ML20032C684

Forwards Response to 810922 Request for Addl Info Re Hydrologic Character Presented in Environ Rept.Response Will Be Formally Incorporated in Next Revision of Rept

ML20032C684
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	11/06/1981
From:	Koester G KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
KMLNRC-81-132, NUDOCS 8111100738
Download: ML20032C684 (19)

Text

_.

KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 4

4g Ig(f f f at t t e.98 'At J v GLENN L MDESTEst wee **f$+e%t % n gg as 1

November 6, 1981 00 ^

Mr. Ilarold R. Denton, Director F

f Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation t'

/g-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission O

Washington, D.C.

20555

=dL' s7 N0VO 91981= _P

~~

vo. Hua Aat # N N s

KMLNRC 81-132 cow 4:n ot Re:

Docket No. STN 50-482

'O Ref: Letter of 9/22/81 from BJYoungblood, N RC, to GLKoester, KG&E bM\\

Subj: Ilydrologic Engineering - Environmental

Dear Mr. Denton:

The R4 forence requested additional information concerning the hydro.ogic characteristics prs sented in the Wolf Creek Gen-eratin9 Station, Unit No. 1 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage (WCGS-ER(OLS)). Transmitted herewith are responses to the questions in the Reference. The responses will be

'7rmally incorporated in the WCGS-ER(OLS) in the next revision.

The attached information is hereby incorporated into the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1 Operating License Application.

Yours very truly, l$h GIX:bb Attach cc: Dr. Gordon Edison (2)

Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation gO U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 I

Mr. Thomas Vandel i

Resident NRC Inspector P.O. Box 311 Burlington, Kansas 66839 8111100738 811106 DR ADocg 0:000 4 Address PO. Bos 208 i Wctuta, Kansas 67201 - Telephone: Area Code (316) 261645I

l OATil OF AFFIRMATION STATE OF KANSAS

)

) SS:

j COUNTY OF SEDGWICK )

I, Glenn L.

Koester, of lawful age, being duly sworn upon oath, do depose, state and affim that I am Vice President - Nuclear of Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita, Kansas, that I have signed the foregoing letter of transmittal, know the contents thereof, and that all statements containei therein are true.

KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY By A ft/

f/d ()

"g Glenn L.

Koester l

Vice President - Nuclear W.B. Walker, Secretary STATE OF KANSAS

)

) SS:

COUNTY OF SEDGWICK )

BE IT REMEMBERED that on this 6th day of November, 1981

, before me, Evelyn L.

Fry, a Notary, personally appeared Glenn L. Koester, Vice President - Nuclear of Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita, Kansas, who is personally known to me and who executed the foregoing instrument, and he duly acknowledged the execution of the same for and on behalf of l

and as the act and deed of said corporation.

l l

,,,,,,,IN WITNESS WIIEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and af fixed my seal the 11, l..

e and year above written.

J l'~,. oy..rr

^

g A. _/

=

o--

~

,.., i 0

.velyn L, Fry, No'tary c..Y j/

P/.,

' '..' ' '"* A,". Commission expi res on August 15, 1984.

y s

r i

I j

Question 240.16 a) Section 2.4.1.2.2, p. 2.4-8 states that there are 34 water i

'right permits granted for irrigation use along the Neosho River f ron j

the mouth of Wolf Creek to Oklahoma. However, Table 2.1-19 lists only 30 of these peruits. Please update Table 2.1-19 to include the additional 4 irrigation permics.

I 1

b) The maximum rate cf appropriated surface water f rom the John Redmond spillway location to the Oklahona state line is stated in Section 2.4.1.2.2, p. 2.4-8 to be 239, 404 gpm.

Table 2.1-19 indicates that the authorized maximum diversion rate from the Neosho Rive r downstreat of the confluence of Wolf Creek is 115,469 gpm.

Please explain the discrepancy in these values.

If the discrepancy is the

{

result of diversions between the John Redmond Reservoi and Wolf Creek please furnish the appropriate information as given in Table 2.1-19.

c) The maximum annual quantity of water authorized to be diverted i

'f rom the Necsho. River as stated in Section 2.4.1.2.2, p. 2.4-3 (117,055 acre-fe'et) is four times larger than the total quantity indicated in Table 2.1-19 (29,9S9 acre feet).

