICATE WATER CEUNISTRY DATA FOR SAUPLES COLLECTED ROX TEE 3OSO RIVER AND THE COOLING LUKE FOR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 28 APRIL 1987 Parameter water Temperature Dissolved Oxygen pH Conductivity Total Alkalinity Turbidity Residue (TDS)(TSS)Biochemical Oxygen Demand Oil and Grease Bacteria, Fecal. Colifore Calcium Total Chromium Copper Total Iron Soluble Iron magnesium Nickel Chemical Oxygen Demand Chloride Ammonia-Nitrogen Organic Nitrogen Nitrite-Nitrogen Nitrate-Nitrogen Orthophosphate Sulfate units lA I 10A 10 4A 4B 2A 2B 6A 63 $A as C mg/i units pahoa/cm mg/I NTU ng/1 mg/1 mg/l mg/l Ne./100 ml Fg/1 pg/l mg/1 mg/i pg/l mg/l mg/i mg/i mg/l Ug/I mg/i mg/l mg/l 20.0 9.5 7.4 370 392 42 306 42 3.0<3 23 50.4 0.006 3.70 0.06 10.0 0.002 20 10 0.06 0.3 0.07 1.83 0.03 50 9.6 7.7 380 354 42 326 28 3.3 (3 23 53.7 0.002 0.007 0.45 0.06 5.0 0.001 10 10 0.06 0.4 0.07 0.87 0.03 49 20.5 9.2 8.1 420 385 39 266 76 2.6'3 10 66.0 0.003 0.006 2.14 0.19 11.2 0.001 20 11 0.04 0.4 0.06 0.88 0.03 51 9.3 8.3 420 383 37 224 146 2.1'3 46 62.2 0.003 0:.015* .*80 0.06 11.0 0. 002 40 11 0.03 0.5 0.06 1.01 0.03 so 20.5 6.1 420 378 37 352 44 3.7 (3 36 63.5 0.005 0.009 3.42 0.06 11.2 0.002 20 11 0.13.0.2 0.05 0.79 0.03 52 9.7 8.1 430 376 37 326 60.3.1'3 10 54.7 0.004.0.005 2.64 0.06 10.8 0.001 10 11 0.04 0.5 0.05 0.99 0.03 52 22.0 8.0 8.0 300 305 2.8 250 1 1.7<3 0 36.6 0.001 0.00 6 0.15 0.06 9.0 0.001 30 15 0.11 0.9<0.01 0.77 (0.01 50-20.0.8.1 310 296 2.8 224 1 2.3 C3 0 37.0 0.002 0.005 0.15 0.15 8.3 (0.001 20 15 0.11 0.6 0.01 0.22 (0.01 50 8.6 8.0 300 291 2.5 136 8 1.6 C3 0 42.6 0.002 0.005 0.15 0.06 9.4 (0.001 30*15 0.09 0.7 0.01 0.03 40.01 5o*- 16.5-8.6 8.2 8.0 320 380 294 292 2.0 2.5 198 112 16 16 1.5 1.4 (3 (3 0 0 36.0 40.0 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.15 0.26 0.06 0.06 9.2 9.1 (0.001 0.007 40 30 15 15 0.09 0.10 0.4 0.6 0.01 (0.01 0.02 0.08 (0.01 (0.01 51 49 8.2 325 295 2.2 214 2 2.2'3 0 40. 3 0.002 0.009 0.26 0.10 9.2 0.002 40 15 0.10 0.9 (0.01 0.03 (0.01 56 TABLE 8-3 REPLICATE WATER CVUEISTRY DATA FOR GENERATING STATION, 23 JUNE 1987 SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM TEE OSHO RIVER AND THE COOLING LAKE FOI WOLF CREEK Parameter Water Temperature Dissolved Oxygen pH Conductivity Total Alkalinity Turbidity Residue (TDS)(TSS)Biochemical oxygen Demand Oil and Grease Bacteria, Fecal Coliform Calcium Total Chromium Copper Total Iron Soluble Iron Magnesium Nickel Chemical Oxygen Demand Chloride Ammonia-Nitrogen Organic Nitrogen Nitrite-Nitrogen Nitrate-Nitrogen Orthophosphate Sulfate Units IA IB IOA 10B 4A 43 2A 23 6A 6o 8A 83 C units pnhoa/cm mg/l NTU mg/i mg/l mg/i mg/I no./100 al mg/i pg/l pg/i mg/I mg/I mg/i pg/i mg/I ng/i mg/l Mg/i mg/l mg/i ng/1 30.5 7.9 8.3 450 170 38 204 50 3.2 (3 124 52.4 0.018 0.012 2.27 (0.02 12.5 0.006<10 10 0.06 1.5 0.03 0.82 0.02 6o 7.6 8.3 460 174 33 180 50 3.1 (3 37 46.7 0.006 0.008.1.90 40.02 13.6 0.005 (10 10 0.10 1.4 0.03 0.82 0.03 66 30.0 7.5 8.1 460 174 47 216 64 1.6 (3 31 52.8 0.008 0.004 3.02 (0.02 15.4 0.006<(IO 10 (0.03 1.2 (0.01 1.14 0.05 66 7.4 8.3 440 176 30 238 66 1.7<3 35 53.0 0.007 0.006 2.04 (0.02 15:3 0.005 4 410 10 0.06 1.0 (0.01 1.04 0.03 66 29.0 7.8 7.8 470 181 34 194 70 1.9'3 32 51.6 0.012 0.013 2.18 (0.02 13.5 0.005 (10 11 (o.03 1.2 (0.01 1.04 0.03 66 7.7 7.9 470 178 35 186 66 1.5 (3 37 56.7 0.010 0.006 2.48 40.02 15.5 0.011 (10 10 0.06 1.0 (0.01 1.08 0.05 66 33.0 7.0 8.4 400 142 5 186 2 2.6 1 40.3 0.003 0.005 0.11 (0.02 13.4 0.005 (10 15 (0.03 0.7 (0.01 0.03 0.02 62 8.5 400 142 3 164 4 1.5 (3 1 40.6 0.002 0.001 0.10 40.02 13.2 0.002 (10 is (0.03 0.9 40.01 0.12 40.01 62 27.5 8.2 8.0 400 138 2 160 10 1.1 (3 0 42.2 0.003 0.007 0.10 (0.02 13.8 0.003 (10 14 (0.03 0.5 (O.Ol (0.01 40.01 63 8.1 400 139.3 168 4 1.0 (3 1 40.0 0.003 0.003 0.04 (0.02 13.2 0.002 (10 is<0.03 a.A (0.01 0.02 (0.01 62 27.5 8.2 8.6 400 140 3 148 14 1.6 (3 0 40.5 0.003 0.003 0.12 (0.02 13.7 0.002 C1O 14 (0.03 0.7 (0.01 0.04 (0.01 62 8.5 400 142 5 176 2 1.2 (3 0 37.3 0.003 0.002*0.12 (0.02 13.0 0.002<10 13 (0.03 0.7 40.01 0.06 (0.01 62 TABLE 3-4 REPLICATE WATER CHEMISTRY DATA FOR SAMPLES COLLECTED FIOM, THE N3OSO RIVER AND THE COOLING LAIR FOR WOLF CIEEK GENERATING STATION, 24 AUGUST 1987 Parameter Water Temperature Dissolved Oxygen pH Conductivity Total Alkalinity Turbidity Residue (TDS)(TSS)Biochemical Oxygen Demand oil and Grease Bacteria.

