Text

Transmittal of 2015 Annual Environmental Operating Report
	ML16120A521
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	04/21/2016
From:	Hafenstine C; Wolf Creek
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	RA 16-0035
	Download: ML16120A521 (13)
	v • d • e

Cynthia R. Hafenstine April 21, 2016 Manager Regulatory Affairs RA 16-0035 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: 2015 Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to submit the enclosed Annual Environmental Operating Report.

The Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Renewed Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix 8, "Environmental Protection Plan." This report covers the operation of WCGS for the period of January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

This letter contains no commitments. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (620) 364-4204.

Sincerely, Cynthia R. Hafenstine CRH/rlt

Enclosure:

Wolf Creek Generating Station Annual Environmental Operating Report 2015 cc: M. L. Dapas (NRC), w/e C. F. Lyon (NRC), w/e N. H. Taylor (NRC), w/e Senior Resident Inspector (NRC), w/e P.O. Box 411 I Burlington, KS 66839 I Phone: (620) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/HCNET

Enclosure to RA 16-0035 Wolf Creek Generating Station Annual Environmental Operating Report 2015 (9 pages)

WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................................................................................. 3 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ...................................................................... 3 2.1 AQUATIC [Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) Section 2.1] ............ 3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River .................... 3 2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Coffey County Lake ................. 4 2.1.3 Cold Shock ................................................................................ 5 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment ................................................... 5 2.1.5 Impacts of Coffey County Lake Discharges ................................ 5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL [EPP Section 2.2] .......................................................... 6 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ............................... 6 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Coffey County Lake .......... 6 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures ................. 6 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring ................ 6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1] ....................... 7 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2] .................. 7 2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3] ................. 8 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ........ 8 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1]. ......... 8 3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ..................................... 9 3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports ................................................. 9 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations ............ 9 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The 2015 Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP}, Appendix B to the Facility Operating License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) operated during 2015 in a manner protective of the environment.

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 2.1 AQUATIC [EPP Section 2.1]

2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River There were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River due to water-use conflicts because river flows downstream of the makeup pumps were maintained during 2015. The WCGS Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS, Section 5.6), NUREG-0878, postulated that makeup water withdrawal of 41 cubic feet per second (cfs) during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below John Redmond Reservoir (JRR). This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat that would adversely affect the Neosho Madtom, a federally listed threatened species.

Actual makeup water withdrawals during 2015 are summarized as follows:

Average 111 River Flow (cfs) 2015 Duration Pump Source Period (days) Rate (cfs) Avg Min Max John Redmond Storage 8/30-10/12 44 120 314 174 344 (1) Flow measured at JRR spillway discharge.

As shown above, average pump rates were less than average river flows measured at the JRR spillway, immediately upstream of the pumps at the Makeup Water Screenhouse (MUSH). This demonstrates that downstream flows were maintained. In addition, 24 days of the 44 day period makeup pumps were operated, river flows were higher than makeup pump flow.

For comparison purposes, the 41 cfs assessed in the FES/OLS refers to a continuous annual average from JRR storage. The actual 2015 pumping from JRR storage averaged 120 cfs for 44 days, which was equivalent to 14 cfs, when calculated on a similar, annual basis. This flow rate was lower than the 41 cfs evaluated as impacting the Neosho River during drought conditions.

3

Consequently, makeup pumping activities did not impact flows intended to maintain minimum desirable stream flows in the Neosho River, and no adverse impacts due to water-use conflicts occurred during 2015.

2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Coffey County Lake (CCL)

Circulating Water System (CWS) Discharge:

There were no adverse impacts observed due to biocides during 2015. Biocide use at WCGS was predicted to cause periodic, appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area to CCL. However, these impacts were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of the lake (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2). The postulated biocide levels expected to cause the impacts were from 0.68 to 1.08 mg/I of total residual chlorine at the CWS discharge (FES/OLS, Section 4.2.6.1).

Actual maximum biocide concentration measured was 0.18 mg/I, and averaged 0.09 mg/I total residual oxidant (TRO) during 2015. This level was much lower than those evaluated in the FES/OLS, thus impacts were considered to be correspondingly less. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) also requires, through the WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, that biocide discharges for the CWS be less than 0.2 mg/I TRO, for a maximum of two hours per day. Consequently, biocide impacts to CCL have been less than initially evaluated in the FES/OLS, and NPDES compliance assures that this will continue.

Essential Service Water System (ESWS) Discharge:

Flow from the WCGS Service Water System (SWS) diverted through the Essential Service Water System (ESWS) was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control. The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/I TRO limit for the SWS diversion through the ESWS. Actual maximum TRO was 0.59 mg/I, and averaged 0.21 mg/I during 2015. Based on this information, permitted biocide discharges did not have appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

4

2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fish attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake."

Fish mortality due to cold shock was not observed in CCL following declines in plant power level. One such plant shutdown or power level decrease occurred as follows:

Date Duration (days) 2/28 to 5/13/15 65 Fish mortality was not observed following the plant power changes.

Consequently, significant impact to the fishery in CCL due to cold shock events did not occur during 2015.

2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement of fish and aquatic organisms due to WCGS cooling water pumping were projected to be significant, as indicated in the WCGS EPP, Section 2.1 (d). EPP Section 2.1 states that the NRC relies on the State of Kansas for determination of the need for monitoring entrainment and impingement impacts. The KDHE requested WCGS to monitor impingement impacts for the Clean Water Act (CWA) 316 (b), Phase II regulations. This monitoring has been completed, and results were submitted to the KDHE in 2008. Entrainment monitoring has not been required. No significant adverse impacts to the CCL fishery were identified because of impingement. Fishery management at WCGS has succeeded in controlling impingement, and minimizes potential impacts of impingement to the fishery.