Please explain the discrepancy as in b) above.

Response

l j

a) The 34 water right permits granted for irrigation represent the number of permits along the Neosho River from the Oklahoma state line to John Redrond Dan, not t) the mouth of Wolf Creek. The discussien i

in Section 2.4.1.2.2 has been corrected to reflect this fact and the j

irrigation permits not listed in Table 2.1-19 are shcwn on new Table I

2.1-19 (a) -. The information presented in Table 2.1-19(a) was originally j

provided in Wolf Creek Final Safety Anal.ysis Report (FSAR) Table 2. 4-4.

I b) and c) The value for the authorized naximum diversion rate (115,469 apm), and that for the authorized maximum annual quantity (29,989 acre feet) indicated ia Table 2.1-19 represents authorized diversions i

j trom the Neosho River from the mouth of Wolf Creek to the Oklahoma state line. Authorized diversions between Wolf Creek and John Redmond Dam are shown in new Table 2.1-19(a). Jhe totals indicated in Section i

2.4.1.2.2 have been corrected to reflect the data preuented in Tab 2cs 2.1-19 and 2.1-19(a).

i

, _ _._ _. _ _._ ~ -.

L

unut 2.1-19(a) i Additional Water RIGHS ON ' HIE tanHO RIVER j,

ImWN JOIN RERWD DN4 AMD WWE CREFK y

l~

l i

I I

I i

i I

l i

l i

I 4 proximate l l

l hthorizal i Autlorized nuinn I l

1 A[ plication } Incation ofDiversion(a) ] nip l gey(b) l Mile (c) l Omer l Source l Rate (gpa) l (acre-feet)'

l Use l

l River l

l l nulmin Diversion l Anran1 Cuantity l Pritcipal l l

l Ntrier l

I i

I I

I I

i.

I i

l 1

I I

I I

I I

t l

l 14626 F/NW/W l

9 l

343 KG&E I Noosto 1 24,685(d)

I 25,000 l Industrial l I.

l l

10-21-15 l

l l

l River l l

l l

i 1

l l

1 l

i I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I i

1 19882 i

F/w/W l

35 l

343 l KG&E I Neosto l 76,300(d) l 57,300 l Irwiustrial l I

i 1&21-15 l

l l

l River !

l l

I 1

I I

l I

l l

l 1

l 1

I I

I I

I.

I I

i l

l 3782 l NW/NE/SE l

47 1

343 l Kansas Fish & Game

! Nooclo l 12,000 l

150 I Recreation I l

'l 9-21-15 l

l Ctruission l River I

l I

l l

l I

l I

l l

l I

l I

I I

I l

I I

l 4259 l SW/NE/NE l

49 l

342 1 J. Decker l Neocto l 1,050 1

156 l Irrigation i l

i 15-21-15 l

l l

l River I l

l l

\\

l l

I l

I l

l l

I I

I I

I I

I I

l 21453 l

W 44 339 l City of Bur 11rv3 ton i Neosho l 1,000 1

767 l M2nicipal l l

i 26-21-15 l Coffey Co. IMD 2 ard 3 l River l l

l l

1 I

l 1

l l

l l

1 i

l i

I I

I I

L l

l 271 l NE/SW/NW l

50 1

339 i W. Strawn i Neosho l 400 1

40

-1 Irrigation !

l l

26-21-15 l

l l

l River i l

l l

l l

1 u

I I

I i

1 I

I 1

I I

I I

I l

1 vsc2 I

W l

41 1,

! City of aurlin3 ton i Neosho l a00 1

245 I Municipal l 338 l

1 26-21-15 l

l l

J River l l

l l

1 I

i I

I I

I I

i i

I I

I I

I i

i l

1 2636 i

W/sw/SE I' 45 1

338 i F. Robrahn l NecrJo l 650 1

61 I Irrigation !

I I

26-21-15 I

I I

i River i I

I I

i' I

i l

I i

I L

i I

l I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

i 11078 i NW/NW/SE I

8 I

337 l Nelson Motors, Inc.