Fecal Collifors Calcium Total Chromium Copper Total Iron Soluble Iron magnesium Nickel Chemical Oxygen Demand Chloride t Ammonia-Nitrogen Nitrite-Nitrogen Nitrate-Nitrogen Orthophosphate Sulfate Units C ug/l units mnhes/cn mg/i STU mg/l mg/i mg/l mg/i U0./100 ml mg/1 0g/1 ng/l lg/l ng/l Mg/1 ug/1 ng/l ng/l ng/l mg/l mg/l 1A 13 10A 10B 4A 43 2A 23 6A 63 $A Is 6.8 7.6 360 125 33 280 40 1.0 03 102 43.9 0.005 0.005 2.6 0.03'.45 0.006 30 14 0.04 0.10 0.42 0.06 37 9.0 7.3 380 136 33 272 50 1.0<3 46 42.6 0.005 0.003 3.7 0.02 11.8 0.003 30 14 0.05 0.10 0.43 0.07 36 6.9 7.5 375 126 33 268 400 0.6 (3 54 36.1 0.008 0.007 3.4 0.03 10.3 0.011 30 14 0.04 0.06 0.59 (0.01 33 6.8..7.4 380 130 30 266 60 0.8<3 62 36.4 0. 008 0.007.2.9 0.02 10.5 0!.0o09 60 14 o0.04 0.06 0.54 40.01 35 7.9 7.4 380 129 35 274 52 0.8 (3 22 44.3 0.48 0.036 5.9 0.02 11.0 0.014 30 15 0.04 0.06 0.55 0.07 34 7.8 7.4 375 132 38 270 50 0.8 (3 34 41.4 0.020 0.012 5.8 0.02 9.72 0.005 30 13 0.05 0.06 0.55 0.07 33 26.0 7.4 7.9 400 120 4.0 244 6 1.1 (3 1 29.9 0.006 0.051 2.6 (0.03 10.8 0.029 40 19 0.06 0.01 0.02 (0.01 44 7.4 400.125 3.5 244 6 0.4 43 2 31.2 0.006 0.018 2.5 0.02 5.84 0.013 70 19 0.06 0.01 0.02 40.01 45 26.0 7.7 1.6 360 115 3.7 238 2 0.2'3 0 36.1 (0.003 (0.003 0.21 0.02 12.4 (0.001 70 19 0.06 0.01 0.03 40.01 45 7.7 360 115 3.2 246 (3 0 35.7 (0.003 40.003 0.13 0.02 11.6 0.001 30 19 0.04 0.01 0.02 40.01 45 27.0 7.6 7.5 360 115 6.3 256 6 0.4<3 0 38.3.0.003 0.003 0.46 0.02 12.5 (0.001 70 19 0.09 (0.01 0.01 tO.01 45 7.3 360 116 5.0 244 4 0.3<3 2 36.4 0.004 40.003 0.36 0.01 12.6 40.001 60 18 0.05 40.01 (0.01 (0.01 45 TABLE B-5 WATER QUALITY DATA FROM GROUNDWATER SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF VOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS, 1987 MARCH APRIL Parameter Units B12 C20_ C49 D- B12 C20 C49 D65 Temperature C _(a) ---16.5 14.5 19.0 14.5 pH units 7.2 7.3 7.0 7.4 8.2 7.3 7.3 6.9 Alkalinity mg/l 310 881 523 515 1,057 592 740 296 Conductivity umhos/cm 3,400 1,000 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,000 2,600 Hardness -Total mg/1 929 613 532 608 528 659 490 1,010 Residue (TDS) mg/i 2,490 836 1,090 1,922 802 1,040 610 2,454 Calcium mg/i 227 213 135 209 155 240 130 317 Chloride mg/1 800 360 56 310 67 200 55 400 Hagnesium mg/1 88 19.8 47.4 21.0 34 14.5 40.1 53 Sulfate mg/i 70 58 20 58 19 50 90 42 Nitrate (as N) mg/i 290 61 7.4 54 0.52 42.3 5.11 220 Iron -Total mg/i 10.5 1.82 0.06 5.34 3.76 1.76 0.13 0.54 Iron -Soluble m8/i 0.17 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.15 0.11 0.21 0.10 AUGUST-B12 C20 'C49_ D6_.5 Temperature C ----pH units 7.0 7.4 7.0 6.9 Alkalinity mg/1 200 265 360 148 Conductivity umhos/cm 2,00 1,220 1,000 2,400 Hardness -Total mg/1 572 608 408 996 Residue (TDS) mg/i 1,144 1,080 824 2,310 Calcium mg/i 205 214 111 286 Chloride mg/i 160 170 46 420 Magnesium mg/i 15.6 17.9 31.8 68.4 Sulfate mg/1 54 52 29 77 Nitrate (as N) mg/i 52 47 0.84 240 Iron -Total mg/i 2.1 3.7 <.01 21 Iron -Soluble mg/i 0.03 0.06 0.55 0.05 (a) No data available.