2.1.5 Impacts of Coffey County Lake Discharges to the Neosho River The WCGS NPDES permit requires that CCL discharges be sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge. A discharge limit was set for pH (NPDES Outfall 004). Lake discharges can occur at the Slowdown Spillway and Service Spillway. During 2015, no discharges occurred at the Slowdown Spillway. There were no NPDES violations from discharges from the Service Spillway, and no detrimental effects were expected to the Neosho River water quality.

5

2.2 TERRESTRIAL [EPP Section 2.2]

2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 hectare (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities. Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block typically have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition. Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes. Tree and brush control occurred in some areas.

Various maintenance and construction activities during 2015 have caused temporary impacts to the vegetation in many areas surrounding WCGS. As projects are completed, restoration of the areas involved is expected to return the vegetation in the exclusion zone similar to previous conditions.

2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Coffey County Lake To create a buffer zone of at least 500 acres around CCL, as specified in EPP Section 2.2 (b), agricultural production activities were curtailed in. 1980 within a border ranging from approximately 200-400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

This area is approximately 1440 acres. Previously grazed or hayed native grass areas were left undisturbed. Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural succession stages, or native grasses were established in these areas. Land management activities included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures Herbicides were used on transmission corridors, gravel areas, railroad easements, and various land areas associated with WCGS. Application rates followed label instructions. No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

The transmission lines associated with WCGS include the Wolf Creek-Rose Hill and a small portion of the Wolf Creek-Benton and Wolf Creek-La Cygne lines (renamed Wolf Creek/Waverly/La Cygne). Herbicides for bare ground control were used on various gravel areas, including the switchyard, protected area boundary, meteorological tower, storage tank berms, railroad beds, and storage yards. Noxious weed and nuisance tree/brush growth were controlled on the dam, railroad easements, and selected grassland areas around the cooling lake.

2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks. The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) in the event of 6

such problems. During routine environmental monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1]

Fog monitoring concluded that operation of WCGS did not appreciably increase fogging incidents from that measured before operation. Visibility monitoring was initiated in December, 1983, and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from CCL on fog occurrence along U.S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. The program was required through one year of commercial operation that started in September 1985. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging, and all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

During 2015, there were no reports of fogging incidents in the vicinity of nearby U.S. 75 from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Periodic fogging likely caused by the cooling lake did occur during the winter months of 2015, but was restricted to the plant site and immediate vicinity of the lake. No mitigation actions or further monitoring were warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2]

A wildlife monitoring program was initiated in 1982 to monitor and assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of CCL. This program included transmission line collision surveys to assess collision mortality and determine potential mitigation needs. This wildlife monitoring program was to continue for at least two years following WCGS start-up (FES-OLS Section 5.5.1.2), which occurred in September 1985.

Transmission line surveys were conducted from 1983 through 1988. Monitoring of lake use by waterfowl, waterbirds, and bald eagles continued through 1996.

By then, sufficient data had been collected to determine waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of CCL. Consequently, the scope of the wildlife monitoring program was reduced. The current program consists of reviewing CCL waterfowl and bald eagle survey data collected by the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism (KDWPT). If review of the KDWPT's data indicates that usage has increased from that previously documented, then additional monitoring may be initiated if warranted.

Review of waterfowl and bald eagle monitoring data for 2015 collected by the KDWPT indicate that waterfowl and waterbird usage was consistent with past years. Increased transmission line collision potential was not indicated. No disease outbreaks or widespread crop depredation attributable to waterfowl use of CCL were observed. No changes to the wildlife monitoring program were warranted.

7

2.2. 7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]

Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 hectare (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan addressed needs and accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management. These included the repair or construction of soil conservation structures, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. In 2014 all cropland was converted to no-till agriculture and cover crops were incorporated into the crop rotation. An environmental education area was improved and maintained as part of the land management program. The land management program continued to balance agriculture production and conservation values.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1]

Plant design or operational changes were evaluated for potential significant affects to the environment, the presence of which would constitute an unreviewed environmental question (UEQ) per the EPP. Evaluations completed during 2015 demonstrate that significant impacts to the environment would not occur, and that ho changes constituted a UEQ. Below are brief descriptions of these evaluations completed in 2015.

1. Security Firing Range Building Construction of a 60' X 80' building at the security Firing Range. This project was only for the erection of the building, installation of electrical power and installation of a water line. Environmental or regulatory interfaces that were identified and addressed included:

a. Refrigerant management considerations

2. Deluge Valve Main Drain Test Procedure STN KC-226, Deluge Valve Main Drain Test, is being deleted. Fire Protection determined that main drain testing is not a Fire Protection System requirement. Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited requirements for main drain testing may have been met by alternative methods. Groundwater protection is located in numerous other fire protection procedures.

3. Permanent Sump Pump in Essential Service Water Vertical Loop Chase The scope of this change was to install a permanent sump pump system into the Vertical Loop Chase which will be an extension of the existing Oily Waste 8

System. Environmental or regulatory interfaces that were identified and addressed included:

a. Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPP) considerations.

4. FLEX Facility at Highway 75 and Interstate 35 Junction This change installed a new 50' X 80' building and two concrete slabs on a 15 acre construction site at 2718 Lynx Place, Lebo, Kansas 66856. Implementation of this change is considered beyond the scope of the WCGS Final Environmental Statement. Environmental or regulatory interfaces that were identified and addressed included:

a. Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPP) considerations.

3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS [EPP Section 5.4.2]

3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports There were no environmental reports involving significant non-routine impacts submitted to the NRC during 2015.

3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

[EPP Section 4.1]

No unusual or important environmental events that indicated or resulted in a significant environmental impact related to plant operations occurred during 2015.

9