I Neosto 1,500 l

350

Recreati m I I

I 35-21-15 I

I I

I River i

125 I Irrigatice, i l

T I

l i

I I

I I

I aIncaticms are specifial by section division, section, tcunship, ani raraje.

b ee ISAR Figure 2.4-8 for locations.

S CMouth of Wolf Creek is arproximately at Neosho River Mile 334.5, John Redmond Darn at approximately River Mile 343.7.

'%iithdrawal of natural flows in Neosto River only at such times as mininn of at least 250 cfs resnains innediately downstream frun the intake.

Source: Fansas State Board of Agriculture,1979 Open file material: Division of Water Resources, Tcpeka, Fansas (March).

q i

l WCGS-Eh (OLS) i Incorporated municipal water s y systems from Coffey I

County to Oklahoma. which util; the Neosho River as the j

j source of supply, are listed i:-

able 2.4-5.

These include i

j domestic, commercial, indtstrial, and public-use water re-j quirements.. Rural water d'.stricts in Kansas utilizing the i

Neosho River as the source of supply, either directly or l

l indirectly, are also listed in Table 2.4-5.

They have been I

formed in those areas where groundwater resources are lim-ited.

i i

There are 34 water righ t permits granted for irrigatio use along the'Neosho River from John Redmond Dam I

to Oklahoma.

The maximum rate of appropriated sur face water i

from the John Redmond spillway location to the Oklahoma state line is 233,854 gallons per minute, with a maximur I

j annual quantity of 114,183 acre-feet (Kansas State Board 1

i of Agriculture 1979).

1 1

.I Further description of aater use is prcvided in Section i

2.1.3.4 t'

2.4.1.3 Wolf Creek Cooling Lake I'.

4 The cooling lake im formed by a " main" carth dar constructed across Wolf Creek and saddle dans built along the periphery l

of the lake.

The tops of the dans are at an elevation of j

1,100 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to provide sufficient l

freeboard and prevent overtoppir.g of the dams by the prob-j able maximum flood and wind and wave action.

Service and j

auxiliary spillways are provided on the east abutment of l

the main dam to pass floods of elevations up to and inelad-ing that of the probable maximum ficod.

The maximum cecl-ing lake elevation of 1,095 feet MSL cc?urs when the prct-l able maximum flood is preceded by the standard project :1 cod l

and both are routed through the spillways.

The normal operating elevation of the cooling lake is 1,007 i

feet MSL.

At this elevation the lake has a capacity cf 111,280 acre-feet and a surface area of 5,093 acres.

Esti-i mated sedimentation during the life of the plant in the cooling lake from the '.Dlf Creek stream f1cw and from the i

makeup pumped from the Neosho River below the John Red =cnd Reservoir is 1 percent of the lake's storage vol :me at its normal operating level and thun does not affect the func-tioning of the lake.

i 2.4.1.3.1 Makeup Water Supply to Golf Creek Ccclir.g L: Me j

f A major source of makeup water to the ecoling Inke is the conservation storage of the John Redmond Raservoir, providing i

i t

' hat the low flow downstream water requirements are satis-l i

fied.

Additional makeup water is supplied by natural runoff

[

t i

k i

I i

2.4-8 I

i i

+

i' h

. _ - _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ -..~._ _. _ _. _ _ _... _.. _ _,. _ _ _.. -... _ _ _. _ _ _ _., -... _ _

j l

3

}

Question 240.17 '(ER)

Tabic 240.14/240.15-1 gives the 100 year peak flood flow for Wolf Creek below the cooling lake dat under natural ecnditicas as 8363 cfs.

How does this value compare with the peak flood i

i flow used to arrive at the flood prone area due to the l

100 year flood found in Flood Hazard Boundary Maps for Coffey i

i i-County?

i 1

l Respanse t

i According to References 1 and 2, the 100-year peak flood discharge used to delineate the flood prone area in the Flood Hazard Boundary Maps of Coffey County is 13,900 cfs at the l

confluence of Eolf Creek with the Neosho River.

This flo' was based on a regression equation developed by the Kansas Hatcr

)

Resources Ecard for estirating 100-year flood peaks-for ungaged streams in the State of Kansas. (Ref. 3).

i i

The peak 100-year flow under natural conditions at the location of the cooling lake dam as given in Table 240.14/240.15-1 is r

8,363 cfs.