TABLE B-6 PHYTOPLANKTON AND ZOOPLANKTON PRODUCTION IN THE COOLING LAKE OF WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, BURLINGTON, KANSAS, 1987 Date Location 2,3 MAR 2 6 8 Mean Phytoplankton Chlorophyll a Concentration F1: (mg/m3) (m 10.4 8.4 7.5 8.8 Carbon tation Rate g C/m3/hr)Dry Wel (mg/m Zooplankton Ash-Free.ght Dry Veight n3) (mg/m3)6.5 8.7 7.0 7.4 27,28 APR 22 JUN 24 AUG 23 NOV 28 DEC Annual Average 2 6 8 Mean 2 6 8 Mean 2 6 8 Mean 2 6 8 Mean 2 6 8 Mean 2 6 8 Mean 4.5 3.8 4.5 4.3 7.4 6.0 7.5 7.0 7.6 7.3 11.1 8.6 14.6 12.9 11.2 12.9 4.0 4.0 5.8 4.6 10.6 9.9 13.6 11.4 301 43 79 141 93 93 265 150 200 95 65.120 61 24 40 42 66 71 187 108 23 28 25 25 83 76 79 79 23 32 57 37 4.9 4.8 3.4 4.4 3.5 4.9 5.3.4.6 6.4 5.9 6.6 6.3 8.9 9.1 9.4 9.1 169 77 97 114 43 39 77 53 Note: Dash (-) indicates location not sampled.B-6 TABLR 0-7 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION -1987 MACROINVERTECRAT STUDY PONAN RESULTS: REPLICATE COUNTS AND MEAN DENSITZES FOR SPECIES DATE: 02MAR87 AND LOCATIONs 2 REP A REP a COUNT COUNT SPECIES Dero digitata Coenagrionidao n.Leptoceridae 1.Chaoborus punctipennis 1.Coolotanypus 1.Chironomus 1.Glyptotendipe.

1.TOTAL BENTHOS MEAN (I/sq a)9.4 9.4 9.4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 9.4 5 2 66.0 2 7 84.9 6 0 56.6 16 10 245.3 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85 26.92 34.62 23.08 100.00 w DATE: 02MAR87 AND LOCATION:

4 SPECIES Branchiura soverbyi Limno. claparodianus Limnodrilus hoffselateri Iam. tub. v/o cap. chaet.isonychia n, Stnoaonea n.Cheumatopsyche 1.Potamyia flava 1.Stenolsis 1.Chironomidae p.orthocladiinas 1.Cricot. tremulum grp. I..Eukiefferiella 1.Hydrobaenus 1.OrthocladLus 1.Chironominae 1.Cryptochironomu8 1.Polypedilum scalaenua 1.Corbicula TOTAL UENSTOS 8 1 1 2 2 0 1 2 7 23 0 2 0 0 2 0 5 5 REP A REP 8 COUNT COUNT HEAR (6/sq -)292.S 9.4 28.3 18.9 18.9 18.9 9.4 66.0 113.2 66.0 132.1 9.4 141.5 226.4 37.7 26.3 9.4 28.3 56.6 1311.3 (1)22.30 0.72 2.16 1.44 1.44 1.44 0.72 5.04 8.63 5.04 10.07 0.72 10.79 17.27 2.88 2.16.0.72 2.16 4.32 100.00 7 0 9 5 0 1 13 2 21 3 4 0 2 1 1 0 3 0 2 4 86 53 Ion C I TABLR 3-7 (Cont.)DATS: 02MAR87 AND LOCATION:

6 REP A REP 3 MSAN COUNTr COUNT (I/sq a) (6)SPECIES Dero 1 0 9.4 3.45 Deco digltata 10 0 94.3 34.48 Aulodrilus piguetj 3 0 28.3 10.34 Chaoborus punctipenals

1. .2 5 66.0 24.14 Chironomidag

p. 1 0 9.4. 3.45 Tanypodinao

1. 2 0 18.9 6.90 Procladius

1. 1 0 9.4 3.45 Coelotanypus

1. 2 0 18.9 6.90 Chironomus

1. 2 0 18.9 6.90 TOTAL BENTHOS 24 5 273.6 100.00 DATE: 02mAR87 AND LOCATION:

I RIP A aEP B MEAN COUNT COUNT (I/sq n) (6)SPECIES Aulodrilus pLgueti 1 0 9.4 11.11 Ilyodrilus templetoni 0 2 18.9 22.22 IZn. tub. v/ cap. chaoet. 1 1 18.9 22.22 Ceelotanypus

1. 0 3 28.3 33.33 Chironomus

1. 1 0 9.4. 11.11 TOTAL BENTHOS 3 6 84.9 100.00 DATE: 02MAR87 AND LOCATIONt 10 REP A REP a MEAN COUNT COONT. (U/sq a) (M)SPECIES Pristina 0 1 9.4 0o.53 Ian. tub. v/o cap. chaot. 0 1 9.4 0.53 Enchytraoldao 1 0 9.4 0.53 Stononena

n. 6 3 84.9 4.76 Stenonema pulchellum

a. 2 0 18.9 1.06 Perlldae a. .4 0 37.7 2.12 Neoperla n. 4 0 37.7 2.12 Cheumatopsyche

1. 16 1 160.4 8.99 Potanyia flava 1. 46 9 518.0 29.10 Stenelmis

1. 24 1 235.8. .13.23 Chironomidae

p. 4 4 75.5 4.23 Orthociadiinao

1. 1 2. 28.3 1.59 Cricot. treaulus gep. 1. 0 1 9.4 0.53 Eukiefferiella

1. 25 25 471.7 26.46 OrthocladLus

1. 1 2 28.3 1.59 flzatoma 1. 2 1 28.3 1.59 Corbidula 2 a 18.9 1.06 TOTAL BDETUOS 138 51 1763.0 100.00 TABLE "-, WOLF CREEK GZNERATZNG STATION -1987 STUDY PONAR IRSULTS: REPLICATR COUNTS AND REAN DRESITINS FOR SPaCI3S DATE: 27APR87 AND LOCATIONS 2 REP A REP a COUNT COUNT SPECIES Chaoborus punctipeanni 1.Coelotanypus 1.Chironamus 1.TOTAL BEETHOS 0 1 NEAN (9/sq a)9.4 84.9 37.7 132.1 7.14 64.29 28.57.100.00 4 1 5 5 3 9 DATE: 27APR87 AND LOCATION:

6 SPECIES Dero dlgitata Aulodrilus pigueti Ilyodrilus templetoni Limno. claparedianus Ins. tub. w/o cap. chaest.Ian. tub. v/ cap. chiee.Chnoborus punctLpenDiS 1.Chironouldee p.Coelotanypuz 1.Chironominae 1.Chironoaus 1.TOTAL BENTHOS REP A REP 3 COUNT COUNT NSAN (9/Iq a)3 15 8 1 5 48 1 4 3 2 0 9 7 0 66.0 169.8 94.3 9.4 132.1 518.9 9.4 9.4 18.9 9.4 18.9 1056.6 6.25 16.07 8.93 0.89 12.50 49.11 0.89 0.89 1.79 0.89 1.79 100.00 to I0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 84 28 DATEM 27APR87 AND LOCATION:

S REP A REP B MRAN COW!T COUWT (#/sq =I (I)SPECIES 2 0 18.9 33.33 Ilyodrilus tompleonL 2 0 18.9 33.33 coolotanypus

1. 2 18.9 33.33 Chlronomus

1. 2 0 18.9 33.33 TOTAL B3KT3O8 6 0 36.6 100.00 DATE: 28APR87 AND LOCATION:

4 REP A REP 3 COUNT COW!ENAN (9/sq .3 SPECIES Bydca I... tub. v/o cap. chest.SydeopsycbLdae 1.Potaeyla tlava 1.CryptochirouoUus 1.Corbicula TOTAL BsN"OS 13 4 160.4 I 0 9.4 0 1 9.4 0 1 9.4 1 0 9.4 1 0 9.4 16 6 207.5 (33 77.27 4.55 4.55 4.55 4.55 4.55 100.00 TABLE 9-8 (Cont.)DATS: 28APR87 AND LOCATION:

10.REP A REP B NMA cOUgT COUNT (I/sq a) (t)SPECIES Hydra 12 4 150.9 66.67 IZn. tub. w/o cap. cebet. 0 1 9.4 4.17 Stenonema

a. 0 1 3.4 4.17 Perlidao n. 1 0 9.4 4.17 Potamsya flavw 1. 0 2 18.3 8.33 glaidae 1. 0 1 9.4 4.17 Hezatoma 1. 1 0 9.4 4.17 Corbicula 0 1 9.4 4.17 TOTAL. 3UTEOS 14 10 226.4 100.00!0 TARLE 8-9 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION -1987 RACROINVERTEDRATE STUDY PONAR RSBULTSI REPLICATE COUNTS AND MIAN DENSITIES FOR SPECIES DATE: 22JUN87 AND LOCATION:

2 REP A R1P 3 COUNT COUNT SPECIES Bseagonis n.Thionemannlnyia not. 1.Chironosus 1.TOTAL USETHOS 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 2 MEAN (U/sq U)9.4 9.4 18.9 37.7 25.00 25.00 50.00 100.00 DATE: 22JUN87 AND LOCATION:

4 REP A REP 3 11As COUNT COUNT tt/sq a) 1%)SPECIES Sphoaon album a. 1 2 28.3 2a.75 Neooerla n. 1 1 18.9 12.50 Hydrapsychidae

p. 1 0 9.4 6.25 Potamyla flava 1. 7 3 94.3 62.50 TOTAL , ENTEOS 10 6 150.9 100.00 DATE: 22JUN87 AND LOCATION 6-REP A REP a MEAN COUNT COUNT (8/sq a). ()SPECIES Aulodrilus piguetl 1 3 37.7 66.67 Chlronomus

1. 2 0 16.2 33.33 TOTAL BUNTNOS 3 3 56.1 100.00 DATE: 22JUN87 AND LOCATION:

8 I01 SPECIES Chaoborus punctipoe~ns 1.TOTAL EN8TOS, REP A RP a.COUNT COUNT 1 0 I 0 MEAN (#/*4 a)(I)9.4 100.00 9.4 100.00

-:~- '-~~ -,?ABLE 3-9 (Cont.)DAM: 22JU387 AMD LOCATION:

10 REP A REP a KEAN COUNT COUNT (0/sq a)SPECIES sestidae n. 0 1 9.4 2.33 Ephoron album a. 2 0 18.9 4.63 Reoperla n. 0 1 9.4 2.33 Hydropsychidao

p. 3 0 28.3 6.98 Potamyia flays 1. 21 13 320.8 79.07 Steolanis

1. 1 0 9.4 2.33 Corbicula 0 1 9.4 2.33 TOTAL 5ENTHOS 27 16 405.7 100.00 td lI TAALE 8-10 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION -.1987 MACROINVERTEIRATE STUDY POWAR RESULTS: REPLZCATE COUNTS AND RME DENSITIES FOR BSPCIES DATE: 24AUG87 AND LOdATZON:

2 SPECIES Procladiu8 1.Coelotanypus 1.Chironomus 1.TOTAL BENTHOS REP A REP B COUNT COUNT 1 1 1 3 1 0 3 4 M EAN8 I0/sq a)18.9 37.7 9.4 66.0 (M3 28.57 57.14 14.29 100.00 DATE: 24AUG87 AND LOCATIONt 4 REP A REP b MEAN COUNT COUNT (8/sq a)SPECIES Glossiphoniidao 1 0 9.4 3.85 Neoperla a. 1 0 9.4 3.85 PotamyLa flava 1. 2 2 37.7 15.38 Stenelnmi

1. 1 0 9.4 3.85 Hezatoma 1. 0 1 9.4 3.85 Gastropoda 0 1 9.4 3.85 Corbicula 3 14 160.4 65.3e TOTAL BENTHOS a 18 245.3 100.00 DATEz 24AUG87 AND LOCATION&

6 REP A REP 8 MEAN COUNT COUNT (#/sq a) (6)SPECIES Coelotanypus

1. 1 .0 9.4 50.00 Chiremoous

1. 0 1 9.4 50.00 TOTAL DENTNOS 1 1 18.9 100.00 DATEs 24AUG87 AND LOCATION:

8 SPECIES No OrganLns.

Collected TOTAL BNNTUOS U&P A REP 8 COUNT COUNT 0 0 a 0 MEAN (l/sq a)0.0 0.0 (6) 7.TABLE I-10 Icont.)DATE: 24AUG87 AIn LOCATIONS 10 MEN A UEP 3 MBEUN COUNT COUNT 8/54 9)SPECIES Perildao n. 0 1 9.4 7.69 Sydtopsychidae

p. 2 3 47.2 38.46 Potanyia flave 1. 0 5 47.1 38.46 Cryptechironomus

1. 0 1 9.4 7.69 Cocbicula 0 1 9.4 7.69 TOTAL BNNTNO. 2 11 122.6 100.00 td TABLZE -11 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION -1967 MACXOINVERTEDRAT9 STUDY POMPR RESULTS: REPLICATE COUNTS AND MEAN DENSITIES FOR FAMILIES DATE: 02MAR87 AND LOCATION:

2 IRV A REP 8 COUNT COUNT FAMILY Naididae Coenagrlonidae Leptoceridae Chaoboridae Chironomidae TOTAL SENTEOS 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 13 9 16 10 maeA (I/sq a)9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 207.5 245.3 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85 84.62 100.00 DATE: 02MAR87 AMD LOCATIONt 4 REP A REP a MEAN COUNT COUNT (I/eq a) (M)FAMILY Tubificidae 12 2S 349.1 26.62 Siphlonuridae 2 0 18.9 1.44 Reptageniidae 0 2 18.9 1.44 Hydropsychidae 3 5 75.5 5.76 Elmidae 7 5 113.2 8.63 Chicononidae 60 12 679.2 51.80 Corbiculidae 2 4 56.6 4.32 TOTAL BENTNOS li 53 1311.3 100.00 DATE: 02MAR87 AND LOCATION:

6 REP A RAP 3 MEAN COUNT COUNT (9/Sq a) M%)FAMILY Naididda 11 0 103.8 37.93 Tubificidae 3 0 28.3 10.34 Chaobotidae 2 5 66.0 24.14 Chlrononidae a 0 75.5 27.59 TOTAL B3NT3O0 24 5 273.6 100.00 DATEr 02MAR87 AND LOCATZON:

8 FAMILY Tubiflclda*

Chbionomidas TOTAL asNTIOS REP A REP 3 COUNT COUNT MEAN (9/sq a).* 47.2 37.7 64.9 2 3 3 3 6 (t)55.56 44.44 100.00

%3rnGci-4=

TABLE 3-11 lCont.)DATE: 02RkR87 AND LOCATZON:

10 FAMILY Waididase Tubificidae EnchytraodLae Reptagenildeo Porldaeo HydropsychLdae Elsidae Chiromonidao Siaulldas Corbiculidas TOTrAL KElaOs REP A REP a COUNT COUNT 0 0 1 8 8 62 24 31 2 2 1 1 0 KZNA#/Sq n)9.4 9.4 9.4 0.53 0.53 0.53 3 103.8 5.82 0 75.S 4.23 10 679.2 38.10 1 235.8 13.23 34 613.2 34.39 1 28.3 1.59 0 18.9 1.06 51 1783.0 100.00 138 O-N TABLE B-12 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION -1987 KACROINVERTE3RATE STUDY POoAR ESULTms: IPL¢iCTE COUNTS AND nEix DEzNSTEzS FOR FAIZLIES DATE: 27APR67 AND LOCATION:

2 REP A REP 3 COonT COUNT FAMILY Chaobocidae Chironomida.

TOTAL BENTOS MEAN (0/sq 3)9.4 122.6 132.1 0 S 5 1 8 9 (6)7.14 92.66 100.00 DATE: 27APR87 AND LOCATION:

6 REP A gap a Maas8 COUNT CODE!T (/sq a) (6)FAMI LY maldida. 3 4 66.0 6.25 Tubificida..

77 21 924.5 87.50 Chaoboridae 1 0 9.4 0.89 Chironomidas 3 3 56.6 5.36 TOTAL BENT3OS 84 28 1056.6 100.00 DATE: 27APR87 AND LOCATION1 I REP A REPS MEAN COUNT COUNT (I/sq n) 16)FAMILY Tubificidae 2 0 18.9 33.33 Chironomidae 4 0 37.7 66.67 TOTAL 333T305 6 0 56.6 100.00 DATE: 28APR87 AND LOCATZON:

4 FAMILY Hydridao Tubificida*

Hydropsychidae Chironouidao Corbiculidae TOTAL nENTEOS REP A REP a COUNT COONT 13 4 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 16 6 NMAN go/sq a)160.4 9.4 18.9 9.4 9.4 207.5 M6)77.27 4.55 9.09 4.55 4.55 100.00 TABLE 3-12 (Cont.)DATE: 28APR67 AND LOCATIZOS 10 AsP A REP a AM COUNT COUNT (0/Sq a) (0)PAMI LY Hydridao 12 4 150.9 66.67 Tubificidas 0 1 9.4 4.17 Septagenildae 0 1 9.4 4.17 Perlidao I 0 9.4 4.17 Hydropsychidae 0 2 18.9 8.33 Blaidae 0 1 9.4 4.17 Simulidae 1 0 9.4 4.17 CorbLculidae 0 1 9.4 4.17 TOTAL 333TEOS 14 10 226.4 100.00 OD TABLE 3-13 WOLF CREEK GEZNRATING STATION -1967 NACROZNVERTZERATZ STUDY iOWAR RESULTS: REPLICATE COUNTS AND MEAN DENSITIES FOR F&MILIKS DATE: 22JUH87 AND LOCATION:

2 FPA1ILY Ephomerida*

Chlronomldae TOTAL BENTHOS saP A asp 9 COUNT COUNT KuAN (#/sq a)9.4 26.3 37.7 0 2 2 1 1 2 (M)25.00 75.00 100.00 W I'-a%0 DATE: 22JUN87 AND LOCATION:

4 REP A REP a NEAR COUNT count (0/sq a) (M)FAMILY Polysitarcyidso 1 2 28.3 18.75 Peclidas 1 1 18.9 12.50 Rydropsychidae 8 3 103.8 68.75 TOTAL BENTROS 10 6 150.9 100.00 DATEs: 22.UN87 AND LOCATION:

6 Esp A REP a 11AM COUNT COUNT (0/sq a) (M3 FAMILY Tubificidhe 1 3 37.7 66.67 Chironomidae 2 0 16.9 33.33 TOTAL BENTHOS 3 3 56.6 100.00 DATE: 22JUN87 AND LOCATION:

I REP k REP 1 ,EAN COUNT COUNT (0/sq a) (M)FAMILY Chaoboidde 1 0 9.4 100.00 TOTAL B30TROS 1 0 9.4 100.00 ass..* ,5,,.qJ AND LOCATION:

10 FAMILY Na.tidae Polymitrtcyidae Perlidas Hydropsychidae glaidao CorbLculidae TOTAL UENTNOS REP A REP 9 COUNT COUNT WEAN (#/Eq a)0 1 9.4 2 0 18.9 0 1 9.4 24 13 349.1 1 0 9.4 0 1 9.4 27 16 405.7 (8)2.33 4.65 2.33 66.05 2.33 2.33 100.00

--TABLE 8-14 WOLF CREEK G3NStATINO STATION -1987 MACROINTERTE3RATZ STUDY PONAR RESULTS RIPLICATE tOUXTS AND MEAN DENSITIEI FOR FAMILIES DATE: 24AUG87 AND LOCATION:

2 REP A REP a COUNT COUNT MEAN Il/.q a)(8)FAMILY Chlronomidae TOTAL BE3TRO8 3 4 66.0 100.00 3 4 66.0 100.00 to 0 DATE: 24AUG87 AND LOCATION:

4 REP A REP 3 MEAN COUNT COUNT (I/sq I) (t)FAMILY Glossiphonidao 1 0 9.4 3.85 Perilda 1 0 9.4 3.85 Hydropsychidao 2 2 37.7 15.38 Elmida. 1 0 9.4 3.85 Simulidae 0 1 9.4 3.85 Corbiculidae 3 14 160.4 65.38 Other Groups 0 1 9.4 3.85 TOTAL BENTHOS 8 is 245.3 100.00 DATE: 24AUG87 AND LOCATION:

6 REP A REP 3 MEAN COUNT COUNT (I/sq a) (t)FAMILY Chironomida.

1 1 18.9 100.00 TOTAL EZNTROS 1 1 18.9 100.00 DATE: 24AUG87 AND LOCATIONs 8 REP A REP 3 MEAN COUNT COUNT Il/sq I) (8)FAMILY Hydrida. 0 0 0.0 TOTAL BZETMOS 0 0 0.0 DATE: 24AUG87 AND LOCATIONs 10 REP A REP 3 COUNT COUNT FAMILY Perlidae Rydropsychidae Chironoulda.