This flow was estirated by devel.oping a unit i

i hydrograph for the Molf Creek drainage area and ap-lying tne I

100 year rainfall distribution as discussed in se ion 2.4 of the.FST.R addendum.

The corresponding diccharge at tha

. confluence of Wolf Creek with the Neosho River, estimated in proportion to the drainage areas is.10,680 cfs as comparec'. to l.

13,900 cfs used in the Flood ' Hazard Doundary Maps of Cof fey l'

County.

240.17-1 i

,..,c-

. -,..,,,. -., _ --.-,,.. ~.. -.., - -.., - - - -.. -,., -.. _ -...-,

__.__.._-___m

~_

I' t

t i

l Though there is a difference in peak flood flow s

t j

under natural conditions (wi thout the existence of the cooling lake dan estimated by the two different methods, the conclusion demonstrated in the response to Q. 240.14/24" 15, that the flooding of areas below Wolf Creek dan.due to Wolf Creek flood flows is ruch i

reduced after the construction of the cooling lake dcm, remains unchanged.

ll L

l

References:

i 1.

Mr.

R.

G.

Chappel, Chief, Engineering I! ranch, Federal Emergency Management Aconcv, Washington, D.C.

undated

(

letter to G.

V.

Koranduri, Fargent & Lundy, ( 7.e ce i ve' j

i October 26, 1981).

l 2.

Mr. Werrer Miller, 'tichael Fahe r Inc., !!arri sburg,

Pennsylvania, telephone conversation with *.'r.

G.

V.

i i

Komanduri, Sragent & Lundy, October 27, 1981 j

3.

Kansas Water Resources Board, " Magnitude and Prequency of i

Floods in Kansas, Unregulated Streans," Technical Report i

I No. 11, 1975.

i t

I I

F w,--,,-,..wn-rwm.

-w,,,-..--vv~.,-%,.--,ve----.-,,

---

,m.

.-----.%--_,.,_---mm-

- -. - - - - - - - - =

I i

4 e

i i

i j'

}

t

}

Questien 240.18 f

t t

4 i

l In Section 2.4.2.1.1 influent conditions on the Neosho River are l

purported to result in horizontal migration into the alluvium of 100 l

to 200 feet.

Please provide the data to support this estimate, and what l

method (s) and parameter values were used.

- 3

Response

l Section 2.4.1.2.2 3rovides data regarding the flow characteristics j

f Low flow for the river (base' flow) represents of the Neosho River.

l flow which is sustained primarily by ground water. As stated in Sectica l

2.4.1.2.2, the mean daily discharge during a representative low flew i

lola.

l period (Nevember 1950) was 200 cfs at New Strawn and 224 cfs at 6

3 l

The increase of 24 cfs (2.07 x 10 ft / day) is assumed to be the ground l

l water contribution between the two stations.

The distance between the two I

stations is upiroximately-48 miles or 2.53 x 10> feet.

Assuming that l

I f

half the river flow contribution comes from each side of the river, i

6 3

thez inflow for one bank would be 1.04 x 10 7 / day.

i i

From Figure 2.4-6 a reasonable estinate of the average hydraulic gradient is about 0.004 toward the Neosho River.

For some areas it is-i less and for others it is greater. Section 2.4.2.1.1 indicates that the Neosho River alluvium has a maximum thickness of 20 fet t.

Assume that the average saturated thickness is about 18 feet.

From Darcy's law Q = Kia, or K = Q/ia, the average permeability i

V can be estimated for the alluvium along the river.

i 6

K = 1.04 x 10 /(0.004) (18) 2.53 x 10 = 57 ft/ day or 2.0 x 10-2 cm/sec.

1 This value of permeability is within t'.e expected range of permeabilities for clean sand as indicated by Freeze and Cherry (J979 p. 29).

I t

i L

t w.

. a -- n-n. n....n.---

+e,

-e,n.

,_mww

j t

I 1

During the rising part of flood hydrograph, water.f rom the j

stream enters bank storage (Freeze and Cherry, 1979, p. 225). Likewise,

j' during the recession part of the flood hydrograph ground water leaves I

l bank storage and enters the stream. As the strena level rises and water I

stcrts to. enter bank storage, the hydraulic gradient driving the water into l

i

.the bank storage is initially relatively high but very quickly decreases as the water. enters bank storage.

Assume that for a given flood the average hydraulic gra'ient is d

j i

0.5 for the duration of the rising part of the ficod hydrograph.

From Darcy's law, and using an effective porosity of 0.25, the average linear i

f velocity of water entering bank storage would be:

1 Ki (57) (.5 _ = 114 ft/ day 4

L Y = - - - =

n

.3 t

i Figure 2.4-11 of the Wolf Creek Final Safety Analysis Report r

(FSAR) illustrates the hydrograph of the July 1951 flecd of the Neosho e

River. This is one of the largest floods on record which occurred prior to construction of the John Redmond dam.

Beca'tsa of the regulaterv t

}

effect of the dam, most subsequent floods are expected to be much smallet l

1 i

than this one.

Reference to this extreme flood of July 1951 is made t

only -for the purpose of estimating an approximate maximum value for the 3

I j

duration of the rising, part of the flood hydrographs which may be expected s.

t 1

I on the Neosho River.

It should be emnhasized that extreme floods on r

t 1

the Neosho River, especially if unregulated, overflou the river banks l

4 l

and cause flooding of the entire floodplain of the Neosho River which is 1

)

in excess of a mile wide in many areas.

During periods of overbank flooding i

i I

1 when the entire floodplain is inundated, vertical downward infiltration i

j of water will occur over the entire floodplain for distances up to a I

1 mile or more from the normal river channel.

Under such circumstances i

{

i'.. _ _ _ _,. _.. _ _ _ _,.. _ _.. _. -. - - _ _ _ _..

..-,._m.__

. -.. - ~. _ -.,. _. - - _ - _

,_,.,,m.-_-

... - ~. _... -. _ _..

i 4

t p

i l

estimations of horizontal migration,: water into bank storage from the main

?

l l

stream channel are treaningless for all practical purposes.

r The July 1951 flood has three peaks. The rise time for _the first f

1 t

l peak was half a day. The total rise time for the three peaks can be-

_[

l

)

estimated to be about one day. Thus, for about one day stream water would

[

t j

be entering bank storage. From the average eatinated scepage velocity I

l

'of 114 feet per day, the. average distance penetrated into the river

[

i i

banks would be about 114 feet during the storm runoff period.

For most j

floods the average penetration distance can be expected to be less.

l Thus, the statement that the horizontal migration distance of river water I

back-into the alluvium is "on the order of up to 100 to 200 feet" is a i

reasonable estinate ror high-water conditions of the Neosho River, r

i l

[

i-L i

i

~

l i

Reference:

Freeze and Cherry, 1979, Cround water, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

f t

i h

r k

-,-~. _.

~....

Question 240.19 In the first sentence of the last paragraph on Page 2.4-12; is written, "where ir is saturated, the weathered bedrock (except lime-

~

stone) has a greater permeability than the overlying soil zone".

Please provide data to support this statement because comparable values for soil and bedrock are not presented in Tabic 2.4-7 nor anywhere else in relevant position of the text.

Also, it is inferred (in the same sentence) that weathered limestone members probably do not exnibit permeability greater than or equal to the soil or bedrock shale members. Yet the latter are of ten confining units of the limestone aquifers.

Furthermore, data presented in Table 2.4-7 show that the Plattsmouth Limestone has permeabilities approximately one to two orders of magnitude greater than some weathered shale members.

Please explain these contradictions.

Response

Laboratory permeability tests were conducted on samples of the soils overlying the Heumader Shale and the Plattsmouth Limestone ccebers.

I The results of these tests are presented in Wolf Creek Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Table 2.5-35.

In this table the soil samples obtained f rom Boring HS-6 overlie the Heumader Shale. All other soil samples were obtained from locations where the soil overlies the Plattsmouth Limestone.

As described below, the test data corfirm that the weathered bedrock ias a greater permeability than these overlying soils.