Corbicualdas TOTAL BENT8OS 0 2 0 0 2 I 8 11 MEAN (l/sq I)9.4 94.3 9.4 9.4 122.6 18)7.69 76.92 7.69 7.69 100.00 TABLE B-15 PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS RECORDED DURING FISH SURVEYS IN THE NEOSHO RIVER NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION BURLINGTON, KANSAS, 1987 Reservoir Conductivity Turbidity Discharge Water Temp (C (pmhos/cmý (N.T.U.)Date Gear (cfs) 101 10 4 1 10 V 2 MAR EF 411 6.5 8.0 8.0 420 440 410 49 58 89 S 6.5 8.0 8.0 420 440 410 49 58 89 27 APR EF 554 21.5 22.0 22.0 375 420 425 42 38 37 S 21.5 22.0 22.0 375 420 425 42 38 37 22 JUN EF 316 29.0 29.0 29.0 455 450 470 36 39 35 S 29.0 29.0 29.0 455 450 470 36 39 35 24 AUG EF 752 22.0 23.0 23.0 380 378 378 33 32 37 S 22.0 23.0 23.0 380 378 378 33 32 37 (a) EF = electrofishing; S .seining.B-21

• .q~*. U ..?1 ~irU ~ ~TABLZ 3-16

SUMMARY

OF ELECTROSBOCKING CATCN DATA FROM TH9 33030 GENZRAT!IG STATION, BURLZINTON.

KANSAS, 1987 Date/Location Species Number CP_nIVER AND WOLF CRe2E NEAR WOLF CREEK Total Leflgth (mn)Mean Range Total Weight (5g Mean Range 2 MAE 1 i0 4 I N3 Gizzard shad Carp Red shiner River carpsucker Smallmouth buffalo Black bullhead White crappie Total Gizsard shad Carp Smallnouth buffalo Biguouth buffalo Shorthead redhorse Channel catfish Freshwater drum Total Shortnoss gar Carp Smallmouth buffalo Channel catfish Flathead catfish White crappie Preshwatar drum Total Gizzard shad Carp River carpsucker Smalluouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Channel catfish Flathead catfish Whit* bass White crappie Total Longnose gar Shortnose gar River carpsucker Snslluouth buffalo Longear sunfish Freshwater drum Total Lougnose gar Carp Liver carpauckor Total 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 12 6 1 1 I 1 1 IS 1 4 I 1 1 3 12 2 3 10 3 2 1 1 3 1 26 1 I 2 4 1 10 1 3 6 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 12.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 26.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 12.0 2.0 3.0 10.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 10.0 21.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 6.0 144 513 55 313 425 149 256 97 498 497 470 304 362 367 635 455 410 490 72 190 266 237 407 324 461 528 338 228 234 244 514 590 378 402 117 115 80-250 408-617 162-384 133-165 85-108 415-568 373-780 348-475 123-373 217-257 357-492 226-365 388-510 470-585 162-344 375-381 310-446 1900 (10 550 1130 45 250<10 1397 1849 1790 640 350 560 660 1100 1050 1070 (10 70 284 103 860 526 1503 310 120 275 120 315 600 755 1133 40 10 675 1040 335 (10-145 800-3000 520-580 30-60 (10 1000-2100 670-5600 500-1950 18-500 10-135 260-1650 355-870 960-1870 56-700 730-780 420-1660 400-950 205-460 27 APR 1 10 4 660 570-750 418 301 256-332 TAILS 3-16.(CONTI Total Length (mm)mean Range Date/Location 22 JUN 1 Total Weight (9)mean Range 10 4 t N3 wo Gizzard shad Corp Ghost shiner River carpsucker Smalimouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Blue sucker Flathead catfish White bass Spotted bass Freshwater drum Total River carpsucker Biguouth buffalo Channel catfish Flathead catfish Total Longnose gar Gizzard shad Pathead minnow River.carpsucker Snallmouth buffalo Flathead catfish Longear sunfish Spotted bass White crappie Total Carp River carpsucker Smallmouth buffalo Bignouth buffalo Blue sucker Channel catfish Flathead catfish Green sunfish Orangespotted sunfish Spotted bass White crappie Fresbwater drum Total Longnoso gar Channel catfish Green sunfish Longest sunfish Freshwater drum Total 1 1 1 2 5 24 AUG 1 10 number 255 4 3 1 2 6 5 1 3 3 1 2 2866 1 3 1 3 1 12 3 1 1 26 4 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 5 24 7 1 1 2 7 12 CPS 25.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 286.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 12.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 26.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 24.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 12.0 347 475 665 269 605 339 73 296 332 193 86 137 261 363 297 393 585 670 408 228 58 63 225 94 185 602 320 89 82 156 49 310 42 265 382 559 590 217 246 251 220 42-60 227-357 228-350 250-502 520-585 140-302 27-357 61-378 234-303 60-770 142-379 133-251 72-105 312-445 273-320 325-511 225-230 S2-63 76-424 76-88 87-255 (10 425 (10 280 980 2814 1940 140 (463 225 (400 630 1240 3540 220 455 (68 (10 458 510 75 (15 30 250 650 324 1073 3400 2960 530 116 (10 (10 136 C10 t283 570 270 10 (12 471 150-600 170-580 330-1710 1600-3940 30-290 410-730 410*790 160-280 (10-150 35-700 20-160<10-25 450-1050 248-400 520-2050 106-123 410-4270 (10-13 (10-220