The laboratory permeability test data indicate a permeability of 5.6 x 10' cm/sec for soil over Heumader shale and lower in the case of a test which had no flow in two days. Table 2.4-7 of the ER(OLS) indicates a value of permeability of 6 x 10~

cm/see for the weathered zone (0-20 feet depth) of the Heumader Shale. This indicates that the permeability is significantly greater for the weathered shale zone than for the overlying soil.

Laboratory test data indicate values of permeability for soils overlying the Plattsmouth Limestone ranging from 5.6 x 10~

1.1 s 10~

to cm/sec. Table 2.4-7 of the ER(OLS) indicates the average permeability

-5 of the Plattsmouth Limestone as 2 x 10 cm/sec for the depth interval 0-20 feet. Here again the data indicate that overlying soil is si;;nificantly less permeable than the under1vinn bedrna

s i'

i l

i Regarding the relationship etween the permcability of saturated l

ii 1

weathered bedrock and overlying unsaturated soil, the moisture content L 4

l and-the permeability K of unsaturated soils are functions of the soil i.

uoisture pressure head Y which is negative for unsaturated soils.

Because i

i K = K (Y) and 0=0 (?), it follows that K=K (6).

Thus, the permeability

}

of the unsaturated soil increases with increasing moisture content and I

1 j

reaches a maximum value when the soil is completely saturated. Dry

{

i l

soils at the land surface characteristically have a relatively' low

?

i permeability because of their low noisture content.

In the case of f

1 seils which contain swelling and shrinking clays, however, the average L

l l

infiltration rate for the soil may be greater (because of the presence I

of desiccation cracks at the land surface) than the permeability of individual soil samples which are not cracked.

Rainfall can thus i

L j

penetrate the soil surface rapidly at first by way of desiccation cracks.

t

)

However,' the penetration rate.is reduced when the bottoms of the cracks are reached and when the soil swells and closes the cracks.

t I

i i

l The statement "where it is saturated, the weathered bedrock.

(

i

+

(except limestone) has a greater permeability than the overlying soil zone", is not intended to infer that weathered limestone me:nbers probably do not exhibit permeability greater than or equal to soil or bedrock

[

i i

shale members. Limestone was being excluded from the general discussion of weathered bedrock because the Plattsmouth Limestone was not ueathered

)

in the plant site.

l b

l

?

4 i

I 1

?

i f

i i

l 1

I i

L

___.m__-.-._._

m._.m. _ _. _ _ - -. - _ _ _ _ _ _. -... _ _ _. _ _

i

-i

{

)

f r

}

t t

a I

j Questien 240.20 i

l A vater level recorder chart is shewn on Figure 2.0-13 for a l

conitor well. Please provide a cap showing the wells exact locatica.

+

l Miat depth and stratigraphic interval ~ dees the data represent?

I l

i

Response

,3 The location of the well is shcwn en Figure 2.1-27.

Tne depth I

of the well is 35 feet.

Based en a cap shcving the gealogy of the area f

f (Figure 2.5-6), the dug well extends into the sandstene unit cf the Jackson t

Park Shale Me=ber.

6 1

i Ii

?.

F 9

h i.

f I

f i

)

a L

4 i

i d

k I

r N

i 1

1

[

I d

t i

i 1

t i

i

'f t

I r

b T

i i

l i

1 I'

[

r i

r k

k

?.

p i

f d

l t.

'L 1-,-,...-,-..--,

-n,---,---,--.--.,--,.-..._.-_..-..--

.I 1

1 I

t l

Question 240.21 I

l Please provide data to support the effective porosity values used to determine average linear velocities in the Plattsmouth Limestone and Shale members. Based on attached references the reported values are un-I i

reasonably high.

I I

t s

Response

The porosity values of 0.05 for the Plattsmouth Limestone and

[

i 0.20 for the Jackson Park and Heumader Shale members were estimated on i

the basis of examination of drill cores.

It should be emphasized her f

i I

that porosity refers to fracture porosity and not to unconnected inte.-

l f

stitial pores.

As reported in Section 2.4.13.3.3 of the Wolf Creek Final i

Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), the total porosity of nine Heucader shale samples was also measured on the basis of bulk density and found to be 0.15.

The effective porosity was estimated to be 80 percent I

t I

of the total porosity or 0.12 on the basis of Routson and Serne (1972).

[

r J

If one uses an ef fective porosity of 0.12 for the shale members l

f rather than 0.20, the average linear velocity would be 13.5 feet per year and the travel time for ground water to travel fron the cooling water

[

t lake to the outcrop would be about 60 years rather than lo" ears.

Like-A wise, if one uses an effective porosity of 0.01 rather than 0.05 for j

f the Plattsmouth Limestone, the travel time for grcund water to travel i

from the cooling water lake to the outcrop would be 480 years rather than 2400 years. A significant point to e=phasize here is tnat even if lower estimated effective porosities are assumed, the average per=cabilities of the members are still very low and ground water travel tires are

{

extremely long.

Reference:

Routson, R.'C.,

and Serne, R.

J., 1972, Experimental support studies for the percol and transport models:

natte11e Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, F:M:,- 1719.

L n

Question 240.22 Is the Heumador Shale Member considered to be an aquifer or aquitard or both within and proximal to the cooling lake area? Please support your position with data from tables and/or references.

Response

The terms aquifer and aquitard are generally relative terms.

For two saturated geologic. formations which are in direct contact with each other, the one with the higher permeability could be considered to be an aquifer and the one with the lower permeability could be corsidered to be an aquitard. Also, a formation with a certain permeability in one region might be considered to be an aquifer, whereas a formation having the same permeability in a different region might not be considered an aquifer. The term aquifer also involves economic factors.

An aquifer can be defined as a water bearing geologic formation which is capable of yielding water to wells in economic quantities.

In Table 2.4-6 the Heumader

-6 Shale Member is indicated as having a permeability of about 3.0 x 10 cm/sce and is indicated as yielding less than three gallons per minute to wells.

If this limited quantity would be sufficient to supply the water needs of a particular user, then that user might consider the Heumader Shale to be an aquifer. However, if one compares the permeability

~0 of the Heumader Shale (3.0 x 10 cm/sec in Table 2.4-6) with the permeability the overlying Jackson Park Shale (4.4 x 10~

cm/sec and 1.9 s 10~

l cm/see in Table 2.4-6), the Heumader Shale could be considered to be an I

aquitard.

However, from Table 2.4-7 which gives ranges of permeability for the members of 1.

-7

-5 j

Jackson Park Shale:

5x 10 to 5 x 10 cm/sec Heumader Shale:

3 x 10~

to 3 x 10~

cm/sec i

it appears that on the average there is not any significant dif f e rence i

between these two members.

1 I'

i 4

I

.uestion 240.23 Q

i

}

You state that in-situ permeability tests were performed using

}

falling head methods. These methods however, are subject to numerous i

problems ranging from construction of the infiltration sump to. chemical l

incompatability of the water used in the test.

To assess the validility

?

of the tests run, please provide a detailed description of the methods, l

techniques, and an analysis of these tests, including construction, j

completion and development of test wells.

I

Response

TF 3 in-situ permeability tests were conducted in the piezometers installed in boreholes at the Wolf Creek site. The piezameter installations i

l and the methods used for conducting the falling head permeability tests I

are described in Wolf Creek Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Sections 2.5.4.3.2.2 and 2.5.4.3.2.3.

i Borcholes were drilled in rock utilizing NX-wireline core I

barrels. Af ter completion of drilling operations the water was blown I

out of the boreholes prior to the installation of piencmeters.

1he j

piezometers consisted of 0.75-inch L.D. PVC pipe, perforated throughtout the i

l length or the zone being monitored.

t Gravel was placed around the piezometers in the nonitored i

zones, and the zones were scaled above and below with bentonite pellets or cement grout. The remainder of the borehole was filled with cement grout or gravel. When more than one piezometer was installed in a boring, this procedure was repeated for each piezameter. The top of the borehole was scaled with cement to prevent entry of surface runof f and to provide protection for the piezometer pipes.

The in-situ failing head permeability tests were conducted in the piezameters using the following procedure:

~

i l

1

)

1.

Initial water level readia/,s were recorded to deternine the static water Icvel before testing; 2.

The -piezometer was rapidly filled to the top with water obtained from the New Strawn, Kansas water system. The volumes of water used and time for filling were recorded; 4

3.