--. -~ --. -.TABLZ 3-16 (COWT)Da te/Location 4 Species Gizzacd shad River carpsucker Smalluouth buffalo Flathead catfish Longear sunfish white crappie Freshwater drum Total Number CP.5 5.0 3 3.0 1 1.0 2 2.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 4 4.0 17 17.0 Total Length (nu)aean Range?otal Weight (g)Mean Range 90 352 418 241 83 281 1i5 67-91 301-391 222-260 103-344 (10 600 140 11 330 140 350-750 100-180 (10-530 (a) CPS represents number of fish collected per 30-minute effort.

TABLE 3-17

SUMMARY

OF SEZIE DATA FROM TUB KANSAS. 1987 3053O RIVER ElAR WOLF CREEK GENERA!TING STATION, BURLINGTON, Date/Location 2 MAR I Species Gizzard Shad Ghost shiner Total number 1 3 4 Total Length (nal Mean Range as -is 32-40-otal Weight (g)mean Range-- (10-(10 10 4 11 Ghost shiner Red Shiner Nosquitofish Total 94 34 2 130 28 35 33 19--39 21-51 23-42 (10 410 CIO S7 APR 1 t 10 4 11 2 2 JUN 1 10 Sanplo not Preserved ge Neosho nadtoas Ghost shiner Red shiner Brook silverside White crappie Total Ghost shiner Red shiner Slim minnov Mosquitofish Brook silverside Total Ghost shiner Red shiner Slim minnow Channel catfish Green sunfish Total No Neoesho adtomes Gizzard shad Carpiodes sp.Ghost shiner MosquitofLsh Brook silverside White bass Spotted bass White crappie Total Giszard shad Rod shiner Suckernouth minnow 7 30 1 2 40 33 26-37 41 29-5S 73 107 102-112 13 39 343 1 S 1 391 173 31 2 2 1 209 74 10 1 6 17 115 30-40 Minnows 31 39 27 32 43 34 32 32 68 63 51 48 46 44 23 53 54 46 68 39 47 20-41 22-63 27-38 22-44 21-49 27-37 S8-77 (10 (10 (10 (10 (10 (10 (10 (10 (1O (10 (10 (10 12-14 25-75 44-53 38-52 43-67 36-59 64-73 42-60 45-48 (1O (10 (10 (10 (10 (10 (10 (10 (10 (10 (10 5 25 2

-=D! *g~. '. .*-8-17 (CONl)Total Length (mot Total Weight (g)Date/Location Species number Reanl Range Mean Range 10 (Coat.) slim minnow 2 50 47-52 -(10 Channel catfish 1 132 Black-striped topoinnow 2 28 23-33 -(10 mosquitofish 14 26 21-32 -(10 White bass 4 47 36-58 -(10 Freshwater drum 1 56 --(10 Totsl 56 11 Noosho madton 1 27 (10 4 Gizzard shad 69 46 35-12 -(10 Ghost shiner 167 39 17-48 -(10 Red shiner 15 48 34-68 -.(10 suckermouth minnow 3.7 36-37 -C10 Slim minnow 1 22 --(10 mosquitofish 17 27 23-44 -CI0 White bass B 42 35-48 -(10 Spotted bass 1 56 --(10 White crappie 6 36 27-41 -(10 Orangethroatod darter 1 25 I- -(10 t Total 287 24 AUG 1 Gizzard shad 3 89 87-91 (10 Ghost shiner 19 22 20-26 -<10 Carpiodes sp. 1 78 --<10 Mosquitotish 1 47 1 -c10 Brook silverside

• 2 36 25-36 (10.Green sunfish 2 25 23-26 -(10 Orangespotted sunfish 1 42 --C10 White crappie 10 86 77-91 -(10 Total 39 10 Red shiner .60 36 20-54 -(10 Suckermouth minnow 3 60 52-71 -(10 Bluntnses minnow S 46 39-57 -(10 Bullhead minnow 2 35 31-39 -(10 Channel catfish 2 66 61-70 -(10 Noturus op. I 18 --(10 Mos-uitofish 122 27 16-48 -(10 Orangethroated darter 4 46 37-6S -'10 Total 199 4 Ghost shiner 162 32 18-50 -(10 Red shiner 62 32 23-30 -410 Notropis sp. 1 c20 --(10 Bluntnose minnow

• 42 35-51 -.410 Bullhead minnow. 11 41 30-50 -C10 P hLales op. 42 41 --(10 oqurto;a Ith 151 29 16-42 -(10 tABLE 3-17 ICONT): Date/Location 4 jCont.)Species Orangespotted.

sunfish Lepomis sp.Whito crappie Total Number 4 16 1 45.Total Length (ma)mean Range 45 44-47 22 18-24 64 Total Weight (g)Mean Range-(10-(10-(10 11 go Noosho Hadtom td Io