Over a period of 20 to 50 minutes. the rate that the water level dropped in the piezometer was recorded by determining the water level readings at even-minute intervals; and 1

l 4.

Water levels in other piezometets within the boring were rechecked to determine if the piezameters were properly sealed.

4 L

i i

The field observations permitted calculation of the permeabilities of the zones monitored by each piezometer. The field data were reduced 4

and analyzed to obtain values of transmissivity (T) and permeability (K) j using the methods of Ferris et al (1962), and Cedergren (1967).

The Ferris (1962) method used a plot of (s) versus (1/t )

l on arithmetic graph paper to determine the transmissivity (T) by the equatica 7

114.6 q tm where s = residual,nead and T-

+

,t time s

t = measurement The permeability K was determined by the equation K = T where = is a

the saturated thickness tested.

The Cedergren (1967) method employed the basic time lag Ilag from a semi-log plot of h/ho.

The shape factor F was' determined by:

y 9,

L where L = slotted interval In

()

and R = radius The permeability K was determined by

^

" ## A K = F Tlag

~

4 4

References:

l Ferris, J. G., D. B. Knowles, R. II. Browne, and R. W. Stallman.

1962.

Theory of aquifer tests:

U.S. Geol. Sury. Wat e r-Supply paper 1536-E.

t Cede rgren, 11. R. 1967. Seepage, Drainage and Flow Nets. John Wiley &

Sons, New ' fork.

i

~ _ - =

i Question 240.24 In Section 2.4.2.4.2 you state that scepage rates f rom t.se cooling lake will net increase due to quarrying of Plattsmouth and Totonto Limestones prior to filling. As most of the restriction to flow is reportedly causcd by the overburden materials which will be removed during quarrying, yoar conclusion about the seepage rates appears to be un-supported. Please provide the rationale for this statement.

Response

The statement in Section 2.4.2.4.2 is that quarrying of portions i

of the Plattsmouth and Toronto Limestones during construction will not "signifi> antly" increase the rate of seepage af ter the filling of the cooling lake.

In Section 2.4.2.4.2 th? seepage rates Q were estimated by use of the Darcy equation Q = kia where (k) is the permeability of the medium i

i -

transmitting the water flow, (1) is the hydraulic gradient and (a) is the area of the aquifer in a plane normal to the direction of ground water flow. The permeability values listed in Table 2.4-10 are conservative in that the values used in the calculations are those of the bedrock units.

and are not permeability values of the overburden.

Section 2.4.2.4.2 does not state that most of the restrictions to flow is caused by the overburden materials, and the ef fect of overburden materials was not included in the seepage calculations.

If the flow

-restrictions caused by overburden materials w:re to be taken into account, the calculated scepage rates would be less than those reported in Section 2.4.2.4.2 and Table 2.4-10.

The quarries are' located primarily in Sector 4 of Figure 2.4-17.

From Table 2.4-10 the estimated seepage through Sector 4 for th.-

Plattsmouth 4

Limestone is.00269 ft / min.

For the Toronto Limestone the estimated 3

seepage is.0011 ft / min.

The total estimated seepage for these tuo members in Sector 4 is, thus,.00379 ft / min.

The total estimated seepage d

,,,. - -, - ~

w rw,

-e

1 from the cooling icke is 0.82 ft / min.

Thus, the estimated seepage from these two formations in the area of the quarries is approximately 0.46 percent of the total esticated seepage from the cooling lake.

If it is assumed that quarrying of the two limestone r. embers has reduced the pathway length by one-half for water to travel from the cooling lake to the formation discharge points in the west slope of the hill, then the hydraulic gradient would be doubled for these two members in Sector 4.

By doubling the hydraulic gradient, the seepage rate would be doubled, according to the Darcy equation, thereby increasing J

the estimated scepage flow rate from 0.00379 to.00758 ft / min.

This would increase the total estimated seepage rate from the cooling 3

lake from 0.82 to 0.32379 ft / min.

This represents an estimated it. crease in flow rate of about 0.46 percent which is not a significant increase in the estimated seepage flow rate from the cooling lake.

a 1

w

-n----

- ---